nrn .nT-ur-iiT - r ^. -..^ aiLMseeeei 2.3355 WYSE DEPARTMENT OF GLASS f\M^ cet\f\tAvcs

Chemical Technology Group010

PURIFICATION OF SILICA ROCK BY MAGNETIC SEPARATION

Report No. CT-106-79-115

l

.1

Submitted to:

Wyse Minerals Company LimitedP.O. Box 1655

St. Catharines, Ontario L2R 7K1

Mr. 0. Haberer,President

Mi 1 7)980

:: LAIC-j :;i;CT!o;

J

Prepared by:

Dr. C.J. Stournaras

May 16, 1979

ONTARIORESEHRchFOUNDATION

SHERIDAN PARK RESEARCH COMMUNITY

MISStSSAUGA. ONTARIO. CANADA LSK 1B3 .(416)822-41)1 . TELEX 0^982311

J

WE. THE ONTARIO RISE ARC H f OUNDATION, STIPUL AT f THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS-

l ANY PROPOSAL CONTAINED HI REIN WAS PREPARED fOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ADDRESSES ONLY ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT 8E USED BY NORDISCLO!

ANY OTHER PARTY WITHOUT OUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

1 A NY TESTING INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY US WILL 66 CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NORMAL PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS NE1TH

NOR OUR EMPIOVE tS, SHAl l BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE RESULT ING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM ANY DEFAULT. ERROR OR OMISSION

D ANY RIJ'ORT PROPOSAL OR QUOTATION PREPARED BY US REFERS ONLY TO THE PARTICULAR MATERIAL. INSTRUMENT OR OTHER SUBJECT REFERRED TO IN

RE PRIStNTATlON IS WADI THAT SIMILAR ARTICLES WILL BE OF LIKE DUALITY.

t N O Ri PORT is-oui o tiv us s "AU or rum ismn IN WHOI E OR IN PART WITHOUT OUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT'j O UR N AMI S*t A L L NOT B t L/SE C) IN ANV VVAY IN CONNECT ION WITH THt SAlE.OEFERORADVEHTISEMtNTOF ANY ARTICLE. PPOCfSS OR SERVICE

CONTINLII ANY WORK UNTIL PAYMSNT ARRANGEMENTS SATISFACTORY TO US ARE ESTABLISHED

-1-

JNTRODUCTION

Wyse Minerals Company Limited is in the process of evaluating a quartz deposit owned by the Company. The Company would like to find out what is involved in order to clean the quartz to be suitable for the glass making industry. It appears that the deposit consists mainly of * clean friable SiCL with some small amounts of metallic iron and mica.

The Ontario Research Foundation was asked to contribute to this study and this report describes the study done at ORF.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Four different samples of quartzite were submitted to ORF by Wyse Minerals Company Limited. It was decided that the material should be crushed, screened and then beneficiated by magnetic separation. It was also decided, in consultation with the Company, that in order to simplify the study and reduce the time and cost involved, a mixture of equal amounts of quartzite from every sample should be mixed and treated as one composite sample. In this way a rough evaluation could be made quite easily but the differences,between individual samples cannot be examined.

In order to avoid iron contamination from the crushed media, thesilica rack during crushing was put in between layers of paper andhammered to smaller dimensions. Equal amounts (300g) from every samplewere mixed together and they were ground in an alumina mortar to -10 mesh.

The mixture was screened and separated into four fractions as follows:

Mesh Size Wt. 1,,-10 +S5 61.8

-35 +80 16.2

-80 +200 17^2_____———____-200 4.8 /o3,o

-2-

Each individual fraction was passed through an experimental size CARPCO magnetic separator. The size of the opening was 3/16" and the magnetic field was kept to a maximum (88,000 - 100,000 Gauss). The three first fractions were passed three times for separation. The -200

M ? /- mesh^fraction was^too.fjjie forjnacinetic separatijan^^ In practice other wet methods are used for beneficiating so fine a material. However, it too passed through the separator but the Si02 particles were changed because of their small size and no meaningful separation resulted.

