Minerals Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 337-349, 1989 0892-6875/89 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain 1989 Pergamon Press plc

THE THEORY OF E L E C T R O S T A T I C SEPARATIONS: A REVIEW

PART III. THE S E P A R A T I O N OF PARTICLES

E.G. KELLY % and D.J. SPOTTISWOOD

% Dept. of C h e m i c a l & M a t e r i a l s Engineering,

U n i v e r s i t y of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
M e t a l l u r g i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g Dept., Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, CO, U.S.A.
(Received 1 September 1988)

ABSTRACT

This, the third and final paper in a series that reviews the theory of
electrostatic separation of minerals, considers the practice of
electrostatic separations. Separators are first considered
theoretically, and this is then contrasted with the available empirical
evidence. The paper concludes with a discussion of treatment circuits.

Keywords
Electrostatic separations; particles

INTRODUCTION

The s e p a r a t i o n of p a r t i c l e s in an e l e c t r o s t a t i c separator involves up to three

s e q u e n t i a l stages; the d i f f e r e n t i a l c h a r g i n g of the particles, the d y n a m i c s of
the p a r t i c l e s on a g r o u n d e d surface, and the dynamics of the particles if they
leave the surface.

F r o m the d i s c u s s i o n on p a r t i c l e c h a r g i n g in Part II of this series [I], it

should be clear that the terms c o n d u c t i n g a n d n o n - c o n d u c t i n g are r e l a t i v e
descriptors. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator, and because even
c o n d u c t o r s require f i n i t e t i m e s to t r a n s f e r c h a r g e , e v e n t h e y c a n a p p e a r
non-conducting if the t i m e is s h o r t e n o u g h [2]. T h u s , u l t i m a t e l y , the
s e p a r a t i o n d e p e n d s on the r e l a t i v e t i m e c o n s t a n t s for c h a r g i n g and/or
d i s c h a r g i n g (Figure I).

lOO

s oo

rlme

Fig.1 P a r t i c l e c h a r g i n g / d i s c h a r g i n g curves i n d i c a t i n g how time

d e t e r m i n e s a particle's effective c o n d u c t i v i t y
337
338 E . G . KELLY and D. J. SPOTTISWOOD

T h a t m a n y materials are semiconductors means that some materials can behave

either as c o n d u c t o r s or n o n c o n d u c t o r s , d e p e n d i n g on the p o l a r i t y of the
electric field. Alternatively, contaminants, either intentional or inherent,
can change the s u r f a c e s t a t e s of a p a r t i c l e , thus c h a n g i n g its c h a r g i n g
characteristics.

To describe a separation, it is necessary to analyze the forces acting on any

particle as it passes through the separator. In many cases, the forces change
w i t h time, and it is not possible to rigorously describe particle behavior.
H o w e v e r , it is p o s s i b l e to e v a l u a t e the r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of m a n y
parameters, and thus to explain general behavior and to indicate how improved
performance may be attained.

THEORETICAL ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC SEPARATORS

In the following analyses a number of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s are n e c e s s a r y . The

particles are normally considered spherical, although it has been shown that
shape affects the c h a r g e on a p a r t i c l e [3]-[5]. F u r t h e r , the c h a r g e is
assumed to be uniformly distributed over the surface. Although in the case of
nonconductors this may s e e m u n r e a l i s t i c , r o t a t i o n of the p a r t i c l e d u r i n g
charging will tend to distribute the charge. Finally, all analyses consider
the particles to be isolated. Clearly p a r t i c l e / p a r t i c l e i n t e r a c t i o n m u s t
occur, and this can c h a n g e the charge. For example, if the particles are
charged by ion bombardment or i n d u c t i o n , it is p o s s i b l e that the
particle/particle or particle/metal contacts may produce charges of opposite
sign by tribocharging.

Forces on Particles.

B e c a u s e a n u m b e r of f o r c e s can act on a p a r t i c l e in an e l e c t r o s t a t i c
separator, a given separation w i l l d e p e n d on the r e s o l v e d b a l a n c e of the
significant forces. Although these forces depend on the given separator, it
is possible to reduce the force b a l a n c e s to the two b a s i c cases s h o w n in
Figure 2; the forces on a particle at a grounded surface, and the forces on a
particle moving in space. It must be appreciated that the actual directions
and magnitudes of the forces will differ not only from separator to separator,
but can also change in a complex manner in a given separator.

F e
Particles

/ Fe

Fig.2 Forces acting on particle in electrostatic separators

(After Kelly and Spottiswood [7])
There are two possible electrical forces. Firstly, there is the force F due
to the electrical field. It acts in the direction of the electric fiel~ and
is the force of attraction between the charged particle and the electrode(s].
When the particle is in a field of constant strength (a s i t u a t i o n that is
approximated near most grounded surfaces associated with wire electrodes), F e
is given by:
 The theory of electrostatic separations 339

F = Q.E (I)

In ~ir the m a x i m u m value of the surface charge density ~ is about 2.66 x 106
C/m (although in practice, such high charge densities are not achieved), and
the m a x i m u m value of E is about 3 x 106 V/m. Thus, a spherical particle of
I mm (10-3m) diameter will experience a maximum electrical force given by

F = ~.(I0-3) 2 x 2.66 x 10 -6 x 3 x 106

e
= 2.5 x I0-5N (2)

V e r e s h c h a g i n et al derived an expression for the electrical force acting on a

semieliptical particle [5]. This also shows the effect of particle shape: for
example, depending on their orientation, proplate particles may be subjected
to appreciably higher electrical forces than spherical particles.

