SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

Preprint 16-001

FELDSPAR BENEFICIATION: TAILORING REAGENTS TO THE MINERAL

L. R. Moore, ArrMaz, Mulberry, FL.

Y. Xiong, ArrMaz, Mulberry, FL.
A. Gorken, ArrMaz, Mulberry, FL.
G. Wang, ArrMaz, Mulberry, FL.

ABSTRACT Table 1. Typical Feldspar Beneficiation Conditions.

Albite
Feldspar may represent 60% of the earth’s crust, but the mineral Source Quartz Rutile Mica
(Feldspar)
does not exist in a pure state. It is generally associated with quartz, Mineral of
iron containing minerals such as mica, and titanium containing NaAlSi3O8 SiO2 TiO2 FeOx
Interest
minerals such as rutile. Feldspar itself can even exist in different Optimal
lattices from those containing sodium to various divalent ions. As 8-9 2.5 7-8 (< 4) < 3.5
Float pH
such, its beneficiation has become a process that is quite complicated, Fatty Acid
when compared to the beneficiation of other minerals. It is this Reagent Amine Amine/HF (Petroleum Amine
complexity that has made feldspar beneficiation dependent on tailor Sulfonate)
made reagents to successfully yield the industry specified feldspar Mica and Iron
products. This paper reviews the mineralogical variations found from Mineral
Feldspar Feldspar Rutile Bearing
two feldspar mines and the development of collectors to specifically Floated
Minerals
target a Fe+Ti concentration of < 0.05%, while maintaining a feldspar
recovery greater than 90%. As previously stated, the literature provides various techniques to
Key words: feldspar beneficiation, water quality, reagent consumption, yield the beneficiation of feldspar but these techniques are generally
rutile flotation, mica flotation focused on the flotation of one mineral contaminant. In true feldspar
beneficiation, there is very rarely only one mineral contaminant, and
INTRODUCTION there is a possibility of a mixture of feldspar minerals. On the other
hand, not every source of feldspar will contain all of the previously
Feldspar is a class of aluminum silicates that represents the most mentioned contaminants. Furthermore, the sources with contaminants
abundant mineral on earth (Vidyadhar, 2002). This class of mineral do not always contain levels of concern for the end product. It is not
can further be defined by the types or concentrations of cations surprising that the complexity of feldspar and its many potential
present in the crystal lattice, MAlSi3O8 (M = K, orthoclase and contaminants have made the beneficiation process complicated
microcline; M = Na, Albite; M = Ca, Anorthite) (Heyes, 2012). Feldspar (Figure 1) (Heyes, 2012; EPA, 1995). Feldspar beneficiation generally
is most commonly mined and processed for either the alumina used in requires grinding, desliming, and multiples stages of flotation,
glass making or for the alkalis used in ceramics. The alumina is known depending on the end application. Due to the multiple stages and
to improve product hardness, durability, and resistance to chemical mineral surface charge required for each collector to achieve the
corrosion. The alkalis act as flux, which means they not only lower the flotation of the targeted mineral, a dewatering stage is required
melting temperature of the mineral mixture, but also assist in between each float process to remove the collectors to prevent
connecting the other components present in ceramics. It was stated interactions with the next step. For ceramics, option 1 is mandatory in
in 2009 that the world production of feldspar was in excess of 18.3 order to achieve a low iron, titanium, and silica containing product,
million tons produced, with the majority coming from China, Italy, and while option 2 is possible if the feldspar is going into glassmaking. For
Turkey. either application, the complex mixture of minerals makes it essential
to tailor make flotation collectors to specific mines. Monitoring of the
Raw feldspar is typically found with quartz, iron containing
changes in mineralogy and water over time is also needed to ensure
minerals such as mica, titanium containing minerals such as rutile, and
that the optimal chemistry can be applied to the processes.
other feldspar minerals (Celik, 2001). Quartz is stated as having a
negative effect on the melting point of the feldspar, whilst the iron and
titanium based mineral contaminants are known to have negative
effects on color and quality of the product produced; these mineral
contaminants must therefore be separated prior to application (Barns,
1997 & Celik, 2001). Mineral flotation and magnetic separation are the
most common means of feldspar beneficiation. However, conditions
vary greatly from mineral contaminant to mineral contaminant (Table
1). Some literature suggests feldspar can be floated with an amine,
but this generally yields lower than acceptable recoveries and often still
requires the magnetic separation of iron based minerals to achieve the
desired grade (Amarante, 1997 & Heyes, 2012). Feldspar flotation can
be further improved with the addition of hydrofluoric acid (HF) as a
silica depressant and feldspar surface modifier, but this still requires
the removal of some of the other minerals first. Rutile can be floated
with an anionic fatty acid collector at a pH range of 7-8 or with a
petroleum sulfonate at a pH < 4 (Celik, 2001), while mica can be
floated with a petroleum sulfonate or an amine collector at a pH of 3.5. Figure 1. Generic process flow sheet for feldspar beneficiation.

