The use of low-toxic heavy suspensions in mineral sands evaluation and zircon fractionation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper outlines a simple methodology for mineral characterization, developed as part of the Australian Mineral Industry Research Association (AMIRA) managed research project P777 'The Development of Heavy Suspension Techniques for High Density Separations (Replacement of Clerici's Solution)'. The project was sponsored by De Beers, Rio Tinto and Iluka Resources. Heavy mineral characterization of samples arising from exploration, mining or metallurgical processes is frequently conducted using laboratory heavy liquid analysis. Unfortunately, there are only a limited number of high density ('heavy') liquids and these tend to be more toxic as their density increases. Low-toxicity inorganic solutions, based on tungsten compounds, have been developed that can be utilized at relative densities (RD) up to 3.0. Beyond this value organic liquids can be used; however, this presents significant health and safety hazards. Diiodomethane (methylene iodide) having a relative density of 3.31 is commonly used. Mixtures of thallium formate and thallium malonate were found in the early 1900s by Clerici to provide liquids having specific gravities between 4.0 and 5.0. For the characterization of the heavy components of mineral sand deposits (e.g. anatase RD 3.9, rutile RD 4.2, ilmenite RD 4.4-4.7 and zircon RD 4.6-4.8) there is currently no heavy liquid alternative to Clerici's solution. Clerici's solution is highly toxic and testing is now conducted by few laboratories worldwide, with costs reflecting the chemical costs, infrastructure costs and health and safety regimes (e.g. blood testing of exposed staff). A simple laboratory technique of density fractionation has been developed, employing suspensions of fine tungsten carbide particles in lithium heteropolytungstates solutions, that can replace Clerici's solution in the evaluation of fine mineral sands samples (e.g. -250 +150 microns). The developing methodology that can achieve low-cost, low-toxic separations at relative densities above 4.0 is outlined and the comparison of results with Clerici's solution presented. In addition, preliminary work on density fractionation of zircon samples is presented. Zircon fractionation relates to their inclusion, radionuclide content and metamictization. © The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2008.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".