The second electrical force is the image force F. introduced in Part I [6].
It is the force of attraction between a c h a r g e d ~ a r t i c l e and the g r o u n d e d
surface, and is equivalent to the attraction between the charged particle and
its mirror image behind the surface. Hence, it is given by

ql "q2
F = K (3)
z r2

with the interparticle distance r equal to twice the particle's radius (i.e.,
the particle diameter).

If the g r o u n d e d surface is a rotor, there is a centrifugal force F acting

p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the surface, given by c

F c = (I/6)~d~ Ps 2 R (4)

where d is the particle (volume) diameter, ~ e i S the density of the particle,

is th~ rotor angular velocity, and R is rotor radius. A typical value
for F would be as follows; dv = I mm (I0-3m), R- = 2650kg/m3, R = 0.2m, ~ =
15rad/s (143rpm), so that the force is 2.6 x I0-5~.

There can also be a frictional force F9 acting parallel to a grounded surface,

but in most cases this is small and ma9 be neglected.

The g r a v i t a t i o n a l force F is given by

g
Fg = (I/6) ~ d v3 PS g (5)

For a Imm diameter particle of quartz (p= = 2650kg/m3), Fq is approximately

1.4 x 10-5N; that is, about half the electrical force calculated above.

When the particle is in space it will be subjected to a drag force F d given by

2 2
F d = (I/8) 7f fd df pf v (6)

w h e r e f ~ is the drag coefficient (whose value depends on the nature of the

flow around the particle [7]), d~ is the particle (free falling) diameter, v~
is the v e l o c i t y of the particl~, and pf the density of the air. With the
largest particle sizes treated, the drag force tends to be less significant,
but at the lower limits it provides a size limit.

Static Field Separators.

Two b a s i c t y p e s of static field separator can be recognized; rotating drum

separators, and plate s e p a r a t o r s . In both, the c o n d u c t i n g p a r t i c l e s are
charged by i n d u c t i o n , w h i l e the n o n c o n d u c t o r s , although polarized, are
e f f e c t i v e l y uncharged.

With a rotating drum, the particles have a natural tendency to leave the drum
in a "sheet". Because at the operating speeds normally used the centrifugal
f o r c e is g r e a t e r t h a n the g r a v i t a t i o n a l force, the sheet trajectory leaves
from the upper surface of the rotor, after w h i c h the p a r t i c l e s fall u n d e r
gravity. Due to the presence of the electric field, charged particles will
have a further tendency to be lifted from the surface. The relevant forces
340 E . G . KELLY and D. J. SPOTTISWOOD

are t h e r e f o r e the e l e c t r i c a l , centrifugal, and gravitational forces on the

charged conducting particles, and it is possible to characterise separators by
a lifting factor F 1 w h i c h c o n s i d e r s the r e l a t i v e significance of these
forces: thus ,d
F + F
FI, d = e c (7)
Fg

which on substitution gives

6 Q E 2 R
= 3 +
Fl'd ~ Ps g dv g (8)

B e c a u s e the c h a r g e on the p a r t i c l e is approximately proportional to d 2 it

follows that the lifting factor is inversely related to the p a r t i c l e size.
Hence, the range of particle sizes in the feed limits the separation that can
achieved.

Plate type static field separators can also be characterized by a lifting

factor. .FI,~, in t h i s c a s e g i v e n by t h e r a t i o of t h e e l e c t r i c a l to
gravltatlona[ forces :
6 QE
= 3 (9)
FI'p ~ Ps g dv

C o m p a r i s o n of Eqs 8 and 9 shows that roll separators have more flexibility

than plate separators b e c a u s e the e x t r a t e r m in Eq. 8 i n t r o d u c e s a n o t h e r
variable that can be manipulated.

W h e n the p a r t i c l e has left the r o t o r , its t r a j e c t o r y can in principle be

predicted by a force balance between the electrical, gravitational, and drag
forces; that is, by
V
x
Fx = - Fd + Q Fx (I 0a)
V

V
Fy = - Fd Y + Q F - Mg (10b)
V Y

where the subscripts refer to the x and y directions, and M is the mass of the
p a r t i c l e . E v e n in the s i m p l e c a s e of e q u a l d i a m e t e r e l e c t r o d e s and the
a s s u m p t i o n of c o n s t a n t p a r t i c l e v e l o c i t y , the solution of these equations
requires numerical integration [8][9]. In most p r a c t i c a l s e p a r a t i o n s , the
field is more complex due to the differing electrode diameters and to the fact
that the particles may not be travelling at a uniform (terminal) v e l o c i t y .
However, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the particles has a statistical distribution, and
this can be empirically analysed [8].

High Tension Separators.