The weights of the samples used before and after separation as well as the feeding rate expressed in rpm of the magnetic drums, are as follows:

Mesh Wt. Before Wt. After 1 Wt. Magnetic Size rpm Separation Separation Material

2.184.79

10.41

39.95

Only one pass

The materials were chemically analysed as follows. A chemical analysis for A1 20 3 , Fe 2 0 3 , Si0 2 , CaO, MgO, Na 20, K 20 was performed on the initial unscreened mixture.

The three fractions: -10 +3S mesh; -35 +80 mesh and -80 +200 mesh were analysed for A1 2Q 3 and Fe 20 3 before and after the magnetic separation to assess the efficiency of the separation.

-10 +S5

-35 +80

-80 +200-200*

85

125175175

338. 16g81.71g88. 51 g21.65g

330. 8g77. 8g79. 3g13. Og

-3-

The results are as follows:

Individual

Mesh Size

-10 +3S

-35 +80

-80 +200

DISCUSSION

Total Mixture

Fe'o 3

Si02

CaO

MgO

Na 2 0

K20

Fractions

Wt.% Before Separation

A1 203 Fe 203

0.58 0.097

0.75 0.12

1.39 0.33

Wt. t

0.82

0.15-

97.90

0.017

0.013

0.12

0.12

Wt.% After

Al^Og

0.52

0.31

0.13

i^~ fov^fiVi

0^ f

wLao&ii

Separation

fi20 30.093

0.034

0.019

MV Occ . Ao

.1

CA/^U A-/wiM' /?VO^

* Removed

A1 203 Fe20 3

10.34 4.12

58.67- 71.67

90.65 94.24

ir/- y* rt,-,^.

^ ?.V 3 i'*.Cic.^.

Although the magnetic separation was by no means optimized, the results show that a very successful purification from Fe and Al ?0- can be obtained by only three passes of the material through the separation. In comparing the analyses of the three fractions, it appears that the alumina arid iron tend to segregate with the fine fractions. The removal of AUO- and Fe is also much better in the fine fractions, especially the -80 +200 mesh fraction.

/j The beneficiation of the coarse fraction is not acceptable. It appears that most of the A1 203 and Fe contained in this fraction are attached in the grain boundaries and, therefore, cannot separate mechanically unless the material is further ground.

l -4-

It is, therefore, concluded that the silica rock under evaluation appears to be suitable for beneficiation by magnetic separation, However, care should be taken for proper particle size distribution of the material for optimum efficiency.

In order to fully evaluate the silica rock deposit, many samples should be examined with respect to their composition, grain size and efficiency of separation. A magnetic separator of a size larger than that used at ORF would be necessary for more reproducible results.

CJS/ltd

C.J. StournarasGroup Leader, Chemical TechnologyDept. of Glass and Ceramics

3tLHSE0eei 2.3355 WYSE 020

Report on

QUARTZ SAMPLES

- submitted by

WYSE MINERALS LIMITED'

Progress Report No.l

Project No. L.R. 2135

Note: . : ' . - -

This report refers to the samples as received.

The practice of this Company in issuing reports of this nature is to require the recipient not to publish the report or any part thereof vithout the written consent of Lakefield Research of Canada Limited.

LAKEFIELD RESEARCH OF CANADA LIMITEDLakefield, OntarioJanuary 29, 1979

INTRODUCTION

In a letter dated November 21, 1979, Mr. K.R. Blavatt instructed

us to crush and process by magnetic separation a composite of five quartz

samples to produce specific size fractions on non-magnetic product for

industrial evaluation.

Two bags of "flagstone" sample from another property were examined

to determine the suitability of this material as a foundry sand.

Investigation by: G.A. Kosick

LAKEFIELD RESEARCH OF CANADA LIMITED

D. M. Wyslouzil, P. Eng.,

Manager.

SUMMARY

1. Head Analyses

Representative samples of the various samples vere submitted for

chemical and x-ray analysis.