1 Copyright © 2016 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

EXPERIMENTAL slightly on the acidic side with amine collectors, while industry
practices state that silicate type minerals (i.e. quartz) are typically
The fatty acid and amine are generic terms used for an ArrMaz floated at a pH around 7 with amine type collectors. As table 1
proprietary collector used in similar applications. The generic term of suggested, feldspar can also begin to float with an amine as you start
Feldspar collector is used to describe an ArrMaz proprietary collector to move towards the alkaline side of the pH. So, any system that
that was developed for the feldspar industry. operates at a relatively neutral pH runs the risk of both not optimally
floating the rutile and mica, but possibly floating some of the quartz
All flotation experiments were carried out with 500 g of dry feed
and feldspar as well.
and 214 mL of water. The feed was conditioned with the collector for 3
minutes prior to placing in the flotation cells. Once in the float cells, the
water/feed mix was agitated at 1200 rpm for 3 minutes while air is
being introduced and the floated material is being collected.
Sample preparation for analysis consisted of grinding 10.2 grams
of each sample in a Retsch PM 200 grinder at 350 rpm for 10 minutes.
This should generate a fine powder, which is transfer to a sample cup
where it is packed through a tapping method. The samples are then
analysed by a Bruker S4 Explorer XRF and compared against
standards of feldspar, glass sands, and kaolin.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A project was initiated with a feldspar beneficiation plant to
generate a collector that works on a simplified two stage flotation
process dedicated to floating the colored titanium and iron containing
mineral to less than 0.05%, while maintaining recovery > 90% feldspar.
Simplified in that it doesn’t require broad pH adjustments, washings
between floats, or multiple flotation reagents to be able to float both of
the color causing contaminants to meet the site concentrate
specification. Upon analyzing the float feed from mine site 1 (mine 1) it
was discovered that 20% of the composition was alumina and ~3%
were divalent ions (CaO, MgO, KO) (Figure 2). The mineral also
contained a Fe + Ti concentration of 0.48%, which will require a 90%
reduction in order to meet the mineralogical success criteria.
Figure 3. Generation of a new collector
A dosage sweep was performed at a pH of 3 in efforts to develop
an expected dose point for optimal performance under industry
standard flotation conditions. This range was from 1.0 lbs/ton to 3.0
lbs/ton (collector/float feed), which led to the optimal dosage point
being at 2 lbs/ton for the mineralogy of mine 1’s float feed. Due to
limited amounts of float feed, we held that dosage constant for the
duration of the evaluations. Applying a dose of 2.0 lbs of collector to 1
ton of float feed in the first stage followed by 1.0 lbs of collector to 1
ton of float feed in the second stage, in the absence of any pH
adjustment, yielded a 53% reduction in total Fe+Ti when only fatty acid
is applied in both stages. The Fe+Ti concentration can further be
reduced by 15 percentage points to achieve a Fe+Ti% of 0.15% when
the fatty acid in the second stage is substituted with an amine.
However, when collectors were specifically developed to target the
rutile and mica from this specific ore body, the target of less than
0.05% Fe+Ti can be obtained without any pH modifier being applied.
Figure 2. X-ray fluorescence spectra of the float feed from mine 1.
A float feed was obtained from a second mine and evaluated with
Flotation is a specialized tool that takes into account mineral and
Feldspar -1 and Feldspar -2 in the absence of any pH modification
chemical ionic charges and coordination properties as a tool to achieve
(Figure 4). A feldspar product meeting the < 0.05% Fe+Ti specification
the desired purification goal. One of the most impactful on such charge
can be achieved with a > 90% recovery of aluminum, silica, and
sensitive systems is in manipulation of the pH. The flotation
sodium in mine 1. However, under the same parameters and applying
parameters listed in table 1, as well as what is currently being applied
Feldspar -1 as the collector, mine 2 only achieved 70-75% recovery of
at feldspar beneficiation plants confirms pH as a tool to adequately
the aluminum, silica, and sodium. Interestingly, Feldspar -2 collector
tune into the optimal charge for collector/mineral interaction and
generated a significant improvement in the recovery in mine 2 of the
flotation. However, it would be advantageous to develop a float
sodium, aluminum, and silica as the recoveries were able to reach 84-
scheme that would achieve the beneficiation requirements without
87%. The same source of water was applied in efforts to hold that
large pH adjustments.
variable constant, thus variations in performance must be associated
A series of products were evaluated towards the beneficiation of with the mineral. When evaluating the feed, concentrate, and tails
the feldspar float feed obtained from mine 1, while not applying any pH from each of the mines, it is visually very obvious that the concentrate
adjustment (Figure 3). In the absence of pH modification, the natural samples generated were quite pure (Figure 5). It is also apparent the
pH was typically around 6-7. The products evaluated range from amount of white crystalline material that is being lost in the tail 1
standard fatty acid collectors and specialized amine collectors to novel sample from mine 2. Tail 2 from both experiments may contain some
collectors that were specifically synthesized to target rutile and mica feldspar as well. However, the mass of the tails -2 sample from Mine 1
under the specified pH conditions. However, fatty acid collectors are was < 2% of the total mass, while that from Mine 2 was closer to 8% of
known to float oxide minerals, such as phosphate, at an alkaline pH. the total mass.
Similar reaction mechanisms are expected from the fatty acid when
applied to rutile flotation. As previously stated, mica is typically floated