The basic concept of high tension separators is shown in Figure 3. Initially,

corona charging of all particles occurs. The charge will be the opposite to
t h a t of the s u r f a c e ; t h a t is, the s a m e as t h a t of the c o r o n a electrode.
Separation is achieved primarily by the non-conducting particles b e i n g h e l d
against the rotor while the conducting particles are able to fly off. This
pinning of nonconductors is due to the image force, and is o p p o s e d by the
centrifugal force. T h u s the s e p a r a t i o n can be characterised by a pinning
factor F given by the ratio of these two forces:
P
Fi
F = (11)
P F
c
6 Q2
Ps Kr d5 R 2

This factor gives the tendency for the particle to be held against the rotor:
when greater than one, the particle adheres to the rotor, and reports to the
n o n - c o n d u c t i n g stream; when less than one it is thrown from the rotor.
 The theory of electrostatic separations 341

Eloclrodes-
~r --"~ ~ Ionizing
%_
j// ,"
-/
(IP

o
8 /A\ 2~ l \Ae ;
Fig.3 High tension separator

Further separation of the particles occurs as they pass out of the ionizing
field into the static field. The situation is essentially that which occurs
in a static field separator, except that the particles are a l r e a d y charged
when they enter the static field. The non-conducting particles, effectively
having no conducting contact with the rotor, will be unaffected in the field,
and will continue to be p i n n e d to the rotor by the image force. The
conducting particles will however begin to acquire (by induction charging) a
net c h a r g e of the p o l a r i t y of the rotor. This net charge is given by an
equation of the form of [3]

Qe = 1 + fn(E) 4 [I + fn(E/K I ]2 - 1 } (12)

Qmax KI

where fn(E) is a function of the electric field, and K I is a leakage constant

for the particle.

Hence, a c o n d u c t i n g particle, p r e v i o u s l y c h a r g e d by ion bombardment, can

undergo charge reversal due to an opposing charge being added by induction, to
the extent that the charge becomes sufficient to lift the particle from the
rotor, as occurs in static field separators.

B a r t h e l e m y and Mora [3] p r e s e n t an e q u a t i o n for calculating the time for

charge reversal. It indicates that the time will reduce as the p a r t i c l e
b e c o m e s more flakey (more surface c o n t a c t to transfer charge) and as the
p a r t i c l e c o n d u c t i v i t y rises (zero t i m e for a p e r f e c t conductor). Poor
conductors will require a finite time for charge reversal. In reality, the
significant time is less than that for charge reversal; it is the time for the
c h a r g e to d r o p to a level where the p i n n i n g force equals the discharging
forces of gravity and centrifugation.

As with static field separations, the trajectories of particles that have left
the rotor can in principle be predicted from a force balance. In practice,
such detailed calculations are of limited value because of the variability in
particle properties (usually due primarily to incomplete l i b e r a t i o n of the
components), cause appreciably more significant perturbations. However, it is
desirable at this point to consider the discharge of particles from the rotor
in a qualitative manner.

The discharge from a separator is split into three streams by two splitters; a
concentrate splitter and a tailings splitter (Figure 3). The c o n c e n t r a t e
splitter is set so that with no charging, the particles fall into the middle
stream. Thus, all particles that are recovered in the concentrate stream must
be p a r t i c l e s that have been lifted from their normal trajectory, that is,
conducting particles. The railings stream will contain all particles that are
still p i n n e d to the rotor as they pass the second splitter. Most will be
nonconductors, but there will be some middling (composite, or u n l i b e r a t e d )
particles whose loss is acceptable for the given operation.

The stream between these two splitters is the m i d d l i n g s stream. There are
a c t u a l l y two types of " m i d d l i n g " p a r t i c l e in this stream. Close to the
splitter will be "misplaced" particles; p a r t i c l e s that passed t h r o u g h the
s e p a r a t o r a p p a r e n t l y uneffected by the electrical separating force. Their
misplacement can be attributed to some statistically allowable aberration, or
to an expected aberration such as lying at the extreme end of the particle
size range.
342 E . G . KELLY and D. J. SPOTTISWOOD

However most of the middlings stream should be true middling particles; that
is, particles that contain both valuable and waste components, resulting from
incomplete liberation. They d e t a c h from the rotor largely b e c a u s e the
centrifugal force overcomes their consequentially weaker image force. They
may contain too much of the valuable component to be rejected to the tailings,
or too much of the waste component to be rejected to the concentrate stream.
W h i l e in r e a l i t y they should be s u b j e c t e d to (further) size reduction to
increase their liberation, the necessity for close p a r t i c l e sizing in most
electrostatic separations tends to preclude this. Hence, these particles are
usually retreated as is, but the charging behavior during the second passage
should be sufficiently different for the particles to report to a different
stream. A consequence is however that the concentrate is diluted, and/or the
loss to the tailings is increased.

B a r t h e l e m y and Mora [3] derived the following equation for the recovery of
particles in the conducting plus middlings streams;

D > 0.0066Km2dt2 (13)

w h e r e &t is the time (in seconds) taken for the charge to fall to a level
where the image force no longer pins the particle (i.e., At is <t~, the time
for charge reversal), K is the "centrifugal force constant" (dependent on the
mineral associations an~ the centrifugal force acting on the particle), and D
is the rotor diameter (m). Thus, the rotor diameter is very dependent on the
ore being treated. For example, with an iron ore, At ~ 0.08sec, and K m 90,
so that the rotor diameter should be greater than 0.34m.

