Department Civil, Mining and Process Engineering

Subject Experimental Techniques for Process Engineers 314

Subject Code ETP 720S

Level NQF – Level 7

Date Assigned August 2023

Due Date 13th October 2023

Laboratory Experiment Report: Methods for Sampling Material in a Laboratory

(Grab Sampling)

Prepared by: Shitumbuleni Johannes

Student no: 217000657
Submitted to: Mr Sililo
Date: 13 November 2023
Table of Contents
List of Figure ........................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Table ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Aims and objectives ................................................................................................................................ 5
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Results..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Samples ............................................................................................................................................... 5
XRF Results.......................................................................................................................................... 6
Comparison of Sampling Methods ..................................................................................................... 8
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 10
References ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Appendix(s) ........................................................................................................................................... 12
List of Figure
Figure 1 Grab Sampling at the Bendigo mine site.......................................................... 4
Figure 2 Grab Sampling.................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3 Sample Figure 4 Sample ........... 5
Figure 5 Copper Crystal Composition ............................................................................ 6

List of Table
Table 1 Copper Composition .......................................................................................... 6
Table 2 Methods XRF Results........................................................................................ 8
Introduction
In a laboratory before performing a size analysis, chemical analysis, or any other
determination of material properties, it is necessary to take a representative sample from
the lot being analyzed. The process of grade control, broadly comprises data collection
(e.g. sampling), integration, and interpretation (Dominy S. , 2010). The requirement for
high quality samples has been long recognized, where sampling programmes must be
representative, unbiased, safe and operationally timely. Sampling methods are usually
divided into two: manual sampling and machine sampling (Afewu & Lewis, 1998). In
dealing with a small size of sample such as those used in the laboratory and no machine
is needed, manual methods such as coning and quartering, grab sampling may be the
primary choice of sampling (Spangenberg & Minnitt, 2014).

Figure 1 Grab Sampling at the Bendigo mine site

Figure 2 Grab Sampling

Sampling strategy should provide quality information on ore grade and its relationship
to geology. Samples should be collected in such as way as to minimize sampling errors
(e.g. fundamental sampling (FSE), grouping and segregation, delimitation and
extraction errors) (Lomberg). Grab sampling is the simplest quickest, and most flexible
method, as it can be carried out on small quantities using spatulas, or on large quantities
using shovels, and can divide the material into however many samples are desired
(Afewu & Lewis, 1998). There is relatively little published material on the topic of error
grab sampling usage for grade control as compared to the other sampling methods. This
report aim to establish some of the issues and/or error in applying this method to
sampling of an ore as supposed to other techniques.
Aims and objectives
To collect subsamples and determine the error associated with the grab sampling
method and compare with other sampling techniques.

Methodology
The sample weighed 10.6 kg was taken out of the drum. From the 10.6 kg batch, a 1.82
kg sample was taken and crushed. After the material was ground up, a mass of 3.02 g
was extracted for XRF examination. Samples 2, 3, and 4 followed the same process
once again.

Results

Samples
1. Samples

Figure 3 Sample Figure 4 Sample

 2. Copper Crystal Analysis

Figure 5 Copper Crystal Composition

NB: There is 486 000 ppm in the copper crystal

XRF Results

Table 1 Copper Composition

Grab Method Sample mass (g) Cu Composition (ppm)

1 3.02 30 094
2 3.09 29 874
3 3.01 27 369
4 3.00 27 068
Average 28 601.25
 ∑𝑛
𝑖 (𝑋−𝜇)
2
Variance =
𝑛−1

∑𝑛 2 2 2
𝑖 (30 094−28 601.25) +(29 874−28 601.25) +(27 369−28 601.25) +(27 068−28 601.25)
2
=
4−1

7717490.8
𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = = 2572496.9
3

Figure 2 Sampling Errors

Comparison of Sampling Methods

Table 2 Methods XRF Results

Method Cu Composition Variance

(ppm)

Grab 28 601.25

Riffle Split 29 683.5

Cone and 33 722.75

Quartering

Rotary Splitter 31 258.75

Average 31 352.22

Discussion

The accuracy of grab samples has frequently been questioned due to the presence of
large biases in the method. Bias can be due to the natural tendency of the sampler to be
drawn to richer fragments or to the fact that fines are often enriched in metal. Even
though grab sampling is versatile, inexpensive, and relatively simple to use, it has a
number of drawbacks, including poor sample quality, a low value proposition, and a
significant risk of contamination, thus a standard deviation of 1603.9005 ppm. This
method has a higher variance between samples of 2572496.9.
A comparison of copper composition of samples made by other sampling methods is
given in Table 2. It can be clearly seen that rotary splitting is by far the best method of
sample division, approaches the variance that would be expected from an ideal sample
divider where division of material into samples is perfectly random, followed by riffle
split. Cone and quartering is the third methods and. Grab sampling perform relatively
poorly, indicating that they should only be used when there are no other practical
methods that will work with a given material.