Sample

Hole 1Hole 2Hole 3Hole 1*Hole 5Flagstone

Hole 1Hole 5

Method

ChemicalChemicalChemicalChemicalChemicalChemical

x-rayx-ray

1* Si02

97.0896.6695.9698.3395.089*1.51

99-297.1

lo Fe203

0.13 n0.22 H0.290.380.330.87

0.090.32

1* A1203

0.390.520.720.352.35-1.03

0.5^2.13

i CaO

0.0100.0120.0100.0330.0770.081*

0.070.07

# MgO

0.0080.0110.01*40.0120.0380.029

O.OU0.07

i Na20

0.0090.015o.oii*0.0100.0390.037

co.oUO.OH

# K20

0.120.180.250.130.570.25

0.10O.lt2

2. Quartz

2.1. Crushing and Grinding

The quartz samples from holes l to 5 were jaw and cone crushed

separately and 1/H was removed from each sample for analysis.

The remaining 3A of each sample were composited and riffled intot

two halves. One-half was roll crushed to minus 8 mesh and the other half was

roll crushed to minus 20 mesh.

Both halves were screened to produce the following fractions:

Mesh

-8 + 20 -20 + 35 -35 * 65-65 * loo-100

Yield Weight ft of Original Ore

Roll Crushed to -8 mesh

52.9 22.3 15.114.0

5-7

Roll Crushed to -20 mesh

32.U32.5 10.125.0

iuKaSuHBary - Continued

2. Quartz - Cont'd

The minus 20 plus 35 mesh fraction was combined with the minus

100 mesh fraction and riffled into test charges.

One of these test charges (7-5 kg) was ground in a pebble mill

(12 kWh/ton) to Z.6% minus 325 mesh.

2.2. Magnetic Separation

The screened fractions were combined to produce the following weights:

Minus 8 plus 20 mesh: 22.6 kg

Minus 35 plus 65 mesh: 21.8 kg

Minus 65 plus 100 mesh: 6.5 kg

26# minus 325 mesh: 7.5 kg

These screen fractions were passed through a Lurgi high intensity dry

magnetic separator to remove a magnetic fraction in two or three passes. The

following results were produced: (see page 5)

9.

B

7

H! i -

S.mi-lo 8 orirhmic, 3 C y4l*i X 10 lo Ih. } 2 inch, 5lk l ino otc.nl.d GB-63

m3uHra

- 5 -

liry - Continued

Test No.

1

2

3

14

Size Fraction

-8 4- 20 mesh

-35 * 65 m

-65 * 100 m

261, -325 m

Product

Magnetic Non-Magnetic

Feed

Magnetic Non-Magnetic

Feed

Magnetic Non-Magnetic

Feed

Magnetic Non-Magnetic

Feed

Weight

1

5.3 9M

100.0

13.8 86.2

100.0

19. U 80.6

100.0

H. 5 95.5

100.0

Assays, #

Fe 203

O.T1 0.12

0.15 r

1.58 0.07

0.28 '

2.6U 0.05

0.55 '

H. 39 O.C8

0.27 r

A1 203

1.97 0.62

0.69

7.00 0.28

1.21

8.18 0.35

1.87

7.72 O.UU

0.77

# Distribution

Fe 203

25.0 ; 75-0

100.0

78. H , 21.6

100.0

92.7 , 7-3

100.0

72.0 i 28.0

100.0

A1203

15.2 8U.8

100.0

80.0 20.0

100.0

8U.9 15.1

100.0

1*5.1 5U.9

100.0

The results indicated that Fe 203 and A1203 removal from the quartz"

composite by magnetic separation was more efficient in the finer size fractions,

probably because of improved liberation.

The non-magnetic concentrates vere analysed by both chemical and x-ray

analysis to produce the following results:

Summary - Continued

- 6 -

Analyses of Non-Magnetic Concentrates (Composite of Holes l to 5)

Size Fraction

-8+20 mesh-35 * 65 m-65 * 100 m26# -325 m

- 8 * 20 m-35 * 65 m-65 * 100 m26# -325 m

Method

ChemicalChemicalChemicalChemical

x-rayx-rayx-rayx-ray

1* Si02

96.197. 096.896.5

98.298.398.598.0

# Fe203

0.12o.oTlj0.05O.oB^

0.190.070.090.08

# A1 203

0.620.28 -0.35 -0.1*1*

0.71o.Uo0.1*00.83

i CaO

0.0130.0130.0200.023

0.080.070.100.08

i MgO

0.0110.0050.0060.016

0.020.070.090.08

1, Na20

0.0160.010.0.0330.016

o.oi**co.oi*^.oi*<0.0l4

1* K20

0.130.0620.01*7O.ll*

O.lU0.060.050.10

1, LOI

0.280.22o.Uo0.21

, . -

3. Flagstone

The flagstone sample was Jaw, cone and roll-crushed to minus 20 mesh

and screened on 65 mesh to produce two products.

