Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979

This article is also available online at:

www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Characterizing and recovering the platinum group

minerals––a review
Z. Xiao *, A.R. Laplante
Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering Department, McGill University, Wong Building, 3610 University Street,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B2
Received 16 February 2004; accepted 1 April 2004

Abstract
Methods of characterizing and recovering the platinum group minerals are reviewed in this paper. First, a classification of
platinum group minerals (PGMs) ore types is briefly introduced, followed by the introduction of some representative platinum
group minerals. Second, the sample preparation techniques for mineralogy studies are presented, followed by a brief introduction of
instruments used for characterizing PGMs. Third, the mineralogy of specific ores amenable to gravity, flotation and the flowsheet
for recovering platinum group minerals in several mills of interest are discussed in details. Finally, new research trends of recovering
PGMs and conclusions are briefly presented.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations: BMS, base metal sulphides; BSE, backscattered electrons; CMC, carboxymethyl cellulose; EDX, energy dispersive X-ray analyser;
ESEM, environmental scanning electron microscopy; GRG, gravity recoverable gold; GRPGMs, gravity recoverable platinum group minerals;
LIMS, laser ionization mass spectrometer microscopy; MLA, mineral liberation analyser; PGEs, platinum group elements; PGMs, platinum group
minerals; QEMScan, quantitative evaluation of materials by scanning electron; ROM, run of mine; SE, secondary electrons; SEM, scanning electron
microscopy; SIMS, secondary ion mass spectrometer; VP-SEM, variable pressure scanning electron microscopy
Keywords: Precious metal ores; Ore mineralogy; Gravity concentration; Flotation

1. Introduction two groups compared to the specific gravity of gold.

The six platinum group elements (PGEs); ruthenium
(Ru), rhodium (Rh), palladium (Pd), osmium (Os),
iridium (Ir) and platinum (Pt), together with gold and
silver have been considered to be ‘‘precious’’ metals.
Platinum was first discovered in the 16th century in the
Choco district of Columbia (McDonald, 1960). Palla-
dium, rhodium, osmium and iridium were all discovered
in 1803, some 300 years after platinum. The last plati-
num group element discovered was ruthenium.
All six of the platinum group metals are silvery white
lustrous metals, although osmium has a bluish tinge.
They are all sufficiently ductile and malleable to be
drawn into wire, rolled into sheet or formed by spinning
and stamping. These six elements can be classified into
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhixian.xiao@mail.mcgill.ca (Z. Xiao).
0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2004.04.001
These elements in the group lighter than gold are
ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium, with specific
gravities around 12.0–12.4. Those elements in the group
heavier than gold are osmium, iridium, and platinum
with the specific gravity in the range of 21–22.5. The
elements of the later group also have a higher atomic
number of 76, 77, and 78 respectively.
Valuable for their resistance to corrosion and oxida-
tion, high melting points, electrical conductivity, and
catalytic activity, these elements have wide industrial
applications. The major uses are found in the chemical,
electrical, electronic, glass, and automotive industries.
However, the application of platinum group elements in
the automotive industry is fairly recent, resulting from
emission-control legislation in the USA. The exhaust
gases are passed over a catalyst that contains Pt, Pd
and Rh in the ratio 67:26:7, which converts the hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide to harm-
less emissions. The approximate quantity of platinum
group metals per automobile is 2.4 g. With the emission
962 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979

control legislation widely passed and Kyoto protocol 2. Classification of PGEs ores
accepted in more countries, the demand for PGEs will
significantly increase. In the glass industry, the high Various methods (such as the mineralogical data,
melting points of the PGEs and their resistance to the chromite content, grade of PGEs, and sulphur content,
abrasive nature of molten glass are utilized for produc- etc.) are used to classify PGEs ores. A combination of
ing high-quality optical glasses. Due to their rarity, PGEs content and mode of geological occurrence to
platinum and palladium are widely used as jewellery in classify ore types has been adopted from the classifica-
the world. In the chemical industry, PGEs are used tion presented in CIM Special Volume 23: Platinum
extensively as catalysts, as well as in chemical and in Group Elements––Mineralogy, Geology, Recovery
laboratory equipment such as crucibles, forceps, com- (Edited by Louis Cabri) (Cole and Ferran, 2002). The
bustion vessels and filters. Palladium is predominant in information presented in this section was largely
the electro-mechanical industry, relying on its resistance assembled from Chapters 10 and 11 of that volume.
to corrosion for its application in connectors, sensors, Generally, PGEs ores are grouped into three primary
and relays. On the medical side, platinum has found classes according to this method (Fig. 1):
application in the prophylactic and therapeutic aspects
of both human and veterinary science. The PGEs can 1. PGEs dominant ores––those ores are exploited pri-
also be used as coating materials on computer disks and marily for their PGEs content, other associated met-
the polished samples for scanning electron microscopy als, such as Cu, Ni and Co, produced as by-products.
(SEM). The economic values of the PGEs are, in general,
Major PGEs’ reserves and production are in South major in comparison to the by-product values.
African, with Russia taking the second place and Can- 2. Ni–Cu dominant ores––those ores mined primarily
ada the third. South Africa production centers on the for the value of Ni and Cu. The PGEs are produced
Bushveld Complex, the platinum group minerals bear- as by-products. Usually, the economic importance of
ing ores being primarily mined for the recovery of these PGEs in these ores is minor. However, they can, in
metals. Canada’s PGEs are by-products of nickel–cop- some cases, become the very important ‘‘deciding fac-
per mining, primarily from Falconbridge’s and Inco’s tors’’ for project economics.
deposits in the Sudbury area. 3. Miscellaneous ores––these ores contain very low
Historically, little information relating to the mining PGEs concentration compared to the previous two
and processing of the PGM ore can be obtained due to types of ores. The value of PGEs is little or no eco-
the combined geographic and academic isolation of the nomic advantage compared to the primary product.
world’s primary PGE producers. Further, the PGEs Typically, little is known about the distribution and
industry’s strict corporate-secrecy policies blocked the recovery of the PGEs in these ores (Fig. 1).
research cooperation with academic research group.
This veil of secrecy is now slowly lifting. Recently, the
stronger demand for PGEs (Johnson Matthey, 2002),
the economic and strategic importance of PGEs is
fuelling the exploration and development efforts in the
precious metals mining sector. More geologists began
looking for PGEs for the first time in their careers
(Freeman, 2003), more PGMs companies are now will-
ing to put more effort and cooperate with academic
groups on the research of improving the recovery of
PGMs.
Much work has been done on the flotation recovery
of PGMs from primary ores (Cole and Ferron, 2002).
Recently, more concerted efforts are made to study the
mineralogy of PGEs and use gravity or flash flotation to
improve PGE recoveries in the process of nickel–copper
dominant ores. This is strongly desirable for Canada’s
ore types because virtually all PGEs are produced as
by-products of nickel–copper dominant ores. Due to
mineralogical studies playing an important role in
optimizing and improving the PGEs recovery in the
nickel–copper ores. This paper will review the methods
for characterizing and recovering PGEs in various ore
types in the world. Fig. 1. PGEs ore type classification (Cole and Ferron, 2002).
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
2.1. PGEs dominant ores
2.1.1. Merensky type
Dr. Hans Merensky discovered the platinum-bearing
horizon in South Africa that was to bear his name. In
general the Merensky type deposits are layered with
disseminated sulphides. The total sulphides content is
fairly low. In some cases, the PGEs are associated with
chromites as well as sulphides. Some examples of this
type of deposits are the Merensky ‘‘reef’’ and the Great
Dyke in Zimbabwe (Cole and Ferron, 2002). The Still-
water complex is thought to be similar in nature to the
Merensky type deposit (Zientek et al., 2002).
2.1.2. Chromite type
There is a correlation between chromite and PGEs
mineralization. Two types of chromite deposits are
economically or potentially economically significant.
Stratiform chromite deposits occur in the Bushveld
complex (UG2) reef, the Great Dyke, the Stillwater
complex (Lower Chromitites), and the Muskox intru-
sion (Northwest Territories). All are known to contain
PGE concentrations.
2.1.3. Placer type
These deposits include alluvial, eluvial and Alaskan
derived type deposits. The alluvial and eluvial deposits
are typically derived from weathered ultramafic rocks.
Typically, the PGEs occur as Pt rich alloys in the form
of loose grains or nuggets.
2.1.4. Dunite pipes
Dunite pipes occur in the eastern and western sections
of the Bushveld complex. These pipes have had reported
grades of up to 2000 g/t in some sections. The mineral-
ogy of the pipes differs greatly from the Merensky and
UG2 reefs in that the sulphides of the PGEs are rare.
Fifty percent of the PGEs are presented as Pt–Fe alloys;
a further 30% of the PGEs are presented as sperrylite
and greversite. The PGEs were mined out and recovered
using gravity recovery methods.
2.2. Ni–Cu dominant ore
Usually, PGEs are recovered as by-products and play
a ‘‘lesser’’ role in this ore type. Naldrett and Macdonald
(1980) classified the Ni–Cu dominant sulphides ore in
terms of their petro-tectonic setting. The following four
settings or classes account for more than 95% of known
Ni–Cu ores:
1. Class I: Nortitic rocks associated with an astrobleme
(scar resulting form meteorite impact). The only
known example of this type is the Sudbury mining
camp in Canada.
963
2. Class II: Intrusive equivalents of flood basalts associ-
ated with intracontinental rifting. The most impor-
tant example of this ore type is the Norilsk deposit
in Russia. The Duluth complex in Minnesota is an-
other example of this class of ore.
3. Class III: Magmatic activity accompanying the early
stages of formation of Precambrian greenstone belts.
Class III can be subdivided into two further classes.
Examples of this Class deposits include the Kola Pen-
insula, Lyn Lake, and Thompson and the Northern
tip of the Ungava Peninsula in Canada.
4. Class IV: Tholeiitic intrusions, generally synchronous
with orogenesis in Phanerozoic orogenic belts.
The PGEs in the ore types mentioned above occur
as discrete PGMs and in solid solution with metal
sulphides and to a lesser extent with gangue minerals.
PGEs recovery is not the prime driving force behind the
flowsheet development and optimization. However, in
recent years a concerted effort has been made to study
the mode of loss for the PGEs and to attempt to recover
more PGEs into the Cu and Ni concentrates.
2.3. Miscellaneous ores
These are ores in which the PGEs are difficult to re-
cover due to low concentration and PGEs present
mostly in solid solution with other minerals. The PGEs
are considered ‘‘accessory’’ metals and the deposits are
not mined for the sake of the PGEs and in some cases
the PGEs are not recovered as a by-product.