Conclusion
The grab method uses the least equipment, but also is the most prone to human biases
and has a higher variance between samples than other methods. The general
recommendation when considering the application of grab sampling is to be very
careful. Where possible, an alternative method such as predicting the grade from in situ
samples is likely to be a better option. Grab sampling has been known to work in more
‘homogeneous’ low nugget effect mineralization styles (e.g. some
massive/disseminated base metal deposits), but in heterogeneous high nugget effect
systems such as gold (especially with coarse gold present) strong bias is likely. If grab
sampling is the only option, the following approaches are recommended to understand
error.
1. Homogenize
2. Samples must be drawn directly from the nozzle
3. Fixed-volume sampling can help ensure repeatable, accurate sample
Bibliography
Afewu, K., & Lewis, G. (1998). Sampling of run-of-mine mill feed-A practical
approach. The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/reference-manager/reader-
v2/484244e1-714f-39d9-ae83-bba7a8c45a33/3ba9b363-62b7-96b5-3571-
afc7e3af37ff
Bortoleto, D. A., Chieregati, A. C., & de Oliveira, R. C. (2019). Optimizing the
sampling protocols for aluminum ores—a new approach. Mineralogy and
Petrology, (2019), 463-475, 113(4), 113(4), 463-475. doi:10.1007/s00710-019-
00668-w
Dominy, S. (2010). Grab sampling for underground gold mine grade control. The
Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 277 - 287.
Retrieved from https://www.saimm.co.za/Journal/v110n06p277.pdf
Dominy, S. C., Platten, I. M., Glass, H. J., & Purevgerel, S. (20121). Determination of
gold particle characteristics for sampling protocol optimisation. Minerals,
11(10), 10. doi:10.3390/min11101109
F, F., F, V., & A, C. (2020). Heterogeneity test for optimising nickel sampling protocols.
Revista Escola de Minas, 73(2), 171-178. doi:10.1590/0370-44672019730030
G, L. (2021). Sampling of gold ores for commercial purposes. Spectroscopy Europe,
33(7), 23-29. doi:10.1255/sew.2021.a35
Lomberg, K. (n.d.). Best practice sampling methods, assay techniques, and quality
control with reference to the platinum group elements (PGEs).
Minnitt, R. (n.d.). Sampling in the South African minerals industry forefront of
concerns. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/reference-
manager/reader-v2/f70d1bbc-0ae6-3957-9733-a1fd4b729871/00f343f9-3676-
8f99-433d-1d564fe0e25f
Spangenberg, I. C., & Minnitt, R. C. (2014). An overview of sampling best practice in
African mining. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall, 114(1). Retrieved from
https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2225-
62532014000100015
References
Afewu, K., & Lewis, G. (1998). Sampling of run-of-mine mill feed-A practical
approach. The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/reference-manager/reader-
v2/484244e1-714f-39d9-ae83-bba7a8c45a33/3ba9b363-62b7-96b5-3571-
afc7e3af37ff
Dominy, S. (2010). Grab sampling for underground gold mine grade control. The
Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 277 - 287.
Retrieved from https://www.saimm.co.za/Journal/v110n06p277.pdf
Lomberg, K. (n.d.). Best practice sampling methods, assay techniques, and quality
control with reference to the platinum group elements (PGEs).
Spangenberg, I. C., & Minnitt, R. C. (2014). An overview of sampling best practice in
African mining. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall, 114(1). Retrieved from
https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2225-
62532014000100015
Appendix(s)

With the 28.3 % Cu composition from chalcopyrite (CuFeS2)

Sample 1

Initial grabbed sample mass of 10.6 kg and crush it and grab from the crushed and
pulverized and grab from the pulverized and analyses it.

Crushed sample, mass = 1.82 kg

Grabbed sample from the crushed, mass = 256.07 g

Mass of pulverized grabbed sample, mass= 3.02 g

Sample 2
Crushed sample, mass = 0.6 kg
Grabbed sample from the crushed, mass = 266.01 g

Mass of pulverized grabbed sample, mass= 3.09 g

Sample 3
Crushed sample, mass = 0.76 kg
Grabbed sample from the crushed, mass = 201.87 g

Mass of pulverized grabbed sample, mass= 3.01 g

Sample 4
Crushed sample, mass = 0.84 kg
Grabbed sample from the crushed, mass = 203.61 g XRF Sample mass

Mass of pulverized grabbed sample, mass= 3.00 g M1 = 3.02 g

M2 = 3.09 g
M3 = 3.01 g
M4 = 3.00 g