Free Fall Separators.

Tribocharged particles are usually separated in free fall separators. After

c h a r g i n g , the p a r t i c l e s are d r o p p e d v e r t i c a l l y b e t w e e n two e l e c t r o d e s .
D e p e n d i n g on t h e i r charge, they are displaced laterally during their fall.
While their motion in both the vertical and horizontal direction is affected
by drag, the separation depends primarily on the electrical and gravitational
forces. Hence, a displacement factor F d can be defined by

Fd -- F e / Fg (14)

which on substitution gives

6 Q E
= 3 (I 5)
Fd n P s g dv

Once again, the dispacement is inversely proportional to particle size. In

practice, there is also an upper size limit of about Imm, due to insufficient
displacement, and a lower size limit of about 10~m due to particle clustering.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC SEPARATORS

The practical application of the theory presented in the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s

presents a number of difficulties. In some instances, the theory is still
not a d e q u a t e l y d e f i n e d , but, more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , even w h e r e a r i g o r o u s
analysis can be made, there is the major problem of assigning values to the
parameters in the e q u a t i o n s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , in most cases, e x p e r i m e n t a l
studies are still n e c e s s a r y , and this s e c t i o n discusses some of the data
available that qualitatively substantiate the theory presented in Parts I and
II [1, 6].

Particle Characteristics.

With any separation, liberation is a prerequisite, and this normally requires

size reduction. Feed preparation more specific to electrostatic s e p a r a t i o n
can range from simple attritioning to more sophisticated physical and chemical
pretreatment.

(a) Attritioning. Prior to charging, it is essential for the surface to be

"clean" enough for the particles to charge in the desired manner. This can
range from the removal of extremely fine particles adhering to the particles
of interest, through to thin films of a chemical nature. Cleaning may be
 The theory of electrostatic separations 343

possible with simple washing, or may require more vigorous mechanical

attritioning.

(b) Physical Conditioning. Changes in temperature can produce changes in the

both the chemical and physical properties of materials. Most obvious of the
physical changes is the effect of t e m p e r a t u r e on e l e c t r i c a l c o n d u c t i v i t y .
This has most significance with semiconductors, where temperature effects the
e l e c t r o n e n e r g y levels ( t h a t is, t h e w o r k f u n c t i o n ) , and produces a
conductivity dependence of the form of [13]

q = go exp[-(Vd - Vc)/2KT] (16)

where o is the electrical conductivity at temperature T (OK), (V~ - V ) is the
energy to raise an electron from an impurity level to the conduction ~and, and
and K are constants.
o
Thus, there is the possibility that at an elevated temperature, one of the
components of a non-conducting mixture maybe made sufficiently conducting to
allow a separation. The likelihood will be enhanced if the conductivity of
the less conducting component is less susceptible to temperature changes.

More significant temperature effects can occur if the material exhibits phase
transformations at elevated temperatures. B u l l o c k [10] has d i s c u s s e d the
c o n s e q u e n c e s of t h o s e that o c c u r in quartz, with regard to that mineral's
response in electrostatic separators.

(c) H u m i d i t y . The e f f e c t of humidity is complex. Firstly, it affects the

conductivity of the air, and thus the charging of the particles. Secondly, it
affects the particle conductivity. The latter phenomena is largely associated
with surface conductivity which is the mechanism whereby conduction can occur
with non-conducting materials. It is essentially made up of two components; a
contribution due to the existence of the water itself, and a contribution from
the ions dissolved in the water [11]. Kakovsky and Revnivtzev [12] found that
the relative conductivity o r was related to the relative humidity H by

l o g o r = -K I + K2H (17)

where K 1 and K 9 are constants characteristic of the mineral and its origin.
Depending on t~e relative values of the constants K 1 and Kg, the separation
would be enhanced or hindered by an increase in the r~lative ~umidity.

(d) Chemical Conditioning. Chemical conditioning is usually of more practical

i m p o r t a n c e than physical conditioning. It may be inherent, accidental, or
intentional.

Most components in materials considered for electrostatic separation are not

pure. For example, all mineral structures allow variations in composition and
this alone allows considerable variations in conductivity. Less apparent, but
probably of more significance, is that because most m i n e r a l s of c o m m e r c i a l
importance have semiconducting characteristics, it follows from the discussion
in Part II that small variations in the quantities of trace elements (which
are always present) can produce disproportionate variations in conductivity in
what otherwise might appear to be a similar minerals.

Chemical conditioning frequently occurs accidentally, and, for the most part,
is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s u r f a c e m o i s t u r e a r i s i n g from the h u m i d i t y p r o v i d i n g
conductivity. Depending on the prior history of t h e m a t e r i a l , the
conductivity of the surface moisture can be susceptible to large variations in
c o n d u c t i v i t y , d e p e n d i n g on the a m o u n t of c o n d u c t i n g ions a v a i l a b l e for
dissolution. While pre-drying of the feed, or r e d u c i n g the h u m i d i t y , may
a p p e a r to be obvious solutions to this problem, this treatment is far from
reliable. This is because drying, while it removes the water, leaves the ions
f r o m the solution, which may dope the surface of the material, and provide
conductivity.