Mesh

-20+65 - 65

Yield Weight l of Original Ore

73.6 26.1*

The minus 20 plus 65 mesh fraction was passed twice through a Lurgi

high intensity separator to remove magnetic contaminants.

Test

No.

5

Size Fraction

-20+65

Product

Magnetic Non-Magnetic

Feed

Weight

1*

13.0 87.0

100.0

Assays, #

Fe203

2.08 0.68 ti

0.86

A1203

k. 12 0.52

0.99

# Distribution

Fe203

31.3 68. 7 ii

100.00

A1203

5l*. 2 1*5.8

100.0

JSun

T

umraary - Continued

3. Flagstone - Cont' d

Chemical and x-ray .analyses vere conducted on the non-magnetic

concentrate.

Analyses of Non-Magnetic "Flagstone" Concentrate (-20 + 65 mesh)

Method

Chemical x-ray

# SiC-2

95-6 96.7

lo Fe203

0.68 ,, 0.5^4

1* A1 203

0.52 2.29

'jo CaO

0.076 0.07

1* MgO

0.019o.oU

1, Na20

0.015 0.03

1* K20

0.10 0.08

1, LOI

0.25

The non-magnetic concentrate (-20 * 65 mesh) was compared with

actual foundry sand as to specific gravity and resistance to airflow. The

figures obtained are relative and cannot be interpreted as to the quality of

product.

Specific Gravity Air Flow, relative Porosity, # Specific Surface Area (cm27cm3 )

Non-Magnetic Cone. (-20 * 65 mesh)

2.681.2970.7755

Foundry Sand

2.62l

- 8 -

SAMPLE DISPOSITION

The non-magnetic concentrates were riffled into fractions and

bagged.

Product

Material

Quartz Composite 1-5Quartz Composite 1-5Quartz Composite 1-5Quartz Composite 1-5Flagstone

Size, Mesh

-8 + 20-35 * 65-65 * loo26# -325-20 + 65

No. of

Charges

881*k8

Approx. Weight

Charge, kg

2.62.31.31.73.7

per

- 9 -

SAMPLE PREPARATION

On November 12th, 1978, seven ore samples were received at

Lakefield from Wyse Minerals. Five bags represented Holes No. l, 2, 3,

h and 5 from a drill and blast procedure across one property. The two

remaining bags represented samples from another property and were designated

as "flagstone" (FI and F2).

The first five bags were Jaw and cone crushed separately. Three-

quarters of each sample was then riffled out and combined into a sample

designated as Composite 1-5. The remaining one-quarter of each sample was

roll crushed separately to nominal 10 mesh and a head sample was riffled

from each for AlaOa, MgO, CaO, Na20, K20, Fea03 and SiOa analyses. Composite

1-5 vas then riffled in half. The first half was roll-crushed to minus 8 mesh

and a sample was removed for screen analysis on a standard Ro-tap testing screen

shaker.

Combined Holes 1-5 (-8 m) Ro-tap, 150 gram Sample

Mesh Size(Tyler)

* 810li*20283514865

1001502002701*00

- 1*00

Total

# RetainedIndividual

0.119. fc25.116.011.77.66.5l*.63.51-91.60.60.60.8

100.0

Cumulative

0.119.51*1*. 660.672.379.986.1*91.09*4-596.1*98.098.699.2

100.0

1 -

# PassingCumulative

99.980.555.1*39. U27.720.113.69.05-5 -3.62.01.1*0.8-

-

- 10 -

Sample Preparation - Continued

The remainder of the minus 8 mesh material vas then dry screened

on a Gilson screen shaker.

Combined Holes 1-5 (-8 m) Gilson

1*2.6 kg Sample

Mesh Size

-8+10-10 + 20-20 * 28-28 * 35-35 * 65-65 * loo

-100 t 200-200

Total

WeightGrams

777 1*11*800

5750373061*1817221701*

7271*2625

# RetainedIndividual

18.23**.713.58.8

15.11*.01*.01.7

100.0

Cumulative

18.252.966. k75.290.39^.398.3

100.0

-

# PassingCumulative

81.81*7.133.62U.89.75.71.7-

-

The difference in the screen analysis reflects the screening

efficiency on a larger scale.

