In this series of tests aimed to Compare Hydroxamate Collectors namely: AM2 Rinkalore and CTC3 we now conclude. All data indicate the CTC3 is a more selective reagent. In all tests, metallurgy was improved. Nowhere were the results produced by CTC3 inferior to AM2.
Although AM2’s Lab Recoveries can look “attractive”, the AM2 reagent shows problematic to nearly insurmountable practical issues for the excessively large (50%) mass pull/recovery required for it to meet Cu recoveries close to CTC3. This pull/recovery issues makes a plant trial of AM2 a much too risky venture that cannot be supported by an experienced plant/operations metallurgist.
If tests with recoveries obtained be %mass pull/recovery greater than say 15-20% are rejected, the CTC3 selectivity and technical advantage is further noticeable with some tests showing up to 60% over standard/baseline tests.
One must further study its mineralogy to gain a clear understanding of its metallurgy. Much can be gained by knowing what mineral species are contained in the various ores/materials. With that scientific data, implement permanent solutions and finally stabilize and maximize its metallurgical performance.
Some of these mineralogical studies and reports are currently underway using the monthly composites.
For the samples tested CTC3 is clearly the hydroxamate of choice.
Why is %Mass Recovery/Pull important
Comparing Hydroxamate Collectors