3. Platinum-group minerals
Unlike gold and major base metals, which form a
fairly small number of minerals, there are 109 PGM
species recognized by the International Mineralogical
Association (IMA), ranging from sulphides (i.e. bragg-
ite, (Pt,Pd)S) to tellurides (i.e. maslovite, PtBiTe), anti-
monides (i.e. sudburyite, PdSb) to arsenides (i.e.
sperrylite, PtAs2 ), and alloys (i.e. ferroplatinum alloy)
to native species (i.e. native Pt nuggets). Table 1 lists
some of the PGMs extracted from Cabri’s two books:
‘‘Platinum-Group Elements: Mineralogy, Geology,
Recovery’’ (1981) and ‘‘The Geology, Geochemistry,
Mineralogy and Mineral Beneficiation of Platinum-
Group Elements’’ (2002) which gives more details about
the PGMs. Apart from the multitude of PGMs, their
associations are also diverse. The three main minerals
associated with PGMs are pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, and
pentlandite, such as in the South African Merensky reef
deposit. The UG-2 reef contains low concentrations of
copper- and nickel-bearing sulphides and a large
amount of chromite (FeCr2 O4 ). In the Stillwater J-M
reef ore body (USA), the principal sulphide minerals are
964 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979

Table 1
Some PGMs minerals properties (Cabri, 2002)
Name Ideal formula General appearance Density (g/cm3 ) Hardness (mohs)
(calculated)
Borovskite Pd3 SbTe Isolated grains up to 0.2 mm included in pyrrhotite 8.25 N/A
and chalcopyrite
Braggite (Pt,Pd)S Fractured grains up to 8 mm long 9.36 5
Cherepanovite RhAs Grains and their aggregates up to 0.1 mm 9.72 Brittle
Cooperite PtS Euhedral to anhedral micrometer to 1.5 mm grains 10.10 4–4.5
Foodite PdBi2 Grains up to about 1 mm 11.62 Brittle
Genkinite (Pt,Pd)4 Sb3 Irregular grains from <0.005 up to about 0.165 9.26 5.5
mm
0.165 mm in size
Geversite PtSb2 As small drop like inclusion 10.91 4.5–5
Insizwaite PtBi2 As small rounded grains up to 120 lm 12.86–13.59 5
Isoferroplatinum Pt3 Fe In placer deposits occurs as various size nuggets, 18.23 N/A
usually containing chromite and many other mineral
inclusion, varying from flakes to nugget size
Kotulskite PdTe Occurs as small rounded to anhedral inclusions in 9.18–10.54 N/A
sulphides or intergrown with other PGM
Laurite RuS2 Grains and crystals from 0.0001 to few mm 6.39-6.43 7
Maslovite PtBiTe Grain up to 0.120 mm in size 11.23 4–5
Merenskyite PdTe2 As minute grains, intimately intergrown with other 8.30 3.5–4
PGM, or as single-phase inclusions
Michenerite PdBiTe Grains from 0.0001 to 2 mm 9.81 4–4.5
Moncheite PtTe2 Crystals up to 1 mm and minute grains 10.24 3.5
Palladoarsenide Pd2 As Long and irregular grains 10.59 4.5
Sperrylite PtAs2 Micrometer to centimeter size crystals and rounded 10.8 6–7 Brittle
grains
Stillwaterite Pd8 As3 Grains up to 0.12 mm
0.265 mm 10.95 4.5–5
Sudburyite PdSb Elongated inclusions up to 55 lm
120 lm 9.41 4–4.5
Tetraferroplatinum PtFe Irregular grains, rims on other Pt–Fe grains 15.81 N/A
Vysotskite PdS As intergrowths and lensoid inclusions in other 6.74 N/A
sulphides
Ruthenium Ru The type material occurred as tabular grains 12.2 6.5
(35 lm
7 lm)
Rhodium Rh A grain from 0.175 to 0.195 mm in cross-section 16.5 3.5
Palladium Pd Commonly as loose grains, sometimes with a radial 12.0 4.5–5
fibrous texture
Osmium Os Occurs as inclusions in Pt–Fe alloys 22.1 7
Iridium Ir Occurs as exsolutions in Pt–Fe alloys 22.2 6–6.5
Platinum Pt In placer deposits, it occurs as various size nuggets 19.1 4–4.5

chalcopyrite, CuFeS2 , and pentlandite, (Ni,Fe)9 S8 . Most
platinum minerals are associated with the copper sul-
fides and palladium with the nickel sulfides. The ore also
contains less than 1% quartz but significant amounts of
talc and serpentine (MgO). Platinum was long known to
exist in the arsenide form (sperrylite, PtAs2 ) in nickel–
copper sulfides in the Sudbury area.
Pentlandite and chalcopyrite are generally well
recovered (depending on their particle size and degree of
liberation), as are any PGEs in their lattice (i.e. in solid
solution) or present in PGM blebs they may contain.
PGEs present as blebs or in solid solution in pyrrhotite
may or may not be recovered. For example, in the
Sudbury basin, pyrrhotite is now largely rejected to
minimize smelting costs and environmental pollution.
The pyrrhotite contains significant amounts of nickel
(anywhere from 0.4% to 0.8%) and accounts for most of
the nickel losses in the Sudbury area.
The extremely low concentration of PGMs, their fine
size distribution, the difficulty in their detection and
identification, and sample representativity are typical
problems when carrying out the mineralogical study
on PGMs. In a word, the range of minerals present,
their relative densities, shape, particle size, and associ-
ations present a challenge to the metallurgist in design-
ing and optimizing the extraction process. The various
ore types (end members) of typical ore bodies each with
its own metallurgical response will heighten this chal-
lenge.
All of the PGM species in Table 1 are listed with their
ideal formula, although composition may vary locally.
The general occurrence is depicted based on where the
individual PGM has been first reported (Cabri, 2002).
The calculated density and hardness listed here are
critical factors regarding gravity recovery, grinding and
classification behavior.
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
4. Applied/process mineralogy and sampling preparation
techniques using pre-concentration of the PGMs
Petruk (2000) defined applied mineralogy as the
application of mineralogical information to understand
and solve problems encountered during processing of
ores and concentrates. It involves characterizing min-
erals and interpreting the data with respect to mineral
processing. When processing problems are due to the
mineralogical characteristics of the ore and/or process
products, mineralogical data should be generated to
solve this problem.
Henley (1983) reviewed process mineralogy as an
integration of mineral processing and mineralogy. In his
review, a flowsheet starting from orebody exploration
through to optimization of plant operation was pro-
posed. An actual plant flowsheet was developed based
on mineralogical information, laboratory, and pilot
plant testing. After commissioning of the plant, an
optimization program was continued for second and
subsequent iterations of this study. These interactions
extended beyond new samples of drill core and into
samples taken from the operating plant.
There is relationship between ore mineralogy and
metallurgical performance in a plant (Petruk and
Hughson, 1977; Cabri, 1981; Henley, 1983). Not only
does the ore mineralogy play a critical role on the
recovery method chosen but also dictate the process
flowsheet for different PGEs ore types and for plant
flowsheet optimization.
How can the mineralogical information obtained be
as precise as possible? Many techniques for determining
mineral characteristics have been developed in the last
three decades. They were used to acquire the necessary
mineralogical information and these include scanning
electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive
X-ray analyzer (SEM/EDX) or wavelength dispersive
X-ray analyzer (SEM/WDX), variable-pressure (or
low-vacuum) scanning electron microscope (VP-SEM),
electron probe micro-analyzer (EPMA), X-ray diffrac-
tion (XRD), quantitative evaluating material by scan-
ning electron microscope (QEM*SEM), and mineral
liberation analyzer (MLA). These techniques will be
discussed briefly in the following chapter.
Maximum recovery with acceptable grade is a con-
stant goal for operators and producers. Knowledge of
ore characteristics that affect metal recoveries can help
in achieving this goal. Although ore characteristics can
be determined by mineralogical technologies as men-
tioned above, there is a distinct problem when charac-
terizing the PGMs in an ore, which is from their
extremely low grade (often less than 1–2 g/t). The
magnitude of finding PGMs in a polished section may
be compared to find a needle in a haystack (Cabri,
1981). Fortunately, this problem can be solved or re-
duced by using some pre-concentration techniques such
965
as gravity methods, magnetic or flotation or these
methods combined.
Upgrading of PGMs is effected mainly by gravity
methods due to their high specific gravity, such as jig-
ging, panning, and heavy liquid separation (Cabri,
1981).
Zhou and Zhang (1975) gave a detailed account of
their comminution and separation techniques for a
PGMs-bearing chromite ore. Their method involved a
large sample size of 1060 kg. The original sample was
processed as follows: coarse, medium, and fine crushing;
splitting out a 1000-kg sample for grinding and sieving
(grinding was used to liberate enough minerals for
subsequent concentration), with the balance split further
for chemical analyses and storage. The final product,
reported to contain only 5% unliberated PGMs, was
distributed as follows: 37% +150 lm, 17% )150 + 106
lm, 4.2% )106 + 100 lm, 2.8% )100 + 74 lm, and 39%
)74 lm. Then the ground and sized samples were pro-
cessed with a high frequency superpanner (320–800
vibration/min). The first concentrates were considered to
be the PGMs concentrates. The second concentrates and
middlings were ground further and the superpanner was
used to recover more. The PGMs concentrates were
combined with the first concentrates. Chromite con-
centrates, middling, and tailings were also obtained
from this operation. They reported a 50% recovery of
PGMs with the superpanner, increasing to more than
70% for high-grade samples. The PGMs and chromite
concentrates were then subjected to magnetic separa-
tion, first with a weak current to remove any strongly
magnetic minerals (including some PGEs-alloys) and
subsequently with increasing current. Finally, a selective
dissolution and heavy liquid separations were used for
further separation to obtain the final PGMs and chro-
mite concentrates.
Although this method used a large sample to achieve
a higher degree of representation, the reported recovery
was only 50% (up to 70% for some higher grade ore).
The size distribution of PGMs, and some information
about source of PGMs, such as PGE-alloys, was lost
due to the selective dissolution process. This procedure
is also extremely time consuming.
Cabri and Laflamme (1976) and Cabri (1981) devel-
oped a different mineral separation technique––heavy
media elutriation to separate small samples (less than
500 g) of unconsolidated rock or mill samples. They
tested this new recovery method on a sized synthetic
samples of sperrylite mixed with purified and sized
pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and pentlandite. They reported
that excellent recoveries were obtained down to about
53 lm, but recoveries fell off steeply in fractions finer
than 53 lm.