A number of studies have described intentional chemical conditioning to bring

about otherwise "impossible" separations. The most obvious are those that take
advantage of the fact that one of the components is a semiconductor, and then
"dope" the mineral with a chemical to make it conducting or non-conducting.
Aplan and Fensterer [13] have shown that nickel oxide, a p-type semiconductor,
can be made non-conducting by doping with CrgO~, and conducting by doping with
Li20. While such work substantiates the conau~ting theories presented
344 E . G . KELLY and D. J. SPOTTISWOOD

earlier, the practical limitations of such an approach must be appreciated.

High temperature thermal pretreatments are required, and the dopant m u s t be
selective in its effect.

A more general, but qualitative, study by Fraas [14], showed the effects of
changing impurity levels by heating. In effect, the heat treatment changes
the level of dopant in the material, and thus changes the conductivity.

Selectivity can be induced at more p r a c t i c a l t e m p e r a t u r e s by wet c h e m i c a l

pre-treatments. One method is to use surface-active reagents that selectively
adsorb onto one component. This component then becomes water-repellent, and
as a result, may be non-conducting while the unaffected component retains its
moisture-caused surface conductivity, thus allowing a separation in a h u m i d
environment. Another approach is to s e l e c t i v e l y make one c o m p o n e n t
water-avid; a treatment that places a moisture-caused conducting layer on the
component. Hydrofluoric acid, for example, can make the surface of apatite
sufficiently conducting in a humid atmosphere that it can be separated from
zircon. In b o t h these methods it appears that the conductivity is due to
ionic conduction in the surface moisture and not that of the adsorbed layer
itself [10][11].

The d i s c u s s i o n in the previous paragraph essentially applies to separations

that depend on conductivity. The adsorption of a surfactant onto the surface
can also affect tribocharged separations. In this case, the adsorbed reagent
changes the apparent work function of the of the particle, which may result in
a change in the saturation charge level, and/or its sign [15].

Chemical treatments have also been Suggested for separations involving clays
[16]. A feature of some clays is that they have ion exchange characteristics;
that is, certain ions in the s t r u c t u r e can be e x c h a n g e d w i t h o t h e r s in a
solution. Thus, by pretreating with an appropriate solution, the composition
can be altered, or at least made more uniform, with a resulting control over
the conducting or charging properties.

(e) Size Distribution. In their investigation of the effect of particle size

on h i g h t e n s i o n separations, Carta et al [17] found that the dependence on
particle size was not as restrictive as earlier equations (Eqs 7-11) imply.
In their work, they carried out tests on two size fractions; -850 +212um and
-212 +75um. The r e s u l t s of these tests were used to calculate what would
happen if a mixture of these two size fractions was treated, and this was
compared with experiment. With a sulfur ore (sulfur being a non-conductor,
the g a n g u e a poor n o n - c o n d u c t o r ) it was found that the total -850 +75~m
s e p a r a t i o n was m a r g i n a l l y b e t t e r than that o b t a i n e d w h e n t h e t w o s i z e
fractions w e r e t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y , each at s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t o p t i m u m
conditions. When a galena (PbS) ore (galena being a semiconductor, the gangue
a poor non-conductor) was treated it was found that better separation could be
obtained when the two size fractions were treated separately. It should be
n o t e d that the mineral characteristics in this example are typical of most
mineral separations of interest.

Two factors could contribute to this unexpected size tolerance found with the
sulfur ore. Firstly, and probably most importantly, the valuable c o m p o n e n t
was the less dense, and a non-conductor. Thus, not only was it pinned to the
rotor; for a given size and electrical charge, the lower density of a sulfur
particle would cause it to be more strongly pinned (Eq. 11}. A characteristic
of the sulfur ore was that it gave h i g h e s t r e c o v e r i e s w i t h the c o a r s e r
particles, whereas all the other ores had better recoveries in the finer size
fraction. Secondly, the ore had the highest liberation of those tested, and
this w o u l d be m o r e c r i t i c a l for the c o a r s e r size fraction. Further, the
higher liberation would result in a highest proportion of material with the
g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e in e l e c t r i c a l p r o p e r t i e s , c o u n t e r a c t i n g the negating
secondary effect of the particle size range.

T h e r e is a further reason for the overall lower-than-expected dependance on

particle size. If the smaller particles had lower charge densities (i.e., per
unit area), they would have proportionately lower pinning factors. Such lower
charge densities on the smaller particles could result from self-discharging
due to their relatively more angular shape.
 The theory of electrostatic separations 345

Equipment Variables.

Carta et al [17], in their study of high tension separations, also provided

one of the more extensive reports of the effect of equipment variables.

(a) E l e c t r o d e Position. The positions of the electrodes are defined by two

parameters; distance from the rotor, and angular location.

The angular location is expressed by the angle s between the two lines which
run from the electrodes to the rotor axis, and the angle 8 included between
the bisector of ~ and the horizontal. The angle ~, which must be large enough
to prevent the two electric f i e l d s i n t e r a c t i n g but small e n o u g h to a l l o w
adequate discharging in the static field, gave best results when of the order
of 20 . Similarly, optimum values of B tended to lie in a narrow range, close
to 30 .

