Copper Extraction from Oxide Ore of Almalyk Mine by H2SO4 in Simulated Heap Leaching: Effect of Particle Size and Acid Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this investigation, a laboratory-scale study to extract copper (Cu) from its oxide ore (0.425–11.2 mm particle size) was conducted using varied sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentrations (0.05–0.5 M) as a lixiviant. Through a physicochemical and mineralogical analysis of real field ore samples from the Almalyk mine heap site (Tashkent, Uzbekistan), malachite was identified as a Cu-bearing mineral. Extraction rates were analyzed according to the ore particle size and acid concentration. The Cu extraction with the smallest particle size (in 24 h) varied between 76.7% and 94.26% at varied H2SO4 concentrations (0.05–0.5 M). Almost half (50%) of Cu was extracted from the ore within 4 and 72 h of contact time for 0.425–2 mm and 5.6–11.2 mm particle sizes, respectively, using 0.15 M H2SO4. Weeklong leaching experiments with 0.5 M H2SO4 revealed a higher copper extraction rate (≥73%) from coarse ore particles (5.6–11.2 mm). Along with the copper extraction, iron (29.6 wt%), aluminum (70.2 wt%), magnesium (85.4 wt%), and calcium (44.4 wt%) were also leached out considerably through the dissolution of silicate and carbonate gangue minerals. In this study, an 80.0–94.26% copper extraction rate with reduced acid consumption (20%) proved to be a cost-effective approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".