The inability to recover sperrylite below 53 lm, as
well as the relatively small masses processed, must be
considered significant handicaps for this approach.
966 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
Another sample preparation method was developed
by Williamson and Savage (1965). The Witwatersrand
Au-U fossil placers contain small quantities of by-
product PGEs, and the PGMs are considerably finer
than those of usual placers, partly due to the grinding of
the ore to 80% less than 74 lm (Reimer, 1979). There-
fore, Williamson and Savage used flotation on 25-lbs
(11.33 kg) lots of gravity concentrates. Final cleaning
operations were carried out in an 800-gm Fagergren cell.
They reported that the Ir–Os–Ru alloys float indiffer-
ently at a neutral or alkaline pH, floating readily at a pH
of 1.5–3.5. Their recovery in PGEs was reported to be
close to 100%, as determined by adding known quanti-
ties of irradiated ‘‘osmiridium’’. The final pyrite-rich
flotation concentrate was still too large (2–4% of origi-
nal weight) for their purposes, so they used pyrometal-
lurgical techniques to remove the pyrite. Although their
method reported 100% flotation recovery, the response
of the fine PGEs to gravity was not reported or char-
acterized.
Sizgoric (1985) developed a method of locating and
identifying PGMs in fine-grained crushed samples. This
method consists of systematic searching of the samples
using the back-scattered electron detector of a scanning
electron microscope. Usually, the ores containing PGEs
are pre-concentrated by using gravity separation.
However, most of Inco’s mill samples are much too fine-
grained to respond to regular gravity separation facility
as cited in his paper; in many cases, over 80% of the
platinum in the samples occurs in particles smaller that
38 lm (400 mesh). Because the milling has not com-
pletely separated the PGMs form the other minerals,
Sizgoric (1985) thought the pre-concentration of the
combination of gravity and heavy liquid was not feasible
in this case.
In his method, the whole sample was examined with
SEM without pre-concentration. The procedures are
briefly described as following: the sample is thoroughly
mixed and a representative portion is sent for Pt, Pd and
Au analyses. The rest of the sample is wet screened, and
a representative portion of each size fraction is sent for
Pt, Pd and Au assays. A number of epoxy polished
section mounts are made of each size fraction for the
SEM work. This number varies from two to eighteen
depending on the size of the particles and the PGEs
content of the size fraction. All polished sections are
Table 2
The weight of SF and HC of the primary ore and tailings (Knauf and Kozyrev, 2002)
Sample )250 + 90 lm
Primary ore SF ¼ 244 g,
HC ¼ 13 mg
Tailings SF ¼ 56 g,
HC ¼ 7 mg
scanned on the SEM in their entirety. The number of
particles inspected range from approximately 20,000 for
the coarsest (+100 lm) size fraction, to 1.5 million for
the finest (<10 lm) size fraction in each polished section.
This method was used to examine the tailings from
the Copper Cliff Mill. The encouraging results achieved
with these samples prompted the examination of mate-
rials from other streams in order to determine the origin
of the PGMs losses found in the tailings. Although this
method can determine the PGMs identity, size distri-
bution, and mineral associations, it is time consuming
and expensive, the results are only semi-quantitative.
With the development of gravity technology, such as
Knelson concentrator, the PGMs in finer size fractions
can be effectively recovered into concentrate.
Knauf and Kozyrev (2002) used the Knelson con-
centrator to study the mineralogy of Cu–Ni ore (both
the ore fed to KC and the tailings of KC operation).
They reported that when a primary ore about 40 kg with
a grain size class of 0.5 mm was fed to the KC, 80 g of
concentrate with the reduction coefficient (RC) equal to
530 was obtained.
The quarters of the primary ore and the KC tailings
were investigated using the ‘‘ppm-mineralogy’’ technol-
ogy: primary ore and tailings were separated by size
fraction (SF) of 250–90 lm, 90–37 lm and )37 lm.
Using a hydroseparator NATI with the reduction
coefficient of 18,000–72,000 for primary ore and 8000–
13,000 for tailings, 6 heavy concentrates (HC) were
extracted. The weights of SF and HC of the primary ore
and tailings are reproduced in Table 2:
Then, microprobe samples SF were prepared from
the heavy concentrates. The PGMs were identified and
their volumetric relations were measured.
They concluded that the large grains of PGMs are
effectively extracted: the grains larger than 70 lm are
extracted completely, the grains with in a size of 30–70
lm are extracted partially and the grains smaller than 30
lm are totally lost. They also concluded that the dis-
tribution of the PGMs by grain size yields all necessary
information for the choice of processing flowsheet for
PGMs extraction. They argued that pre-concentration is
very helpful for mineralogical investigation, while min-
eralogical data is one of the most important factors to
determine the processing route. Their approach yields
significant upgrading ratios, which would contribute to
)90 + 37 lm )37 lm
SF ¼ 146 g, SF ¼ 72 g,
HC ¼ 8 mg HC ¼ 1 mg
SF ¼ 37 g, SF ¼ 13 g,
HC ¼ 6 mg HC ¼ 0.4 mg
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
more reliable mineralogical examinations. However, the
partial PGM recovery below 75 lm and total lack of
recovery below 30 lm remains a serious problem.
Kojonen et al. (2003) studied the mineralogy of ore at
the Proterozoric Hitura Ni–Cu–PGEs deposit in Wes-
tern Finland. The Hitura Ni–Cu–PGEs ore is hosted by
serpentinized ultramafic intrusions. The ore types (end
members) include (1) fine grained sulphides dissemi-
nated in the serpentinite core, (2) medium-grained dis-
semination in the serpentinite and amphibole rock and
(3) high grade interstitial disseminated sulphides and
massive accumulations in the amphibole rock of the
contact zones.
Before doing mineralogical analysis, the PGMs were
enriched in laboratory conditions by a gravitational
hydro-separation method with a concentration factor
RC of 50,000:1. To avoid losses of PGMs grains, two
fractions of sulphides concentrate were separated by the
NATI method: grain size 71–32 lm weighting 85 g and
grain size )32 lm weighting 50 g, yielding PGMs con-
centrate 3 and 1 mg, respectively.
The gravitational enrichment of phases with density
more than 5–6 g/cm3 with a grain size 10–70 lm and RC
factor between 103 and 106 for many reasons excludes
the application of traditional enrichment techniques.
Therefore, a gravitational hydro-separator of original
engineering was used in ppm-mineralogy technique
(patented by ‘‘NATI’’ Research JSC., 1996, Russia).
These hydro-separators are reported to allow the
enrichment of ‘‘heavy’’ phases in a continuous mode
with RC factor up to 1000–5000, as well as in mode of
single batch separation of a sample up to 500 g with RC
factor up to 100,000.
The samples were then prepared for the heavy con-
centrates for SEM and EPMA study. The SEM is
mainly for the identity of PGMs minerals and the
EPMA for the quantitative analysis. Finally, they report
that PGMs discovered in the PGMs concentrate samples
are sperrylite, PtAs2 (81.1%), michenerite, PdBiTe
(6.6%), irarasite, IrAsS (1.9%), froodite, PdBi2 (6.9%),
hollingworthite, RhAsS (1.9%), and an undefined Rh,
Co, Ni sulpharsenide and an undefined Rh, Re mineral
(1.6%). Trace amounts of Pd averaging 37, 116 and 102
ppm were analyzed from pentlandite, niccolite and
gersdorffite, respectively. However, the information
about the PGMs liberation, the grain size of different
PGMs and the potential response to gravity recovery is
not available in their paper.
A test has been developed at McGill University to
characterize the gravity recoverable gold (GRG) of an
ore in terms of its total amount, size distribution, at
grind size at which it becomes liberated (Woodcock and
Laplante, 1993; Laplante, 2001). The procedure involves
a 3-stage sequential liberation and recovery of gold with
a 3-inch Knelson concentrator. At the final grind of 80%
)75 lm, as little as 3% and as much as 97% of the gold
967
has been recovered. All results are presented in a sized
basis (from )20 up to 850 lm). Examination of GRG
concentrates using an automated SEM technique, the
mineral liberation analyzer (MLA), has shown that be-
low 75 lm, gold particles recovered in stage 1 of the test
were very well liberated (Guerney et al., 2003). Particles
above 150 lm for stage 1 can have various degree of
liberation, concentrates from stages 2 and 3 were also
found to have a high degree of liberation. This test has
successfully characterized over 140 different ores the
GRG contents, which is one of the most important
parameters to justify the installation of a gravity circuit.
The GRG test can be used not only a measurement of a
potential response for gravity recovery but also a pre-
concentration method to study the gold mineralogy as it
undergoes liberation.
The three-stage GRG procedure may apply to the
platinum group minerals owing to the specific gravity of
some platinum group minerals. However, the test needs
to be modified to account for the fact that most of the
PGMs tend to report to fines size classes (Cabri, 1981;
Thurman and Allen, 1994) and have a lower specific
gravity than native gold. the modified procedure in-
cludes the standard GRG procedure, but a fourth
stage is added at higher rotating velocity (a fifth cycle
might be added to examine what’s lost in stage four).
The gravity recoverable platinum group minerals
(GRPGMs) test can be used not only for the justifica-
tion of installation of gravity circuit but also for the
preconcentration technique of mineralogical study
(Xiao and Laplante, 2003).
5. Instruments for characterizing PGMs in applied/
process mineralogy studies
There are a wide variety of instruments used for ap-
plied/process mineralogy: The optical microscope is used
to identify many minerals, to observe mineral textures,
and to determine mineral quantities by point counting.
X-ray diffractometer (XRD) is used to identify many
minerals with a high degree of certainty, and to quali-
tatively determine mineral contents in powdered mate-
rials. The development of the microprobe (MP) was a
giant progress in applied mineralogy. Not only can it
determine the major, minor, and trace contents of
minerals in polished sections, but also it can keep the
originality of the mineral grain. The developments of
SEM together with the energy dispersive X-ray analyzer
(EDX) enable the mineralogist to nearly instantly
identify mineral grains based on backscattered electron
images. The development of VP-SEM makes it easy to
do the analysis without the need to polish or coat the
polished sections. QEM*SEM developed by CSIRO and
MLA developed by JKMRC in Australia can per-
form fully automatic mineralogical analyses. Other
968 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
instruments can be used in applied mineralogy include
proton induced X-ray analyzer (PIXE), secondary ion
mass spectrometer (SIMS), and laser ionization mass
spectrometer (LIMS). In this literature review, only
SEM, VP-SEM, QEM*SEM and MLA are briefly pre-
sented as an introduction to the types of analyses used
worldwide recently.