The second half was then roll-crushed to minus 20 mesh and dry

screened on a Gilson screen shaker.

Combined Holes 1-5 (-20 m) Gilson

Mesh Size

-20+35 -35+65- 65 * loo

-100

Total

Weight Grams

153140 15UOO

1*760 1181*0

1*73*40

# Reta: Individual

32.1* 32.5 10.1 25.0

100.0

Lned Cumulative

32. U 61*. 9 75.0

100.0

-

# Passing Cumulative

67.6 35.1 25.0

-

The fractions from the first and second half of composite 1-5

vere then combined to give the following fractions:

impai

- 11 -

Sampae Preparation - Continued

Mesh Size

-8 + 20 -35 * 65-65 + loo -20 * 35

-100

Total

Weight (Grams)

22, 57 1* 21,818 6,1*82

j 39,091

89,965

# Retained

25.1 21*. 3 7.2

1*3.1*

100.0

The minus 20 plus 35 mesh and minus 100 mesh fractions were combined

and riffled into three 10 kg charges and a reject.

The two Flagstone samples FI and F2 were Jaw and cone crushed

separately. The samples were combined and then roll-crushed to minus 20 mesh.

A head sample was riffled out for screen analysis on a standard Ro-tap screen

shaker and chemical analysis (AlaOa, MgO, CaO, Na20, KaO, Fe 203, SiOa). The

remaining fraction was screened on a Gilson screen shaker and the resulting

fractions were weighed.

Combined FI and F2 (-20 m) Ro-tap

100 gram Sample

Mesh Size(Tyler)

* 20- 28

351*865

1001502002?01*00

- 1*00

Total

# RetainedIndividual

0.317.715.715.911.911.97.06.62.93.07-1

100.0 . -

Cumulative

0.318.033.71*9.66l.573.1*80.1*87.089.992.9100.0

-

# PassingCumulative

99-782.066.350.1*38.526.619.613.010.17.1-

-

- 12 -

Iple Preparation - Continued

00171131 ned FI and F2 (-20 m) Gilson

1*7.7 kg Sample

Mesh Size

-20+65 -65

Total

Weight, Grams

3509512598

1+7693

Retained

73.6 26.U

100.0

The difference in the screen analysis reflects the screening

efficiency on a larger scale.

J J

13tTest No. JI

Purpose:

Procedure:

Feed:

- 13 -

DETAILS OF TESTS

To upgrade the minus 8 plus 20 mesh fraction of Composite 1-5 by magnetic separation.

The sample vas passed through the Lurgi dry magnetic separator at 17 amps. The gap was set at 1.6 cm and the drum speed vas set at 150 r.p.m. The magnetics were bagged separately and the non-mags, were repassed under the same conditions. All fractions were submitted for analysis and the non-magnetic fraction was riffled into 8 equal samples.

22,57^ grams of minus 8 plus 20 mesh composite 1--5-

Metallurgical Results

Products

1. Magnetic Concentrate 1 2. Magnetic Concentrate 2 3. Non-Magnetics

Head (calculated)

Weight

t

1.95 3.35

9*4.70

100.00

Assays, #

Fe203

0.87 0.62 0.12

0.15 li

A1203

2.58 1.62 0.62

0.69

# Distribution

Fe203

11.313.7 * 75.0

100.0

A1203

7.3 7-9

8U.8

100.0

Calculated Grades and Recoveries

Products 1 plus 2 5 .30 0.71 1.97 25.0 K 15- 2

- 114 -

Procedure:

Feed:

To upgrade the minus 35 plus 65 mesh fraction of Composite 1-5 by magnetic separation.

The sample was passed through the Lurgi dry magnetic separator at 17 amps. The gap was set at 1.6 cm and the drum speed was set at 150 r.p.m. The magnetics were bagged separately and the non-mags, were repassed under the same conditions. All fractions were submitted for analysis and the non-magnetic fraction was riffled into 8 equal samples.

