MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405188940 · doi:10.3390/pr12122795

Gold Recovery from Smelting Copper Sulfide Concentrate

2024· article· en· W4405188940 on OpenAlexaff
Elmira Moosavi‐Khoonsari, Nagendra Tripathi

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmeltingFlash smeltingCopperMetallurgyEnvironmental scienceRecovery rateSulfideMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gold is a significant revenue source for custom copper smelters facing profitability challenges due to low treatment and refining charges, stricter regulations, and rising costs. Gold is also often blended with copper concentrates, but precise recovery rates from smelting processes are poorly documented despite gold critical economic importance. This paper aims to provide the first comprehensive estimates of gold first-pass recovery across various operational units within the copper sulfide concentrate processing flowsheet. It evaluates the effectiveness of different copper smelting and converting technologies in recovering gold. Optimizing gold first-pass recovery is especially important to enhance immediate financial returns and responsiveness to market dynamics, allowing companies to capitalize on favorable gold prices without delays. Given the absence of direct measurements for gold recovery rates, this research develops an estimation method based on understanding gold loss mechanisms during smelting. This study identifies and analyzes key input and output parameters by examining data from various copper producers. By correlating these parameters with gold loss, the research estimates gold first-pass recovery rates within the copper smelting process. Among integrated smelting-converting routes, the flash smelting to Peirce–Smith converting route achieves the highest gold first-pass recovery (98.8–99.5%), followed by the Mitsubishi continuous smelting and converting process (94.3–99.8%), bottom-blowing smelting to bottom-blowing converting (95.8%), flash smelting to flash converting (95.5%), Teniente smelting to Peirce–Smith converting (95.2%), and the Noranda continuous smelting and converting process (94.8%). The final recovery rates are expected to be higher considering the by-products’ internal recirculation and post-processing within the copper flow sheet. Additionally, superior gold recoveries are attributed to advanced metallurgical practices and control systems, which vary even among companies with similar technologies. This research demonstrates that copper smelting can effectively recover over 99% of gold from sulfide concentrates. Gold accumulates up to 1000 times its original concentration in anode slime during electrolytic refining, generating 5–10 kg of slime per ton of copper, which is further processed to recover gold and other by-products. Major smelters operate precious metal plants where recovering gold from highly concentrated anode slime is both cost-effective and efficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207