5.1. Scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive
X-ray analyzer
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) is one of
the most versatile and widely used tools of modern sci-
ence as it allows the study of both the morphology and
composition of materials. Equipped with an energy
dispersive X-ray analyzer (EDX), it is used in applied/
process mineralogy to analyse the polished and/or thin
sections of samples, as well as unmounted pieces of
material (Petruk, 2000). By scanning an electron probe
across a specimen, high-resolution images of the mor-
phology or topography of a specimen, with great depth
of field, at very low or very high magnifications, can be
obtained. Therefore, the identities of most minerals, the
size and the relationships of mineral grains, and the
X-ray spectra that show the distributions of elements in
minerals can be obtained.
The SEM functions exactly as its optical counterparts
except that it uses a focused beam of electrons instead of
light to ‘‘image’’ the specimen and gain the necessary
information. The gun on the top of SEM column pro-
duces an electron beam under high vacuum. The elec-
tron beam, which is confined and focused by apertures
and magnetic lenses, is either scanned over the entire
sample, or is focused on a grain in the sample. The
sample, which is coated to prevent surface charging,
interact with the electron beam and further to produce
backscattered electrons (BSE), secondary electrons (SE),
X-rays and other signals. The SEM is generally equip-
ped with BSE, SE and EDX detectors to detect these
signals.
Backscattered electrons are incident electrons which
are scattered ‘‘backward’’ 180° when colliding with an
atom in the specimen. The production of BSE varies
directly with the mineral’s average atomic number. This
differential production rate causes higher average atomic
number minerals to appear brighter than lower average
atomic number ones. For example, most silicate miner-
als have lower average atomic number and appear dark
grey in BSE image. In contrast, some PGMs, i.e. sper-
rylite (PtAs2 ), michenerite (PdBiTe), maslovite (PtBiTe)
have a higher average atomic number and appear in
shades of light to white in BSE image. These features
can be used as a technique to search for PGMs minerals
in the BSE images of conventional SEM. Fig. 2 shows
the maslovite mineral BSE composition image; it is clear
that this PGMs particle appears brighter than other
Fig. 2. Backscattered electron images of Cu–Ni–PGEs ore. It shows
maslovite (Pt–Bi–Te) (white). This BSE image was produced with
15 keV accelerating voltage, and composition mode, the bar length is
20 lm.
minerals around it. However, the difference in the shades
of grey between the minerals can be either enhanced or
reduced by changing the contrast, brightness, voltage
and probe current on the SEM.
Secondary electrons are ionized electrons which leave
the atom with a very small energy (5 eV) when a incident
electron strikes an atom. Due to their low energy, only
secondary electrons that are very near the surface can
exit the sample and be examined. The SE images can
show a very good topographic effect of particle and
display details of surface irregularities much better.
However, the SE image is not as useful as the BSE image
for showing mineral distributions. The SE image can be
produced at a much lower current and voltage than is
required for the BSE image.
X-rays are caused by the de-energization of the
specimen atoms after secondary electrons are produced.
Since a lower energy electron was emitted from the atom
during the secondary electron process, a lower energy
shell now has a vacancy. A higher energy electron can
‘‘fall’’ into the lower energy shell, filling the vacancy. As
the electron ‘‘fall’’, it emits X-ray. Therefore, X-rays
have a characteristic energy that is unique to the element
from which it originated. These signals are detected with
the EDX detector. The minerals are identified by col-
lecting the X-ray signal. In other words, the EDX
detector sends the X-ray signal to the EDX analyser that
sorts the signal into the different elements present in
the particle, and into X-ray counts for each element. The
X-ray counts are recorded, and displayed as peaks.
Usually, the working distance is optimized to 15 mm
when doing X-ray analysis.
5.2. Variable pressure (low-vacuum) SEM
Variable pressure (low-vacuum) scanning electron
microscopy, generally more frequently called environ-
mental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM), is one of
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979 969

the latest developmental stages of electron beam

microscopy. It retains most of the performance advan-
tages of a conventional SEM, but removes the high
vacuum constraint on the sample environment. Wet,
oily, dirty, insulated samples may be examined in their
natural state without modification or preparation. This
high-pressure (low-vacuum) technique can stabilize the
insulator sample surface potential close to ground po-
tential during imaging even when high beam voltages up
to 20 kV or more are employed (Farley and Shah, 1988).
The basic difference between the conventional SEM and
ESEM is the pressure in the specimen chamber. For
conventional SEM (the column and specimen chamber
share the same vacuum) it amounts to 103 Pa and for
ESEM it can be as low as 103 Pa and as high as 103 Pa Fig. 3. Backscattered electron image of sperrylite (white) particle with
(Danilatos, 1991). low-vacuum SEM at working distance of 15 mm and 20 keV acceler-
ating voltage.
When the primary electron beam passes through the
gaseous medium of the specimen chamber, collisions of
the electrons with atoms and molecules of the gas occur.
As a result of these collisions, the electrons can loose
some portion of their energy and can change the direc-
tion of their propagation. A portion of the scattered
electrons, the so-called ‘‘skirt’’, does not contribute to
the image signal. It produces only the background
(noise) in the image. However, there exists some portion
of the electrons of the primary beam, which does not
scattered and is incident on the specimen in the spot.
This portion of electrons creates a useful image signal
with a sufficiently high resolution. The air in the sample
chamber is ionized by the primary electron beam, con-
ducting electricity sufficiently to allow the electrons ab-
sorbed by the sample to leak through the air to a ground
contract, so that no coating is needed, even at high
Fig. 4. Sperrylite (white) crystal obtained by gravity concentration,
accelerating voltages (Moncrieff et al., 1978).
BSE image with low-vacuum SEM at working distance of 15 mm and
The same signals as those in the conventional SEM 30 keV accelerating voltage.
can be detected. As mentioned above, wet sample can be
analysed so that a sample from slurry in a process
stream can be analysed within a very short time after it is Fig. 3 is the BSE image of a sperrylite particle found in
collected. The low-vacuum SEM system can easily the operation condition of 15 mm working distance and
change the pressure and accelerating voltage settings to 20 keV. Fig. 4 is a well-developed single sperrylite crystal
obtain good BSE images. (not a particle) obtained with 15 mm working distance
Robinson (1998) pointed out that the low-vacuum and 30 keV.
SEM is as fast and as easy to use as an optical micro-
scope for an experienced mineralogist. However, the 5.3. Quantitative evaluation of minerals by scanning
conventional SEM requires a coating, such as carbon, electron microscope (QEM*SEM)
gold and platinum, on the surface of polished section,
which is not always possible or desirable (Farley and The names QEMScan or QEM*SEM are usually
Shah, 1991). If a PGMs mineral is under study, then it exchangeable. The QEMScan was developed by CSIRO
can be only coated with carbon. Otherwise, it will give in Australia to provide an automatic, off-line, size-
some misunderstanding information about the PGMs. by-size and particle-by-particle mineralogical analysis of
A coating is not required when using the low-vacuum metallurgical products and exploration samples. It is
SEM. used widely in mineral processing to analyze ores and
In practice, to ensure that the losses in the number of mill products to obtain quantitative information about
primary beam electrons due to their collisions with the the distribution of minerals in plant and test prod-
molecules of gases are as low as possible, the working ucts. Currently, the QEMScan is used for ore charac-
distance must be optimized; usually it is set to 15 mm. terization, comminution, liberation analysis, process
970 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
optimization (efficient fine grained ore processing, par-
ticularly improved feed preparation and grinding opti-
mization), process modeling and plant problem solving.
This system actually uses a combination of back-
scattered electron (BSE) images and EDX analysis to
create an image of a sample based on chemical com-
position, and then X-ray is acquired based on the ima-
ges, finally, the mineral composition is obtained by
comparison with the database in the computer system.
The electron gun is steered within the image frame to
scan each particle and to obtain X-ray counts for 16
elements at designated pixel points within the particle.
The system uses four EDX detectors. The X-ray counts
for each element at each pixel position are sent to
computers. The computers compare the X-ray counts to
a reference mineral file to identify the mineral at each
pixel point. Each identified point is recorded in a file and
displayed on the CRT screen by a colour which repre-
sents the mineral. Calculations of the data with respect
to mineral processing are performed automatically, and
no further image analysis is performed (Pignolet-Bran-
dom and Reid, 1988; Reid and Pignolet-Brandom,
1988). It is reported that the QEMScan has three basic
modes of operation:
(1) Point scan, this is the most basic mode of QEMScan
operation, and is similar to a mineralogical point
count. EDX analyses are performed on a grid pat-
tern with equidistant points. Only modal abundance
information can be determined from this image.
(2) Line scan, the scan grid is set up so that points are
closely spaced in the X -direction and widely spaced
in the Y -direction.
(3) Area scan, points are closely spaced in both X and Y
directions, this mode is used to determine grind size
for liberation in feed samples, diluents in concen-
trates and losses in tailing samples.
QEMScan is highly automated to ensure reliable and
repeatable results. It is gradually accepted and operating
in many countries worldwide. It can perform quantita-
tive analysis more easily and automatically. However,
this system is much more expensive than SEM and
ESEM.
5.4. Mineral liberation analyzer
The mineral liberation analyzer was developed to
provide an automatic, off-line, size-by-size good quan-
titative mineralogy and liberation data for mineralogists
and processors to fully assess the orebody, improve the
plant recovery, and maintain the quality of product.
MLA is equipped with backscatter electron imaging
and EDX system, and combined with the MLA software
package, which enables liberation measurement, data
analysis and presentation. High speed and high-resolu-
tion BSE imaging, EDX analysis and image analysis
result in accurate mineral identification for particle
ranging from 2 to 600 lm. In briefest terms, the system
takes advantage of the capability of SEM to provide
consistent grey-levels for each mineral in BSE image of a
sample, different minerals with various average atomic
numbers will have different grey levels. The software
‘‘segments’’ the image into minerals, taking into account
cracks, other surface imperfections and ‘‘edge effect’’
around particles. The X-rays are used to confirm the
identity of each mineral.
The measurement system is automatic and capable of
measuring up to 14 samples overnight. Image analysis
occurs partly off-line and produced a database of min-
eralogical results and a set of colored mineral maps.
When doing liberation analysis, a database of quanti-
tative mineralogical information and software to pro-
duce tables and graphs such as mineral abundance as
volume and weight percent, calculated elemental assay,
and particle and mineral size distribution. When doing
rare phase searching, such as gold or a platinum group
mineral, each occurrence, to less than 1 mm in size, is
imaged at high-resolution and the associated minerals
are identified.