21,8l8 grams of minus 35 plus 65 mesh composite 1-5.

Metallurgical Results

Products

1. Magnetic Concentrate 1 2. Magnetic Concentrate 2 3. Non-Magnetics

Head (calculated)

Weight

*

8.19 5.6U

86.17

100.00

Assays, #

Fe203

2.05 0.900.07

0.28

A1 203

9.06 U.01 0.28

1.21

# Distribution

Fe203

60.2 j 18.2 ; 21.6 .

100.0

A1203

61.3 18.7 20.0

100.0

Calculated Grades and Recoveries

Products 1 plus 2 13.83 1.58 7.00 78. M 80 .0

Test No. 3

- 15 -

Purpose:

Procedure:

Feed:

To up-grade the minus 65 plus 100 mesh fraction of Composite 1-5 by magnetic separation.

The sample was passed through the Lurgi dry magnetic separator at l? amps. The gap was set at 1.6 cm and the drum speed was set at 215 r.p.m. The magnetics were bagged separately and the non-mags, were repassed under the same conditions. The procedure was repeated once more so that the non-mags, had been through the Lurgi three times. All .fractions were submitted for analysis and the 3rd pass non-magnetic fraction was riffled into U equal samples.

6,^82 grams of minus 65 plus 100 mesh composite 1-5*

Metallurgical Results

Products

1. Magnetic Concentrate 1 2. Magnetic Concentrate 2 3. Magnetic Concentrate 3 *4. Non-Magnetics

Head (calculated)

Weight

*

8.0H 5.89 5.^7

80.60

100.00

Assays, %

Fe203

U.59 1.51 0.980.05 if

0.55 |l

A1 203

12.81 7-20 2.UU 0.35

1.87

# Distribution

Fe203

66.9 16.19 - 7 1!7.3 H

100.0

A1203

55-1 22.7 7.1

15.1

100.0

Calculated Grades and Recoveries

Products 1 plus 2 Products 1 to 3

13-93 19.^0

3.29 2.614

10. UU 8.18

83.0 92.7 v

77.8 814.9

3

t No. b

Purpose:

Procedure:

Feed:

Grind:

- 16 -

To upgrade Composite 1-5 by magnetic separation.

The sample was passed through the Lurgi dry magnetic separator at l? amps. The gap vas set at 1.6 cm and the drum speed was set at 250 r.p.m. The magnetics were bagged separately and the non-mags, were repassed under the same conditions. The procedure was repeated until the non-mags, had been through the Lurgi three times. On the final pass the dust was also collected and bagged. All fractions were submitted for analysis and the non-magnetic fraction was riffled into k equal samples.

71*07 grams of minus 20 plus 35 mesh and minus 100 mesh Composite 1-5.

96 minutes per 7^07 grams of ore in the 1*5 pound pebble mill with high-density aTumina pebbles.

Screen Analysis: Feed to Lurgi ^ 26# minus 325 mesh

Power Consumption: 12 kWh/ton

Metallurgical Results

Product

1. Magnetic Concentrate 1 2. Magnetic Concentrate 2 3. Magnetic Concentrate 3 h. Dust 5. Non-Magnetics

Head (calculated)

Weight

*

1.90 1.1(0 0.85 0.33

95-52

100 . 00

Assays, #

Fe203

6.05 14.23 1.1*1 3.13 0.08 j

0.27

A1203

7-60 8.97 U.77 10.71 O.M*

0.77

# Distribution

Fe a03

1*2.1 21.7 l*.l* 3.8

28.0 \

100.0

A1 203

18.8 16.1* 5-3 U.6

5^-9

100.0

Calculated Grades and Recoveries

Products 1 plus 2Products 1 to 3Products 1 to U

3.30li. 151*.1*8

5.281*.1*9^.39

8.187.1*87.72

63.868.272.0 \

35-21*0.51*5.1

- IT -

l

No. 5

Purpose:

Procedure:

Feed:

To upgrade the flagstone sample by magnetic separation.

The sample was passed through the Lurgi dry magnetic separator at 17 amps. The gap vas set at 1.6 cm and the drum speed was set at 175 r.p.m. The magnetics were bagged separately and the non-mags, were repassed under the same conditions. This procedure was repeated once more so that the non-mags, had been through the Lurgi three times. All fractions were submitted for analysis and the 3rd pass non magnetic fraction was riffled into 8 equal samples.