The distance of the ionizing electrode from the rotor is a compromise between
closeness (for charging efficiency) and distance (to p r e v e n t the p a r t i c l e s
c a u s i n g instability phenomena). The distance of the static field electrode
must be slightly greater to allow for the d i v e r s e p a t h s of the p a r t i c l e s .
Because spark-over depends on the field s t r e n g t h , the d i s t a n c e s w i l l
interrelate with the voltages used.

(b) Splitter Positions. Because the position of the splitters does not effect
the e l e c t r i c a l p h e n o m e n a of the p r o c e s s , but does e f f e c t the g r a d e and
recovery of the products, they were not systematically investigated. However,
by using a variety of splitter settings it should be possible to build up some
idea of the grade/recovery characteristics of a g i v e n feed m a t e r i a l . This
information w o u l d be a v a l u a b l e aid to d e t e r m i n i n g o p t i m u m o p e r a t i n g
conditions [7].

(c) Electrode Voltage. The results suggested that there was an optimum voltage
for each ore, although in many cases, spark-over may occur before the optimum
voltage can be achieved. Otherwise, the v o l t a g e was i n d e p e n d e n t of r o t o r
speed, rotor diameter, and particle size.

A comparison was also made between the use of constant (full rectification)
and pulsating voltage (rectified, but not smoothed). The latter is the most
widely used, and is supposed to enhance the separator performance. Carta et
al [17] found that both methods could produce the same results, except that
the c o n s t a n t v o l t a g e s e p a r a t o r p r o d u c e d the r e s u l t s at a lower v o l t a g e
(comparing the constant voltage with the peak pulsating voltage). While the
average voltage in both cases would be similar, the constant voltage has the
immediate advantage that higher voltages can be used before spark-over occurs.
Carta et al argue that a pulsating voltage will tend to produce a lower charge
on a particle, and should thus be less effective. They do however concede
that a pulsating voltage may incite some beneficial transitory phenomena which
m a y aid the separation. One could be, as was discussed above, that of the
finer p a r t i c l e s d e v e l o p i n g a l o w e r c h a r g e d e n s i t y due to s e l f - d i s c h a r g e
(resulting from the high peak voltage); an effect which lowers the sensitivity
to size effects.

(d I Rotor Speed. In all separations there was a speed that for the given ore,
maximized the grade and recovery. This o p t i m u m speed i n c r e a s e d w i t h
decreasing rotor diameter, generally in accordance with Eqs 11 and 13); that
is, w2R was constant.

(e) A t m o s p h e r i c P r e s s u r e . A l t h o u g h it m i g h t be e x p e c t e d that a r e d u c e d
atmospheric pressure would aid the separation of the fine particles which are
m o r e s u s c e p t i b l e to d r a g forces, e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s s h o w e d t h a t t h e
separation of these particles was only slightly improved. However, there was
a marked improvement in the s e p a r a t i o n of the c o a r s e r p a r t i c l e s . It was
considered that the reduced atmospheric pressure had a greater effect on the
electrical charging characteristics than on the drag behavior [17].

(fl N o n - c o n d u c t i n g Rotors. By c o a t i n g the c o n d u c t i n g rotor with an oxide

layer, the r o t o r b e c o m e s a s e m i c o n d u c t o r , and it is possible to separate
materials of relatively high conductivity from each other. As was discussed
in P a r t II [I], s e m i c o n d u c t o r s in contact with a conductor have different
conductivities in different d i r e c t i o n s : s p e c i f i c a l l y , the c h a r g e c a r r i e r s
exhibit maximum conductivity when flowing from the semiconductor to the metal.
Thus, because n- and p-type semiconductors have different charge carriers, if
346 E . G . KELLY and D. J. SPOTTISWOOD

the particles to be separated are a mixture of n- and p-type semiconductors,

then, depending on the charge induced on the p a r t i c l e s , one m a t e r i a l w i l l
b e h a v e as a c o n d u c t o r , w h i l e the o t h e r w i l l b e h a v e as a n o n - c o n d u c t o r ,
allowing a separation [18] [19].

Treatment Circuits.

(a) S i n g l e Stage Separation. It is a general rule that separations tend to

become (in qualitative terms) less efficient as the particle size decreases.
Compared to o t h e r s e p a r a t o r s treating equivalent sized particles,
electrostatic separators tend to be less efficient. This can be attributed
m a i n l y to the fact that in real e l e c t r o s t a t i c s e p a r a t o r s , even s i m i l a r
particles are not charged to the same degree. This occurs for a variety of
reasons. Some h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n implied, and m a n y of the o t h e r s can be
attributed to the practical problems of engineering an actual process. The
p r a c t i c a l o u t c o m e is that a single s e p a r a t o r does not give a c o m p l e t e
separation, with the result that retreatment of the products, often a number
of times, is u s u a l l y n e c e s s a r y . By i n c o r p o r a t i n g such r e t r e a t m e n t , the
overall separation achieved by electrostatic separation can be quite high; it
is only the stage separation that is relatively poor.