Most minerals can be uniquely identified from their
BSE signal strength. However, for minerals with simi-
lar BSE levels, the EDX is employed and the X-ray
spectra of just these minerals are stored with the BSE
data for off-line image segmentation. In all cases, once
subsequent image processing is complete, the SEM
can be driven back to view any desired particles by
mouse click in order to check mineral identification or to
obtain a photographic record of the original particle of
interest.
Because the output of mineral liberation statistics
obtained from the measurement can assist ore source
evaluation, circuit design and optimization, MLA is
accepted gradually by the mining community. Anglo
platinum officially announced the acquisition of their
third MLA in 2003.
6. Relationship between mineralogy and the recovery of
platinum-group elements from ores
Different platinum-group element deposits or ores
should be treated with different recovery methods
according to their mineralogical features and other
factors. The following briefly discusses several different
ores: those amenable to gravity separation, those ame-
nable to flotation, and those where platinum-group
elements are by-products of base metal sulphides. Most
of these following information are from the special
volume of ‘‘Platinum-Group Elements: Mineralogy,
Geology, Recovery’’ edited by Cabri (1981) and other
sources.
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
6.1. Ores amenable to gravity recovery
The mineralogical features of most importance in
those ores amenable to gravity separation are that the
platinum-group elements occur as minerals of high
density, that they are free or free milling, and that the
grain size distribution falls in the region where gravity
techniques can be applied successfully (Cabri, 1981b).
Ores in this category include magmatic Dunite or
Alaskan-type deposits, and alluvial, eluvial and fossil
placer deposits. With new gravity equipment developed,
more and more deposits can be classified into this cat-
egory.
Mineralogy: Primary PGEs deposits in Alaska-type
ultramafic rocks were found first in the Nizhnii–Tagil
district of the Ural Mountains in 1890 (Mertie, 1969).
The platinum-group minerals in this ore type are similar.
The principal PGMs is Pt–Fe alloys, mostly isoferro-
platinum (Pt3 Fe) and the next most common PGM is
platiniridium (Ir,Pt) according to Razin (1976). This
type of deposit also includes rare and very rare PGMs:
osmiridium (Ir,Os), iridosmine (Os,Ir), cooperite (PtS),
other Pt alloys, tulameenite (Pt2 FeCu), laurite (RuS2 )
tetraferroplatinum (PtFe) and irarasite (IrAsS). Most of
the Pt-Fe alloy grains in the Gusevogorskiy deposit are
smaller than 0.1 mm; however, grains as large as 3 mm
occur sporadically (Begizov et al., 1975).
Recovery method: The mineralized rock at this de-
posit is ground to )0.2 mm and then subjected to
magnetic separation followed by tabling (SK-1 con-
centration tables). The table concentrate is processed
again to produce a gravity concentrate in a hydro-
separator.
Prior to the 20th century, all PGEs were obtained
from alluvial deposits. The PGEs occur in these deposits
as alloys, usually Pt-rich, in the form of loose grains and
nuggets. There are virtually no published data on the
recovery of PGEs from placer mining due to lack of
mineralogical data.
Norilsk Mining Company is one of the biggest PGEs
producers in the world. According to a typical economic
classification, ores of the Norilsk deposits belong to a
group of sulphide copper–nickel ores with associated
PGEs mineralization (Blagodatin et al., 2000). This de-
posit is subdivided into three groups, namely, massive
(rich) ore, disseminated ore occurring in host rocks, and
stringer-disseminated ore occurring in intrusive host
rocks (Kozyrev et al., 2002). Another classification
method is adopted by Blagodatin et al. (2000): the ore is
divided into two groups, one sulphides copper–nickel
ores, and another platinum ores with associated non-
ferrous and rare metals, including all kinds of dissemi-
nated ores.
Mineralogy: PGEs content in major sulphides (pyr-
rhotite, pentlandite, and chalcopyrite) and the PGEs
occurrence in many varieties of disseminated ore have
971
been studied in Research Center of Norilsk Company.
The studies revealed that the bulk of platinum (90% or
more) is in the mineral form of cooperite (PtS), Pt–Fe
alloys, sperrylite (PtAs2 ), Pd–rustenbergite (Pt,Pd)3 Sn,
etc., while minor quantities are dissolved in pyrrhotite,
with a maximum concentration of 0.8 ppm. As to pal-
ladium, 27.3% of the metal is in mineral form. Few of
the PGEs metals are represented by solid-state solutions
in pyrrhotite and pentlandite. They are largely hosted by
pyrrhotite, which reaches 2.4–4.0% concentration in the
ores. The 250 lm size fraction contains only occasional
grains of platinum minerals, whereas size fractions of
50–250 lm, and especially 50–250 lm, appear to be most
enriched in these minerals. In the )50 lm size fraction
their share amounts to 32–34%. However, palladium
minerals occur as very fine grains.
Recovery method: The nature of PGEs concentration
and their form of occurrence in platinum ores dictate the
use of modern high-performance techniques of gravity
separation to produce high-grade PGEs concentrates.
This decreases the loss of PGEs in final tailings and
makes it possible to process PGEs gravity concentrates
without involving the pyro- and hydrometallurgical
copper and nickel production cycle (Blagodatin et al.,
2000).
The Knelson concentrator’s installation points were
selected on the basis of the mineralogical investigation
of concentration products obtained by the conventional
flotation technology. Based on the study of the size
distribution in flotation concentrate and tailings, it was
found that the bulk of the platinum and palladium
mineral grains in the concentrates was below 70 lm, the
highest distribution was in 30–40 lm size fraction and
no grain found above 300 lm. For the final flota-
tion tailing, there were no grains coarser than 100 lm in
non-magnetic fraction of tailings, the highest distribu-
tion was in 20–30 lm size fraction. In magnetic fraction,
there were quiet amount of Pt and Pd bulk grains dis-
tributed in 100–200 lm size fraction. Such a size distri-
bution indicates that the flotation is not good method
to completely recover the PGMs and the over-grinding
may appear. Therefore, the company decided that
the gravity separator should be installed at the first
grinding stage, thus removing the bulk of PGEs miner-
als from the flotation concentration cycle. Since June
1998, in both grinding and tailings cycle, Knelson con-
centrator KS-SD 48 was used to processed the dissem-
inated ore. The recovery of 50–60% Pt, 10–13% Pd,
and 17–20% Au was achieved with 400–500 g/t total
content in concentrates. These results were obtained
with ore assaying 1.1–1.3 g/t Pt, 3.4–4.6 g/t Pd, and
0.16–0.2 g/t Au. The positive results made the company
install two additional 48-inch concentrators with modi-
fication of bowl cone profile, the total PGE content rose
to 1000 g/t and the recovery grew by 25% (Blagodatin
et al., 2000).
972 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
6.2. Ores amenable to flotation recovery
Flotation might be the most used method in recovery
PGEs. As it is now well known, the PGMs usually occur
within base metal sulphides, and often prefer the grain
boundary between sulphides and silicate (Cabri, 1981).
Most PGEs occur either as discrete minerals or as solid
solutions in major sulphides.
In those magmatic deposits where platinum-group
elements are intimately associated with the base metal
sulphides, flotation is used as the first recovery process.
Although high recovery, usually between 80% and 95%,
can be obtained, the grade of concentrates so obtained is
still quite low, which need further upgrade.
6.2.1. Merensky reef
Mineralogy: Extensive mineralogical studies show
that seven PGMs are important in the Merensky reef
although varieties occur in different areas and ore types
(Vermaak and Hendriks, 1976; Brynard et al., 1976;
Schwellus et al., 1976). Three of the PGMs are sul-
phides: braggite (Pt,Pd)S, cooperite, PtS, laurite RuS2 ,
one is a Pt–Fe alloy, one an arsenide (sperrylite, PtAs2 )
and two tellurides (moncheite, PtTe2 , kotulskite PdTe).
The presence and relatively large percentage of platinum
minerals and sulphides is unique to this type deposits (it
is divided into two groups, one is a silicate ore, the other
chromite ore).
The principal opaque minerals are base metal sul-
phides (BMS), pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalcopyrite,
in order of decreasing abundance (Vermaak and Hend-
riks, 1976; Brynard et al., 1976). Minor sulphides
include cubanite, mackinawite and pyrite––the latter
being more abundant in chromite-rich bands (Brynard
et al., 1976).
The majority of the principal PGMs tends to occur as
idiomorphic inclusions (braggite, cooperite, sperrylite
and laurite) but a Pt–Fe alloy, especially in those areas
where it is an important constituent, commonly occurs
finely intergrown with base metal sulphides or, more
rarely, with cooperite (Vermaak and Hendriks, 1976).
These authors also pointed out that most PGMs occur
at the BMS-gangue contact in the silicate ore, whereas in
the chromite ore the PGMs occur mostly in the BMS or
in the gangue. The exception to this is braggite, which
shows a strong preference for pentlandite.
The sperrylite, braggite and cooperite occur as ‘‘fairly
coarse’’ in size and moncheite as being ‘‘much smaller’’
(Brynard et al., 1976).
Recovery method: Although the basic process route
used for the Merensky and UG-2 ore is the same, the
different mineralogical features dictate the many subtle
differences in each flowsheet. The conventional commi-
nution circuit, including crushing, rod milling, and ball
milling or by autogenous milling is used for Merensky
ore, however, UG-2 is not amenable to autogenous
milling. The mill product is classified in hydrocyclones
for both ores. There is also a big difference in the mill
circuit of processing these two types of ores. For
example, preconcentration methods, such as the cordu-
roy strakes, James table and flash flotation, have been
used for Merensky ore due to the PGMs enrichment in
the cyclone underflow. However, the UG-2 ore is not as
amenable as Merensky ore to preconcentration in the
milling circuit because a much finer grind is needed to
liberate the PGMs and because the chromite present can
lead to poor separation.
For Merensky and UG-2 ores, the flotation process is
a bulk sulphides float that recovers the base-metal sulp-
hides containing any liberated PGMs sulphides minerals.
Flotation takes place at natural pH (7.5–9) with a xan-
thate collector such as isobutyl xanthate or normal
propyl xanthate. Some mines also add another collector,
usually Cyanamid 3477 (a dithiophosphate), which is
mixed with the xanthate at a ratio of up to 7:3. Copper
sulphate is added as an activator. The flotation circuit for
Merensky ore usually consists of a rougher stage and two
cleaner stages, in which closed-circuit cleaners are used.