3*4,600 grains of minus 20 plus 65 mesh Flagstone composite.

Metallurgical Results

Products

1. Magnetic Concentrate 1 2. Magnetic Concentrate 2 3. Non-Magnetics

Head (calculated)

Weight

*

6.50 6.147

87.03

100.00

Assays, #

Fe203

3.160.99 0.68

0.86"

A1203

5.59 2.65 0.52

0.99

# Distribution

Fe 203

23-9 7-U

68.7

100.0

A1203

36.8 17.1+ 145.8

100.0

Calculated Grades and Recoveries

Products 1 plus 2 12.97 2.08 14.12 31.3 \ 5l4.2

LAKEFIELD RESEARCH OF CANADA LIMITED

Lakefield, Ontario

January 29, 1979 l tmg

3ILMSEee*l 8 .3355 WYSE 030

; •;;;; -^i;:. 3Report' on : .'-•/••'. ;' i fr- ^^•.'•^•^••''••^^; : -^^'1'-;'v:l ^:y.

; V \.y. QUARTZ SAMPIJSS - :

'.••'': 'v':.'^" submitted by . '.:. :

"j. HABERER, ST. CATHARINES

' ' "'Progress Report No. l

Project No. L.R. 2109

KOTE:

l I'

l

This report refers to the samples as received.

The practice of this Company in issuing reports of this nature is to require the recipient not to publish the report or any part thereof •without the written consent of Lakefield Research of Canada Limited.

LAKEFIELD RESEARCH OF CANADA LIMITED Lakefield, Ontario September 6, 1978

INTRODUCTION

Following a visit to Lakefield on August 9* 1979* Mr. Haberer

instructed us to perfonn tests on two samples of Quartz in order to deter

mine the suitability of this material for the foundry and glass industries.

The samples vere marked high-grade and low-grade t respectively.

Samples of actual foundry sand and sand for the paint industry

vere provided for comparison.

LAKEFIELD RESEARCH OP CANADA LIMITED

Investigation by: O.F.C. Cook

D.M. Wyslouzil, P. Eng.,

Manager

- 2 -

DETAILS OF TESTS

Jl it

l

lj*

f,*.

-ts•t"5.

g.4*

l

l

V:ss

s s

.1

1. High-Grade Ore

The sample was crushed to minus 10 mesh and minus 20 mesh re

spectively and the size distributions vere determined. Various products

vere generated "by removing selected portions from the product and calcu

lating the new size distributions. The highest yield could "be obtained

by crushing to minus 20 mesh and removing the fractions shown in Table 1.

Table Ko. l

Recovery of Specific Sand Fraction

End Use

Foundry Sand

Paint Industry

Glass Sand

Mesh Sizes

Removed

-65

•f 28, -65 •f 28, -150

Yield VJeight #

of Original Ore

^ ? ut38 60*

* After Magnetic Separation

1.1. Foundry Sand

The specific size fraction, -20 *65 mesh, was compared with actual

foundry sand as to specific gravity and resistance to airflow. The figures

obtained are relative and cannot be interpreted as to quality of product. '

Si ze Fraction Foundry Sand

Specific Gravity

Air flow, relative

Porosity Jt

njioc-ii'ic xiri'acc Area

2.65

0.86

57.5

55(6

2.65

l

65.0

372

- 3 -

Details of Tests - Continued

1. High-Grade Ore

1.2. Glass Sand

After removing the -f28 and the -150 mesh fractions by screening, the

sample vas treated by high intensity magnetic separation at tvo flux densities,

All products vere collected and weighed but only the head and the find non

magnetic fractions vere assayed for Fe203 and A1203 .*

Table No. 2

Magnetic Separation^ . -

Product .

Magnetic

Magnetic

Non-Magnetic

Head

Weight Individual

5.381.08

93. 5 1*

100.00

1* Overall

3.50.760.8

65.0

As s aj Fe203

-

-

O.OU8

0.1*4

r 1* A1203

-

~

0.15

O.T3

'fr Disti Fe203'

-

-

32.1

100.0

-ibution A1203

-

~

19.2

100.0

Comments: The primary objective of the magnetic separation test vas the

reduction of the Fe203 and A1203 content in the sand fraction.