It has been established that separations that require a number of stages, with
a relatively small separation at each stage, can be represented by a simple
probability concept [7][8]

mi = mi,i(1 _ p)N (18)

where mi, I is the mass fraction of a given component i in the feed stream, m~
is the mass fraction remaining in the stream after N stages of treatment, an~
P is the probability of leaving the stream at any stage. Equation 18 can be
rearranged to

log(mi/mi, I) = N log(1 - P) (19)

Hence a semilog plot of the mass change of the component i through a series of
stages a l l o w s P to be evaluated. In some cases, the semilog plot becomes
nonlinear after a number of stages. This is normally due to the fact that the
feed has not b e e n c o n s i d e r e d as a s u f f i c i e n t number of components. Most
commonly, middlings particles behave differently, and particle size may also
exert a sufficiently strong secondary effect to justify the consideration of
separate size fractions [7].

C l e a r l y the p r o b a b i l i t y P m u s t be d e p e n d e n t on m a n y operating variables.

Fraas [8] showed that its dependence on voltage could be described by

P = K1.1og V - K 2 (20)

where K. and K 9 are constants. While values of P greater than one and less
than zero have ~ o meaning, and values close to these limits would be prone to
error, it must be appreciated that even the values of the constants in Eq. 20
are themselves dependent on experimental conditions; for example, the splitter
settings have a significant effect on whether or not a particle is collected
as a "conductor" or "nonconductor".

(b) R e c y c l e . B e c a u s e of the i n c o m p l e t e s e p a r a t i o n in a single stage,

practical o p e r a t i o n s i n v o l v e recycle. It is p o s s i b l e to d i v i d e s t a g e
separations into three basic operations: roughing, cleaning, and scavenging.

The first stage in any s e p a r a t i o n is r o u g h i n g . In principle it aims to

r e c o v e r l i b e r a t e d v a l u a b l e into a r o u g h e r c o n c e n t r a t e . However, this
c o n c e n t r a t e w i l l also c o n t a i n m i s p l a c e d particles, and consequently it is
retreated in a c l e a n e r stage, w h i c h itself p r o d u c e s a c o n c e n t r a t e and a
tailings. The cleaner concentrate emphasizes grade, and should in principle
contain liberated v a l u a b l e only. In some cases this may not occur, and
a d d i t i o n a l stages of reoleaning may be necessary to achieve this objective.
The cleaner railings, while supposedly containing the misplaced particles that
p a s s e d to t h e c l e a n e r from the rougher, now itself c o n t a i n s m i s p l a c e d
particles of liberated valuable that should be in the c l e a n e r c o n c e n t r a t e .
Hence, the c l e a n e r t a i l i n g s is r e c y c l e d to the rougher stage to give the
particles another opportunity to pass to their c o r r e c t exit. The r o u g h e r
t a i l i n g s , w h i l e c o n t a i n i n g some m i s p l a c e d p a r t i c l e s , also c o n t a i n s true
tailings (gangue) particles, as well as true middlings particles. The rougher
 The theory of electrostatic separations 347

t a i l i n g s is t h e r e f o r e treated in a s c a v e n g e r stage, w h i c h aims to m a x i m i z e

r e c o v e r y by c o l l e c t i n g the m i s p l a c e d liberated valuable, and m i d d l i n g s . In
p r i n c i p l e , t h e m i d d l i n g s should be s u b j e c t e d to size r e d u c t i o n to i n c r e a s e
their liberation, o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t r e c y c l i n g will simply cause them to e x i t
either in the tailings (lowering the recovery) or in the c o n c e n t r a t e (lowering
the grade).

W h e r e the feed is h i g h l y liberated, and the d e g r e e of s e p a r a t i o n is not very

high in a single stage, the o p e r a t i o n may not be this complex. Often with
electrostatic separations, the circuit can be c o n s i d e r e d to be a rougher
followed by a series of scavengers. The splitter on the first rougher stage
is set so that a very high grade c o n c e n t r a t e is d r a w n off. The railings then
pass through what is e f f e c t i v e l y a s c a v e n g i n g stage, but again the splitter is
set so that a high grade c o n c e n t r a t e is d r a w n off and is added to the p r e v i o u s
concentrate. In turn, the s c a v e n g e r tailings is sent to a further scavenger.

Clearly, the circuit adopted depends m a r k e d l y on the r e l a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s of

r e c o v e r i n g the d i f f e r e n t c o m p o n e n t s at e a c h s t a g e , the l i b e r a t i o n of the
components, a n d the r e q u i r e m e n t s of c o n c e n t r a t e and tailings grade. Final
s e l e c t i o n of a circuit is difficult. Not only does it involve e x t e n s i v e test
w o r k to e v a l u a t e o p e r a t i n g parameters; there is also the more complex issue of
o p t i m i z i n g a process w h o s e o p e r a t i o n d e p e n d s on two c o n f l i c t i n g p a r a m e t e r s ,
grade and recovery. An i n t r o d u c t i o n to these issues is a v a i l a b l e in texts on
m i n e r a l p r o c e s s i n g [7].