To depress the talc, a depressent, such as Detrin or
Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), is added to the rougher
and cleaner stages. The flotation of UG-2 ore is similar in
general to that of Merensky ore, but differs in a number
of aspects which is of no interest to this paper.
The Northam flowsheet (Fig. 5) is of interest here
because of flash flotation used in grinding circuit. The
Northam Merensky concentrator was designed to treat
270 t/h of run-of-mine (ROM) ore. The SAG mill dis-
charge is fed to a ball mill operated in a closed circuit.
Flash flotation is utilized on the cyclone underflow. The
flash flotation cell recovers over 60% of the PGEs. The
cyclone overflow goes to flotation after it is conditioned.
Primary flotation is undertaken in a single rougher/
scavenger flotation bank. The concentrate of the first
cell in the rougher bank is collected as a part of the final
Fig. 5. The Northam flowsheet.
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
concentrate. The other rougher concentrate is further
processed with the cleaning circuit (no regrinding) that
consists of three column cells operating in series. The
cleaner concentrates are the main final concentrates. The
cleaner tail is recycled back to the head of the cleaner
circuit. The scavenger concentrate can be routed to the
head of the rough bank or to the cleaner circuit. No
grinding is performed on the scavenger concentrate
(Cole and Ferran, 2002).
6.2.2. The Stillwater complex, Montana
The ore body at stillwater is referred to as the J-M
reef and is nearly 30 miles in length. The PGEs miner-
alization in the J-M reef is associated with disseminated
base-metal sulphides (BMS) minerals that from fine- to
coarse-grained aggregates that are moulded around and
are interstitial to the cumulus or earlier formed silicates.
Mineralogy: Zientek et al. (2002) reports that the
PGMs include palladium, platinum and ruthenium
sulphides; Pt and Pd tellurides and arsenides; and Pt–Fe,
Pt–Pd–Sn, Pd–Pb, Pd–Hg, Au–Pt–Pd and Rh–Pt alloys.
The dominant PGMs are braggite, cooperite, monche-
ite, vysotskite and isoferroplatinum. Platinum occurs
largely as discrete PGMs: 67% as sulphides minerals
(braggite, cooperite); 25% as metal alloy (isoferroplati-
num); and 8% as telluride (moncheite). Palladium lar-
gely occurs in solid solution in pentlandite; 15% of the
palladium occurs in other sulphides minerals (vysotsk-
ite, braggite, cooperite) and 5% is associated with tel-
luride minerals (moncheite). There are some rare PGMs,
which include rustenbergite (Pd3 Sn), hollingworthite
(RhAsS), etc. The grain size of the PGMs is variable,
ranging from micron-size to grains with one side about
200 lm. Of the main PGMs, braggite and vysotskite are
the coarsest grained; the Pt–Fe alloy is finer.
The principal sulphides minerals are chalcopyrite
(CuFeS2 ), and pentlandite ((Ni,Fe)9 S8 ). Most of the
platinum minerals are associated with the copper sul-
phide and the palladium with the nickel sulphides
(Thurman and Allen, 1994). The ore contains approxi-
mately 3.5 times more palladium than platinum. Small
amount of gold and rhodium along with the copper and
nickel are also found. The ore contains less than 1% free
silica, but significant amounts of MgO bearing minerals
such as talc and serpentine. The ore is basic with a natural
pH of approximately 9.0 (Thurman and Allen, 1994).
Recovery method: Thurman and Allen (1994) and
Turk (2001) provide a detailed summary of operations
and reagent scheme at the Stillwater Nye concentrator.
A SAG mill/ball mill grinding circuit with hydro-
cyclones for classification is used to process ROM ore in
stillwater. A flash flotation cell has been used in the
cyclone underflow to produce a final grade concentrate.
The cyclone overflow is fed to primary flotation which is
undertaken in three stages: rougher flotation, middling
flotation and scavenger flotation. There is a tertiary
973
Fig. 6. The Stillwater flowsheet.
milling stage between the rougher and middling flotation
circuit. The middling flotation concentrate is recycled
back to the head of the rougher circuit while the scav-
enger flotation concentrate is recycled to feed the mid-
dling flotation circuit. Cleaning is achieved in three
stages operating in a counter-current configuration. The
concentrate from the first stage of the first cleaner by-
passes the second stages of cleaning and feeds the third
cleaner. The tailings from the first part of the first cleaner
are reground prior to further cleaning. The cleaner cir-
cuit tails recycle to feed the rougher flotation circuit.
Fig. 6 shows a schematic of the Stillwater flowsheet.
Thurman and Allen (1994) reported that the reagent
scheme is 0.09 lb/ton of potassium amyl xanthate and
0.08 lb/ton of dithiophosphate and 0.9 lb/ton of Carb-
oxymethyl cellulose (CMC) used fro talc depression.
MIBC is added as froth conditions warrant. Sodium
hydrosulfide (NaHS) is added as a sulfidizer and pH is
controlled with sulfuric acid.
A bulk sulfide concentrates is produced averaging 60–
70 oz/ton of Pt + Pd from ore averaging 0.8 oz/ton.
Initially the concentrator operated at 500 tpd. It has
been steadily increased since 1987 start-up; concentrator
throughput for 1994 was around 1050 tpd increasing to
3000 tpd in 2001.
The overall platinum recovery after the flash cell
installation improved by 1.5% (Thurman and Allen,
1994). This pushes overall Pt recovery to 95%. This
improvement in recovery is due to the reduction in over
grinding of the Pt minerals. However, because of the
extremely short retention time in the flash cell (2–5 min),
Pd recoveries were not affected.
6.2.3. Lac des Iles Ore
North American Palladium’s Lac des Iles mine began
commercial production in December 1993. It has since
commissioned a new 15,000 tonnes per day milling and
flotation circuit. The open-pit mine and milling opera-
tion is one of only two primary platinum group element
974 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
producers in North America. The mill treats an ore
containing 2g/t palladium (and 0.3 g/t total platinum,
gold and rhodium) producing a concentrate assaying
250g/t palladium, at a recovery of roughly 75% (Martin
and McKay, 2003).
Mineralogy: The major opaque minerals of the ore
are pentlandite, pyrite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite.
Galena, magnetite and sphalerite are common but
minor minerals. Cabri and Laflamme (1979), on the
basis of the sample they studied, reported that the
principal PGMs are braggite-series minerals (braggite,
(Pt,Pd)S + vysotskite, PdS), kotulskite, PdTe, isomerti-
ete, Pd11 (As,Sb)4 , merenskyite, PdTe2 , sperrylite PtAs2 ,
moncheite, PtTe2 ; minor PGMs include stillwaterite,
Pd8 As3 , and palladoarsenide, Pd2 As. Dunning (1979)
reported that vysotskite is the most abundant PGMs in
the ‘‘Roby zone’’, where it frequently occurs with nickel
minerals, especially pentlandite.
Mineralogical studies were also performed by Martin
on five mill feed samples taken at different times during
the year of 2002. Sample assays ranged from 1.56 to 3.0
g/t Pd + Pt. By using LEO440 QEMScan system, a total
of 444 individual PGMs grains comprising 12 distinct
PGMs species were identified. These are dominated by
tellurides, with lesser amounts of arsenides/antimonides,
sulphides and alloys. Martin and McKay (2003) also
reported that the kotulskite–telluropalladinite (Pd(Te,
Bi)–Pd9 Te4 ) comprised roughly two-thirds of the PGMs
grain population. Palladoarsenide (Pd2 As) was the next
most abundant PGMs species, comprising 20% of the
PGMS. Ten other PGMS species were observed. PGMs
particle size ranged from less than 1–15.7 lm (recalcu-
lated circular diameter). Some 45% of the PGMs oc-
curred as liberated grains, or inclusions within and
attachments to sulphides. The remainder occurred as
fine inclusions within, and attachments to silicate min-
erals (Fig. 7).
Recovery method: Flotation is the main method for
recovering the PGMs in Lac des Iles due to the fine size
distribution of PGMs. One SAG mill feeds two ball
Fig. 7. The Lac des Iles flowsheet.
mills at a rate of 15,000 tonnes per day. A portion of the
SAG mill feed is crushed to )25 mm to increase
throughput. The product from the SAG mill circuit is
further ground in ball mills, before being delivered to the
flotation circuit. Two banks of roughers and scavengers
perform the primary flotation. The rougher concentrate
is reground and cleaned in a single stage column. The
rougher cleaner tail joins the scavenger concentrate and
is reground in three verti mills. Cleaner flotation uses
two stages of cleaning with mechanical cells, and a third
stage using flotation columns, the column tails being
scavenged using a bank of mechanical cells. The flota-
tion reagent system consists of amyl xanthate collector,
dithiophosphate promoter, MIBC frother and a poly-
meric talc depressant, usually a form of carboxy methyl
cellulose.
The flotation circuit includes a fine grinding mill to
regrind the ore for further liberation due to the fine
distribution of PGMs in the ore. The expected feed
grade to the plant is 2 g/t Pd with targeted recovery in
excess of 80%. However, it is reported that the recovery
is around 75% due to the problem of grinding circuit
and other factors.
6.3. Cu–Ni sulphide deposits with by-product PGEs
The by-product PGEs of the Sudbury Cu–Ni deposits
was the principal source of PGEs prior to the discovery
and subsequent exploration of the PGEs-dominant
Merensky reef deposits. The production of Merensky
reef and, later, the Cu–Ni deposits of the Noril’sk area
reduced Sudbury’s share of world PGEs production.
However, the by-product of PGEs mainly from Cu–Ni
sulphide deposits is still a very important source in the
world. Here, the Sudbury area and Noril’sk–Talnakh
area will now be discussed.
6.3.1. The sudbury area, Ontario
Mineralogy: Although several researchers have stud-
ied the mineralogy of the Sudbury ores, published data
are very sparse on the PGEs contents. The principal
sulphides are pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, and pentlandite;
several other minerals, such as cobaltite, pyrite, miller-
ite, cubanite, galena, sphalerite, magnetite, etc., occur in
minor and variable quantities in the ore.
Michenerite, PdBiTe, is the principal palladium min-
eral and sperrylite, PtAs2 , is by far the most common
platinum mineral for many deposits (South Range and
offset) in Sudbury area (Cabri, 1981b). Moncheite, PtTe2 ,
is the principal platinum mineral in deposits with essen-
tially no sperrylite (Levack West). Froodite, PdBi2 , insi-
zwaite, PtBi2 , and sudburyite, PdSb, are less common.