2 Copyright © 2016 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

feed from mine 1 was relatively comparable to that of the tails until the
alkaline pH is reached. This difference in zeta potential between mine
1 and mine 2 could be due to the feed from mine 1 containing ~28%
more of the iron containing silicates then that from mine 2, as well as
the additional 22% quartz in feed from mine 2. The difference in zeta
potential could definitely yield variances when comparing flotation
performance of the same chemistries on these two feed samples.
Table 2. Summary of the X-ray diffractometric spectra.
Feed (%) Concentrate
Mineral
Mine 1 Mine 2 (%)
Albite
82.6 82.7 89.8
(small amounts of Plagioclase)
Silicate
9.7 12.3 10.2
(Quartz, Diopside)
Figure 4. Flotation performance of mine 2 vs mine 1. Titanium Minerals
ND ND ND
(Rutile, Anatase, Titanite)
Iron Minerals
0.6 ND ND
(Maghemite, Pyrite)
Iron Containing Silicates
(Mica/Biotite
7.1 5.1 ND
Muscovite/Phlogopite, Chlorite,
Pyroxene)

Figure 5. Microscopic pics of the two different samples.

The XRF (X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy) data suggests that
the mineralogy should be very similar, thus there is the expectation of
a similar level of performance (Figure 6). From this XRF data, it was
also learned that both mines have an average Fe + Ti% of 0.43-0.45%
in their float feeds. Due to the complex nature of raw feldspar, it
became apparent that a better understanding of the mineralogy was
necessary, thus samples were ground and submitted for XRD (X-ray
diffractometric spectroscopy) with the primary reason being to learn
what species of feldspar are present as well as which forms the iron
and titanium containing contaminants would be present (Table 2). The
XRD suggests there is 22% less quartz in the feed from mine 1 vs.
mine 2, while also suggesting that the major component in both feeds
are the same feldspar species, sodium feldspar (Albite). Figure 7. Zeta Potential vs. pH.
Another parameter that was evaluated was the XRF of the particle
size fractions, where it was learned that mine 2 contains 14-16% of a
fine fraction (< 200 mesh, 74 micron), which is 4.32% more fines than
mine 1 (Table 3). Particle size can definitely have an effect on ease of
flotation, surface area available for collector interaction, as well as
particle density required to resist floating with the force of the bubble
stream. Interestingly, the titanium appears to increase in concentration
as the particle size gets smaller, while the iron appears more sporadic
and not necessarily associated with the particle size.
Table 3. Mineral composition by size fraction.
Weight
Mine 1 Na2O (%) MgO (%) K2O (%) CaO (%) TiO2 (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) Fe2O3 (%) P2O5 (%) Fe + Ti (%)
g %
+60M 30.01 16.94 9.47 1.59 0.77 1.97 0.16 64.17 20.32 0.40 0.03 0.56
+140M 109.21 61.64 9.78 0.60 0.44 1.98 0.16 64.66 20.13 0.16 0.04 0.32
+200M 20.37 11.50 10.39 0.67 0.46 1.99 0.34 66.78 20.82 0.15 0.05 0.49
+325M 13.14 7.42 9.65 0.65 0.46 2.05 0.70 64.46 19.68 0.17 0.05 0.87
-325M 4.45 2.51 9.17 0.98 0.56 2.55 0.99 63.52 19.55 0.35 0.07 1.34
Weighted Avg. 177.18 100.00 9.77 0.79 0.50 2.00 0.24 64.78 20.19 0.20 0.04 0.45