No attempt vas made to optimize the conditions. The results

shov that 70 i* of the iron and 80 ^ of the alumina could be

removed in tvo stages of magnetic separation. Only 6.1j fy of

the veight of the glass sand (^4.2 # of the ore) vere rejected

as vaste.

Details of Tests - Continued

1. Hiph-Grade Ore

1.3. Paint Industry

No testvork was performed to produce a specific fraction for this

purpose. By calculation it was shown that perhaps 38 # of the weight of the

ore could be recovered by screening out the * 28 mesh and the - 65 mesh

fractions.t

2. Low-Grade Ore

After crushing to minus 10 and minus 20 mesh, respectively, screen

analyses were performed and the yield of specific products was calculated.

Table Ho. 3

Recoveries of Specific Size Fractions

End Use

Foundry Sand

Paint Industry

Mesh SiKes

Removed

-1-20, -65

•1-28, -65

Yield, Weight #

of Original Ore

1*6

3U

Comments: The products after crushing to 10 and 20 mesh, respectively,

were slightly finer than the ore obtained with the high-grade

ore. Magnetic separation should be examined to evaluate the

low-grade ore for use in the glass industry.

Screen Analyses

Silica Sand for Paint Industries

Mesh Size(Tyler)

* 28351*865

100- 100

Total

# RetainedIndividual

1*. 750.835.35.142.81.0

100.0

Cumulative

•M55.890.896.299.0

100.0

-

# PassingCumulative

95.3Mu29.23.81.0—

- '-

Foundry Sand Atlas Steel Sample

f 202835Ii865

100- 100

Total

0.81*4.21*6.730.1 'lul3.20.9

100.0

0.615.061.791.895.999.1

100.0

-

99.285.038.38.2lul0.9

' ~ .*-'~

- 6 -

l .J^M

Screen Analyses

Minus 10 Mesh High Grade

Mesh Size(Tyler)

t 202835Ii865100150200

- 200

Total

*k RetainedIndividual

28.01T.513.011.79.27.31*.23.75.1*

100.0

Cumulative

28.0^5.558.570.279. ̂86.790.99H.6

100.0

-

# PassingCumulative

72.05H.5Ul. 529.820.613.39.15. li~

-

Minus 20 Mesh High Grade

•f 202835Ii865

100150200

- 200

Total

0.317.516.716.613.611.67.26.1i

10.1

100.0

0.317.83U.551.16U.776.383.589.9

100.0

-

99.782.265.5 .U8.9 '35.323.716.510.1—

.-

Screen^ Analyses

Minus 10 Mesh Lov Grade

— 7 ^

Jr. :m

i•Z-

iwlI

Mesh Size(Tyler)

* 202835148

. 65100150200

- 200

Total

# KetainedIndividual

28.815.811.711.39.U7.9M14.06.14

100.0

Cumulative

28.8M4.656.367.677.08U.989.693.6100.0

~

# PassingCumulative

71.255.U1*3.732.1423.015.110.lt6.1*' -

-

Minus 20 Mesh Low Grade

* 20283514865

100150200

- 200

Total

0.313.2111. 215. *i1U.312.9

8. It7.7

13.6

100.0

0.313.527-71*3.157. fc70.378.786.14

100.0

-

99.786.572.356.91*2.629.721.313.6-

-

1AKEFIEL1) RESEARCH OP CANADA LIMITED Lakefield, Ontario Kepternber 6, 1978 f drran

*~;* . -

* '-

*-

o

,-AC

-

C?\

WYSEM.II87

0\ l A K 10

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCESSURVEYS AND MAPPING BRANCH

Areas w ithdrawn from staking und*r Section 43 of the M ining Act (R S.O i?70 ) Order No File D ate D isposition

DISTRICT OF NIPISSINGSUDBURY MINING DIVISION

SCALE 40 CHAINS TO AN INCH.

DATE OF ISSUE

•iUN 20^980

SURVEYS AND MAPPING

IG0707v 4 S fi ,,

PARKMAN

Oc.

o

DOUQALL

3IL14SE0001 2.3355 WYSE