There are also some rare PGMs. According to Cabri
(1981), the PGMs occur as micron-sized inclusions, usu-
ally less than about 150 m in size, but millimeter-size
grains (sperrylite) are also present. Recently studies by
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
Xiao and Laplante (2003) confirmed that the sperrylite
presents below 150 lm and is well liberated in the Clar-
abelle ore. Although sperrylite characteristically occurs as
monocrystalline inclusions or coarse grains, the other
PGMs are present more frequently as complex multimi-
neralic intergrowth, often with Bi and Ag tellurides.
Cabri and Laflamme (1976) made a detailed investi-
gation of 150–300 lm sink fractions. They found that
although significant percentages of the PGMs are liber-
ated in this size class, especially for sperrylite, the
majority of PGMs are locked at that size in sink products.
About 5–15% of the michenerite, moncheite, sperrylite
and sudburyite grains found in the 150–300 lm sink
fraction occurred as inclusions in pyrrhotite or magnetite.
They concluded that the PGEs values might be ac-
counted for by discrete PGMs and by PGEs in solid
solution in arsenides and sulpharsenides. They felt that
dilute PGEs solution in arsenides and sulpharsenides, if
present, would naturally be very important in view of
the large tonnages involved, but that conclusive evidence
was still required. Detailed mineralogical studies of a
second-stage mill sample and metal balance calculations
showed that, for the particular sample studied, from 1%
to 4.5% Pt, 22.3% to 23.3% Pd and 31.2% to 41.2% Rh
are present as solid solutions in cobaltite and gersdorffite
(Cabri, 1981a).
The PGEs in Sudbury area is a by-product of
smelting and refining Ni–Cu concentrates. Recovery
values for PGEs are not available.
Cabri (1981a) reported that 66% of the sperrylite
found in a mill tailing was either liberated or attached to
sulpharsenides. Because the sperrylite is the principal Pt
mineral in South Range mines and its close textural
association with sulpharsenides requires that both be
recovered, he suggested that it was worth investigating
the flotation characteristics of sperrylite.
6.3.2. The Noril’sk–Talnakh area, USSR
Kozyrev et al. (2002) reported that the Noril’sk–
Talnakh PGEs–Cu–Ni sulphide ore was divided into
three economic types, namely, massive (rich) ore, dis-
seminated ore occurring in host rock, and stringer-dis-
seminated ore occurring in intrusive host rocks. The
mineralogy of these three ore types is different from each
other. Therefore, the corresponding concentrate meth-
ods are also different.
6.3.2.1. Massive ore mineralogy and recovery method.
The massive ores deposit refers to the Kharaelakh ore-
body, which occur at the base of layered intrusion and
contain more than 70 vol.% sulphides. The orebody is
subdivided into three groups, namely, pyrrhotite ore,
cubanite ore, and chalcopyrite ore. Pyrrhotite ore in-
clude pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite–pyrrhotite and cubanite–
chalcopyrite–pyrrhotite varieties, which make up 85
vol.% of the Kharaelakh orebody. Cubanite ore makes
975
up only 7–8 vol.%, and chalcopyrite ore also 7–8 vol.%
of the Kharaelakh orebody.
Mineralogy: Variability in the chemical composition of
massive ore manifests itself in a gradual increase of
PGEs content from 2.3–11.9 ppm up to 20.2–111.7 ppm
(Kozyrev et al., 2002). The pyrrhotite ore has few PGMs
in the )45 lm (75 wt.%) and 45–90 lm (25 wt.%) size
fractions. These include isoferroplatinum (IFP), sper-
rylite, cooperite, rustenbergite, Kotulskite, merenskyite
and native gold. The dominant PGMs is IFP, which
constitutes 99 wet% of the total PGMs assemblage
((Kozyrev et al., 2002).
Kozyrev et al. (2002) also characterized mineralogy
of PGMs in the feed and concentrates of chalcopyrite–
pyrrhotite and cubanite–chalcopyrite ores at laboratory-
scale. It was found that chalcopyrite–pyrrhotite ore and
process products contain 26 PGMs species. Palladium
minerals are dominant (16 species), Pt constitutes nine
minerals while Rh occurs in only one species. Most of
the PGMs occur in the )45 lm size fraction (67–91
wt.%) of the primary ore as well as of the process
products. The 45–90 lm size fraction of the nickel
concentrate contains 66 wt.% of the PGMs. PGMs have
not been detected in the tailings.
The major PGMs are amenable to flotation: sperrylite
and cooperite are concentrated in copper concentrate
(69% and 90% of the total PGMs, respectively) and in
the nickel concentrate (29% and 8%); stibiopalladinite
(74%) favours the nickel concentrate and the pyrrhotite
concentrate hosts 70% of isoferroplatinum.
Kozyrev et al. (2002) also reported that the cubanite–
chalcopyrite–pyrrhotite ore and concentrates contain
the most PGMs in the 20–45 lm size fraction (42–84
wt.%). Twenty-nine PGMs have been identified and
these include 18 Pd species and 11 Pt species.
The major PGMs in the flotation feed are cooperite
(28 wt.%), atokite–rustenburgite (24 wt.%) and sperry-
lite (20 wt.%); copper concentrate has sperrylite (42%),
cooperite (24 wt.%) and isoferroplatinum (14 wt.%);
nickel concentrate contains cooperite (36 wt.%), sper-
rylite (15 wt.%), atokite–rustenburgite (23 wt.%) and
sobolevskite (11 wt.%); the pyrrhotite concentrate has
isoferroplatinum (41 wt.%) and cooperite (20 wt.%)
while the tailings have atokite–rustenburgite (54 wt.%)
and sperrylite (17 wt.%). Most of the major PGMs
grains in the concentrate are liberated while some occur
as complex intergrowths with each other, with sulphides
and with silicates.
Recovery method: In the actual plant, massive ores,
ground at 85% passing 45 lm, are being processed
according to a direct selective flotation flowsheet (Fig. 8)
resulting in an output of copper, nickel and pyrrhotite
concentrates and tailings. In copper flotation, pine oil is
used as a frothing agent and butyl dithiophosphate as a
collector; in nickel flotation, T-80 serves as the frother,
potassium butyl xanthate as the collector with sodium
976 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
Ore
Grinding (80% - 45 µ m)
Copper flotation
Nickel flotation
Copper Conc.
Pyrrhotite flotation
Nickel Conc.
Pyrrhotite Conc.
Fig. 8. Selective flotation flowsheet for massive ore.
dimethyl dithiocarbamate as a depressant, NaHSO3 as a
modifier and CaO is used to regulate alkalinity.
6.3.2.2. Disseminated ore mineralogy and recovery
method. Three varieties of disseminated ores have been
distinguished: (1) pyrrhotite ore, the most abundant, (2)
cubanite, and (3) chalcopyrite ores, which are less
abundant. The major sulphide minerals in pyrrhotite ore
are the pyrrhotite-group minerals, chalcopyrite, pent-
landite, with some minor and accessory minerals. Major
sulphide minerals in the cubanite ore are cubanite,
chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite and pentlandite; minor sulp-
hides includes mackinawite, sphalerite, galena etc. The
chalcopyrite ore includes the following major sulphides:
chalcopyrite-group minerals, pentlandite, pyrrhotite-
group minerals and cubanite. Some minor sulphide
minerals also appear in this type of ore.
With new technology developed in the past decade,
gravity–flotation techniques have been developed to in-
crease the PGMs recovery, such as recovering PGMs
from concentrates, as well as scavenging of the Noril’sk
mill tailing using gravity concentration methods (Ko-
zyrev et al., 2002).
The Knelson concentrator has been used by Kozyrev
et al. (2002) to study the PGMs distribution in the
Noril’sk mill gravity products. These include:
(1) Gravity concentrate of the 12 in. Knelson concen-
trator (laboratory-scale test);
Table 3
PGMs distribution (vol.%) by size fraction in disseminated ore, Noril’sk I orebody (Kozyrev et al., 2002)
Size fraction (lm) Conc. of the 12 in. KC
+250
)250 + 90
)90 + 45
+74 0.2
)74 + 45 32.1
)45 + 20 67.7
)20
(2) Feed of the 48 in. Knelson concentrator;
(3) Gravity concentrate of the 48 in. Knelson concen-
trator; and
(4) Gravity concentrate of the 20 in. Knelson concen-
trator (processed concentrate of the 48 in. Knelson
concentrator).
Mineralogy: Kozyrev et al. (2002) reported that 26
PGMs species plus alloys of gold and silver have been
found in the gravity concentrates of Knelson 12 in. con-
centrator and include 19 Pd minerals, 6 Pt minerals and a
Rh minerals. Most of PGMs recovered is in minus 45 lm
and 45–75 lm size fractions. In the latter size fraction, the
Tailings
most abundant (80 wt.%) of platinum minerals are iso-
ferroplatinum, rustenbergite, and sperrylite; in the for-
mer, Pd species of the atokite–rustenburgite series
dominate, with a twofold decrease of Pt–Fe alloy. Most
PGMs grains and intergrowths (90%) in concentrates are
liberated while the rest (10%) are attached to sulphides.
The PGMs distribution is shown in Table 2.
Table 3 shows that PGMs in the feed of 48-in. KC are
mainly distributed in the 45–90 and 20–45 lm size
fraction, 41 and 51 vol.% respectively. Thirty-nine
PGMs species including 26 Pd minerals, 12 Pt minerals
and 1 Rh mineral, have been found. The major PGMs
include atokite (28%), sperrylite (16%) and isoferro-
platinum (11%) plus other minor PGMs. The main
platinum carriers are isoferroplatinum, atokite, sperry-
lite and tetraferroplatinum, and palladium minerals
comprises mostly atokite and to a lesser degree, paolo-
vite and taimyrite. Most of the major PGMs grains are
free while the rest occur as intergrowths with other
PGMs, Au–Ag alloys, sulphides and silicates.
The PGMs in the concentrates of 48-in. Knelson
concentrator are mainly distributed in the 90–250 lm
(25%), 45–90 lm (29%), and 20–45 lm (45%) fractions.
A total 28 PGMs species, plus Au and Ag minerals, has
been found. The major PGMs include isoferroplatinum
(41%), tetraferroplatinum (18%) and atokite (15%) plus
(3–9%) sperrylite rustenbergite and taimyrite. More than
half of the Pt is contained in isoferroplatinum, as well as
tetraferroplatinum, sperrylite and rustenburgite.
It is not clear why the authors used the 20-in. Knelson
concentrator to process the concentrates from the 48-in.
Knelson concentrator.