Weight
Mine 2 Na2O (%) MgO (%) K2O (%) CaO (%) TiO2 (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) Fe2O3 (%) P2O5 (%) Fe + Ti (%)
g %
+60M 24.13 9.66 9.02 1.26 0.67 1.50 0.17 64.14 18.54 0.35 0.04 0.52
Figure 6. XRF comparison of feed from mine 1 and mine 2 +140M 152.40 61.00 9.78 0.49 0.40 1.47 0.16 65.88 19.27 0.16 0.03 0.31
+200M 37.93 15.18 9.81 0.33 0.34 1.56 0.30 66.01 19.07 0.12 0.04 0.42
+325M 26.76 10.71 9.68 0.37 0.37 1.62 0.63 65.31 18.66 0.13 0.04 0.77
As previously stated, the XRD data suggests a significant different -325M 8.61 3.45 8.70 1.16 0.60 2.14 0.89 62.75 18.31 0.46 0.08 1.36
Weighted Avg. 249.83 100.00 9.66 0.55 0.42 1.53 0.26 65.56 19.07 0.18 0.04 0.43
in quartz concentration from the feed in mine 1 compared to mine 2,
but the question becomes necessary to answer as to what that means Whether it is the zeta potential or the particle size, it is apparent
in the way of explaining the performance variations. One way to that neither product, Feldspar 1 nor 2, are effectively transferred to the
evaluate this is to consider the effect of this quartz on the charge, or second float feed (mine 2). So, a new chemistry needed to be
the zeta potential (Figure 7). For a point of reference, albite is developed (Figure 8). A chemistry that was more selective towards the
recorded as having an isoelectric point of 1.5, while rutile values vary mineral system being beneficiated in mine 2. Feldspar -3 was still able
from 3.5-5.5 (Celik, 1999). Mica has an isoelectric point of 5 to yield the < 0.05% Fe+Ti specification, but also met the recovery
(Kawanishi, 1990) and quartz has an isoelectric point of 2 (Vidyadhar, target of > 90% defined in the success criteria. A 92-98% recovery was
2002). Considering that the pH was 6-7, then it can be seen that the achieved for the aluminum, silica, and sodium, thus supporting the

3 Copyright © 2016 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

need to evaluate each mineral and water independently, thus develop

a process and chemistry that is specifically designed for that system.

Figure 8. Flotation performance of new collectors for Mine 2.

CONCLUSIONS
Applying a mineral specific collector can achieve the success
criteria of < 0.05% Fe+Ti and > 90% recovery of feldspar with one
product at each mine. This requires less storage tanks to house
multiple products as well as requires the inventory and regulatory
management of only one collector vs two. The flotation was also
accomplished without any pH adjustments, thus a savings of any pH
modifiers would be expected, when compared to the industry standard
depicted in figure 1.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the management and staff of the
mine site of focus for their hospitality and assistance, as well as
ArrMaz for all the support received and for allowing the publishing of
this work. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Xuming Wang and Dr.
Jan Miller from University of Utah for helping measure the zeta
potentials.

REFERENCES
Amarante, M.A.; Botelho de Sousa, A.; Machado Leite, M.
“Beneficiation of a Feldspar Ore for Application in the Ceramic
Industry”, The Journal of South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1997, 193-196.
Barns, H. L. “Magmas and Hydrothermal Fluids”, Geochemistry of
Hydrothermal Ore Deposits, 3rd Ed., 1997, 1, 64-104.
Celik, M. S.; Pehlivanoglu, B.; Aslanbas, A.; Asmatulu, R. “Flotation of
Colored Impurities from Feldspar Ores by New Collectors”, SME
National Meeting, 1999, preprint 99-153.
Celik, M. S.; Pehlivanoglu, B.; Aslanbas, A.; Asmatulu, R. “Flotation of
Colored Impurities from Feldspar Ores”, Minerals & Metallurgical
Processing, 2001, 18, 101-105.
EPA, Feldspar Processing – Environmental Protection Agency,
www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/ch11s27. 1995, 11.27, 1-4.
Accessed 2015.
Heyes, G. W.; Allan, G. C.; Bruckard, W. J.; Sparrow, G. J. “Review of
flotation of feldspar”, Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy, 2012, 121, 72-78.
Kawanishi, N; Christenson, H. K.; Ninham, B. W. “Measurement of the
Interaction between Adsorbed Polyelectrolytes: Gelatin on Mica
Surfaces”, Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1990, 94, 4611-4617.
Vidyadhar, A.; Hanumantha Rao, K.; Forssberg, K. S. E. “Separation of
Feldspar from Quartz: Mechanism of Mixed Cationic/Anionic
Collector Adsorption on Minerals and Flotation Selectivity”,
Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, 2002, 19, 128-136.
4 Copyright © 2016 by SME