Bottle Roll Testing for Cyanidation of Gold Ores: Problems related to Standardized Procedures on Difficult-to-Process Ores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the influence of some of the critical parameters of bottle roll testing procedure on gold extraction results and leaching behaviour. The conventional testing procedure with special emphasis to the testing duration, feed particle size, and NaCN concentration in the starting leach-solution, was assessed critically and compared with alternative approaches regarding these parameters. In conventional testing, test duration is typically 96-144 hours; test is conducted on finely ground feeds of usually -150 m; and test is started with a lixiviant that involves a NaCN concentration of usually 1 kg/tonne of ore, without identifying NaCN consumption tendency of the ore. Using results from three case studies, it was shown in this work that, applicability of these parameters without questioning/considering the specific features of a given Au ore is highly questionable: Test duration and feed particle size may have significant impacts on the measured Au extraction value, particularly with Au-ores that include preg-robbing matter and/or cyanicides. Au extraction and NaCN consumption profiles proposed that standardized application of bottle roll testing to challenging Au-ore types would yield misleading/overrated results. It was seen that extended testing periods on feeds that had equivalent particle size to field applications would yield more reliable estimation of field scale leaching behaviour. It was also shown that using a standard NaCN dosage in the starting lixiviant may be misleading, particularly for ores with cyanicides. A preliminary testing step to solely identify the NaCN consumption tendency of an Au-ore with cyanicides is suggested to accurately adjust the NaCN concentration of the initial leach-solution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".