NOMENCLATURE

D = rotor d i a m e t e r (m)

dv = particle (volume) d i a m e t e r (m)

E = e l e c t r i c field i n t e n s i t y (V/m)

F = force (N)

F c = c e n t r i f u g a l force (N)

F d = d r a g force (N)

F = e l e c t r i c a l force (N)
e
F g = gravitational force (N)

F i = image force (N)

FI, d = lifting factor for drum type separator

Fp = p i n n i n g factor for high t e n s i o n separator

fd = the drag c o e f f i c i e n t

fn(E} = a f u n c t i o n of the e l e c t r i c field

H = relative humidity

K = constant

K 1 = p a r t i c l e leakage c o n s t a n t

Km = c e n t r i f u g a l force constant, Eq. 13

K s = c h a r g i n g shape factor

m i = mass f r a c t i o n r e m a i n i n g after N stages

mi, I = mass f r a c t i o n of c o m p o n e n t i in feed stream

N = number

P = probability

ME 2/~.--D
348 E . G . KELLY and D. J. SPOTTISWOOD

Q = total charge (C)

Qmax = maximum free charge on the surface of a particle (C)

q = isolated small charge (C)

R = rotor radius (m)

r = distance between charges (m)

T = temperature (OK)

t = time (s)

V = voltage (V)

V c = energy of lower level of c o n d u c t i o n band (eV)

V d = energy of donor level (eV)

v~ = terminal velocity (m/s)

= rotor angular velocity (rad/s)

B @ = angles

At = time (s) taken for the charge to fall to a level where the image
force no longer pins the particle

Ps = density of the particle (kg/m 3)

= conduction (S/m)

= conduction constant (S/m)

o
= relative conductivity
r

REFERENCES

I. Kelly, E.G. and Spottiswood, D.J., The Theory of Electrostatic

Separations: A Review, Pt II. Minerals Engn 8. 2/2 (1989)

2. G a u d i n , A.M., The P r i n c i p l e s of E l e c t r i c a l Processing with Particular

A p p l i c a t i o n to Electrostatic Separation, Miner. Sci. Engng , 3 46-57 (1971)

3. Barthelemy, R . E . a n d M o r a , R.G., E l e c t r i c a l High Tension Minerals

Beneficiation: Principles and Technical Aspects, Paper 36 in Vth Int Min
Proc Congress 757-773, IMM, London (1960)

4. Mora, R.G., Study of Electrical Concentration of Minerals, Thesis, Mass.

Inst Tech, (1958)

5. Vereshchagin, I.P., K r i v o v , S.A., and Morozov, V.S., Electrical Force

A c t i n g on a P a r t i c l e at an Electrode, Power Engineering (NY) 22 80-87
(1984)

6. Kelly, E.G., and Spottiswood, D.J., The Theory of E l e c t r o s t a t i c

Separations: A Review, Pt. I Minerals Engn 8. 2/I 33-46 (1989)

7. K e l l y , E.G., and Spottiswood, D.J., Introduction to Mineral Processing

491pp, Wiley Interscience, New York (1982)

8. F r a a s , F., Electrostatic Separation of Granular Materials. US Bureau of

Mines Bul. 603 Ch.4 35-50 (1962)

9. Hopstock, D.M., Analysis of t h e P e r f o r m a n c e of a R o t a i n g Drum

Electrostatic Separator, Presented at AIME Annual Meeting (1971)

10. Bullock, H.L., Quartz - Gangue or Mineral: the Effect Of Temperature on

its Electrostatic Separation, Trans SME/AIME 241 367-371 (1968)
 The theory of electrostatic separations 349

11. Parks, G.A., Jindal, B.K., and Anderson, J.H., Temperature and Humidity in
Electrical Separation of Oxide Minerals, Trans S M E / A I M E 451-457 (1966)

12. Kakovsky I.A., and Revnivtzev, V.I., Effects of Surface Conditioning on

the Electrostatic Separation of Minerals of Low Conductivity, Paper 37,
Vth Int. Min. Proc. Cong. 775-786, IMM, London (1960)

13. Aplan F.F. and Fensterer, R.A., Point Defect Effects in the Electrostatic
Separation of Nickel Oxide, I&EC Yunds 11 274-276 (1972)

14. Fraas, F., Irreversable Changes in Response of Minerals to Electrostatic

Separation After Heating, US Bureau of Mines Report of I n v e s t i g a t i o n s 5542
26pp (1959)

15. Pearse M.J. and Pope, M.I., The Triboelectric Separation of Quart-Calcite
and Quartz-Apatite Powders After Chemical Conitioning, Powder Tech. 17
pp83-89 (1977)

16. Inculet, I.I., Quigley, R.M., and Beisser, E.M.J., Electrostatic Charges
on Clays, IEEE Trans Ind. Appl. IA-21 23-25 (1985)

17. Carta, M., Ferrara, G.F., Del Fa', C., and Alfano, G., Contribution to the
Electrostatic Separation of Minerals, VIIth Int. Con E. Min. Proc. 427-446
(1964)

18. Fraas, F., Electrostatic Separation of High-Conductivity Minerals, US

Bureau of Mines Report of I n v e s t i g a t i o n s 6404 (1964)

19. Spearin, E.Y., Simkovich, G., and Aplan F.F., Rectifying Junctions in
Electrostatic Separations, Ch 33 in A d v a n c e s in Mineral P r o c e s s i n g P.
Somasundaran (Ed), SME/AIME, Littleton, CO (1986)