Feed of the 48 in. KC Conc. of the 48 in. KC Conc. of the 20 in. KC
6.7
7.8 18.6 34.8
40.8 29.5 25.4
50.9 45.0 38.6
0.5 0.2 1.2
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
Ore Gravity conc.
KC Ball mill
SD-48
Rougher Tail
Scavenger
1st cleaner
2nd cleaner
Final Conc.
Fig. 9. Noril’sk flowsheet for processing the disseminated ore.
The major PGMs consist of isoferroplatinum (35%),
tetraferroplatinum (20%) and atokite (20%) plus minor
sperrylite, rustenburgite and taimyrite (3–9%). Based on
the information provided, it is clear that the main Pt and
Pd carriers in this product are much the same as those in
the 48 in. Knelson product.
Recovery method: In actual practice, disseminated
ores are preconcentrated by gravity methods and are
then processed a selective bulk flotation (Fig. 9). The
fineness of grinding is about 55% )74 lm. Gravity
concentration uses Knelson concentrators of various
capacities to separate the noble-metal minerals. Bulk
flotation produces a concentrate that undergoes further
grinding to further liberate the minerals. Cleaning stages
are used to produce higher-grade concentrates, which
are processed further to produce copper and nickel
concentrates. For flotation, potassium butyl xanthate
and sodium butyl dithiophosphate serve as collectors,
T-80 as a frother and CaO as a depressant.
Stringer-disseminated ore mineralogy and recovery
method is not discussed in this article due to the minor
amount of PGMs in the ore.
7. New trends in research and development of PGMs
recovery
7.1. Intensive mineralogy research and development
The strong correlation between the mineralogy and
plant performance discussed above drives the mining
industry put more efforts to the applied/process min-
eralogy studies. Freeman (2003) advocated that min-
eralogical identification should be conducted early and
often, during exploration. Such effort would lead to a
maximum benefit of a project. For example, early
determination of whether the PGMs were sulphides or
alloys and whether there is a presence or absence of
bismuth, tin, tellurium or arsenic-bearing PGMs can
benefits the overall recoveries during flotation, smelting
and refining operation. Identification of the range of
977
PGM grain sizes can help predict whether or not over-
grinding of the PGMs is likely or occur during grind-
ing. Determination of the host minerals is also very
critical, for example, during froth flotation, talc can
cause sliming or coating of PGM grains, making them
difficult or impossible to float. Some PGEs are in the
solid solution of pyrrhotite grains in copper–nickel
ores, when the operation try to depress or actively re-
ject pyrrhotite from the froth concentrate to recover Cu
and Ni, the operation may reject high unit-value
PGMs.
After the commission of plants, more efforts also are
putting to the mineralogy studies, which try to optimize
the performances. In South Africa, the platinum
industry is well known to use QEMScan or MLA
imaging analysis technology intensively to improve both
final recovery and final concentrate grade. In Australia,
QEMScan or MLA are used intensively in liberation
analysis. In Canada, QEMScan at SGS Lakefield re-
search have been used to gain an understanding of the
mineralogical factors affecting plant performance, and
this has helped in the post-commissioning optimization
of the mill (Martin and McKay, 2003). It was used to
study the role of process mineralogy in optimizing
mineral processing at North American palladium’s Lac
Des Iles mill. The process mineralogy developed at
Falconbridge Limited has been applied to the Raglan
mill to increase both the recovery and grade (Lotter
et al., 2002). However, a sound and cost-effective pre-
concentration method of sample preparation for the
mineralogy study is not universal and still underdevel-
opment to obtain the precise mineralogical information.
7.2. Characterization of the gravity recoverable platinum
group minerals in ores
Not only can the characterization of the gravity
recoverable platinum group minerals in an ore measure
the potential response to gravity, but also can be a very
effective preconcentration method for sample prepara-
tion for some PGMs mineralogical study.
Recently, a renewed interested in the use of gravity
concentration in recovering PGMs is being studied due
to the economic importance and new available gravity
concentration devices (Cole and Ferron, 2002; Kozyrev
et al., 2002). Further, the flash flotation is more attrac-
tive application due to the capability of quickly lowing
circulating load of gold and relatively low cost of install-
ing a flash unit (Laplante and Xiao, 2002). In conjunc-
tion with this application of gravity concentration is
the desire to predict or determine how much gravity
recoverable platinum group minerals (GRPGMs) is
present in an ore. GRPGMs refer to the portion of
platinum group minerals in an ore or stream that can be
recovered by gravity at a very low yield (<1%). It in-
cludes PGMs that are totally liberated, as well as PGMs
978 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
Table 4
Summary of the method used in PGMs recovery plant
Name of mills Option used in grinding circuit
Northam Flash flotation
Noril’sk Knelson concentrator
Stillwater Flash flotation
Lac des Iles N/a
in particles that are not totally liberated but with such
density that they report to the gravity concentrates.
Conversely, it excludes any fine, completely liberated
PGMs that are not recovered into concentrates.
The GRPGMs test can be adopted from the Gravity
recoverable gold (GRG) test, which is a concept used to
characterize ores for their gravity recoverable gold
content. The amenability of an ore to gravity recovery is
the single most important parameter to justify the
installation of a gravity circuit (Laplante et al., 1993).
Therefore, the ore must be characterized for its gravity
recovery potential, as it is ground and progressively
liberated. This is the most common definition of GRG
and the GRG standard test is designed to address this
question (Xiao, 2001).
The transfer from GRG to GRPGMs is based on the
specific gravity range for some platinum group minerals
(between 10 and 22) is similar to that of gold (between
16 and 19). However, the PGMs tend to report to finer
size classes (Xiao and Laplante, 2003), the test needs to
be modified. The modified procedure includes the stan-
dard GRG protocol, but a fourth stage is added at a
higher rotating velocity. Gravity research group in
McGill University is developing this technique.
7.3. Use of flash flotation or centrifugal gravity concen-
trators
As shown in Table 4, the flash flotation has been used
in Northam mill in South Africa, Stillwater mill in
North America, and gravity recovery using Knelson
concentrator in Noril’sk, Russia. For gold, the best
processing methods for recovering gold are determined
by the mineralogy, particle size distribution and the
behavior of gold in grinding circuit. Both the gravity
recovery and flash flotation are being used as additional
recovery steps to recovery gold. Gravity recovery aims
at the coarser gold ahead of cyanidation or base metal
flotation, and flash flotation was extremely efficient in
dropping the circulating load of gravity recoverable gold
at fine range, typically below 106 lm to below 212 lm
(Laplante and Xiao, 2002). Although the flash flotation
is used for recovering platinum group minerals, the ra-
tional and the behavior of PGMs still needs to be sorted
out. Based on the PGMs mineralogical investigation and
Location Recovery
Cyclone underflow 60% Pt
First crushing stage 50–60% Pt
10–13% Pd
17–20% Au
Cyclone underflow 50–60% Pt
30–40% Pd
N/a
size distribution in Noril’sk mine, the gravity recovery
by using KC SD-48 has been used to recover PGMs in
crushing stage. However, the behavior of PGMs in
crushing, grinding and classification units needs to be
further investigation.
8. Conclusions
In this review, documented information about the
classification of PGEs ores, the techniques of sample
preparation for mineralogy study was examined. It was
found that for different ore types the preconcentration
methods differ. As do the mineralogical features. Although
the preconcentration method is complicated in some cases,
it is very effective for the mineralogical analysis.
Mineralogical analysis is very important to choose
the flowsheet for recovering the PGMs. It is also critical
to optimize the actual plant for improving the perfor-
mance.
Flash flotation and gravity recovery using the cen-
trifugal equipment was used in some major PGMs
producer plant.
References
Begizov, V.D., Borisenko, L.F., Uskov, Y.D., 1975. Sulphides and
natural solid solutions of platinum metals from the ultrabasites of
the Gusevogorskiy Pluton. Urals. Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 225,
1408–1411.
Blagodatin, Y.U., Distler, V.V., Zakharov, B.A., Sluzhenikin, S.F.,
2000. Disseminated ores of the Noril’sk ore district as a potential
for increasing output of platinum metals at the Noril’sk Mining
Company, Obogashcheniye Rud, special issue, pp. 3–9.
Brynard, H.J., de Villiers, J.P.R., Viljoen, E.A., 1976. A mineralogical
investigation of the Merensky reef at the Western Platinum Mine,
near Marikana, South Africa. Econ. Geol. 71, 1299–1307.
Cabri, L.J., 2002. The platinum-group minerals. In: Cabri, L.J. (Ed.,)
The Geology, Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Mineral Benefication
of platinum-group elements. Canadian Institute of mining and
metallurgy, Special volume 54, 13–119.
Cabri, L.J., 1981a. In: Cabri, L.J. (Ed.), Platinum Group Elements:
Mineralogy, Geology, Recovery. Canadian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Special Volume 23.
Cabri, L.J. 1981b. Relationship of mineralogy to the recovery of
platinum-group elements from ores. In: Cabri, L.J. (Ed.), Platinum
Group Elements: Mineralogy, Geology, Recovery. Canadian
 Z. Xiao, A.R. Laplante / Minerals Engineering 17 (2004) 961–979
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Special Volume 23. pp. 233–
252 (Chapter 11).
Cabri, L.J., Laflamme, J.H.G., 1976. The mineralogy of the platinum-
group elements from some copper-nickel deposits of the Sudbury
area. Econ. Geol. 71, 1159–1195.
Cabri, LJ., Laflamme, J.H.G., 1979. Mineralogy of samples from the
Lac des Iles area, Ontario. CANMET Report 79–27.
Cole, S., Ferron, C.J., 2002. A review of the benefication and extractive
metallurgy of the platinum-group elements, highlighting recent
process innovations. In: Cabri, L.J. (Ed.), The Geology, Geochem-
istry, Mineralogy and Mineral Benefication of platinum-group
elements. Canadian Institute of mining and metallurgy, Special
volume 54, pp. 811–818.
Danilatos, G.D., 1991. Review and outline of environmental SEM at
present. J. Microsc. 162 (Pt 3), 391–394.
Dunning, G.R., 1979. The geology and platinum group mineralization,
Lac des Iles Complex, Northwestern Ontario, MSc thesis, Carleton
University.
Farley, A.N., Shah, J.S., 1988. A new detection technique for high
pressure scanning electron microscopy. In: Goodhew, P.J., Dick-
ison, H.G. (Eds.), Proc. EUREM 88. In: Inst. of Physics Confer-
ence Series, No. 93, vol. 3. IOP Publishing, pp. 241–242.
Farley, A.N., Shah, J.S., 1991. High-pressure scanning electron
microscopy of insulating materials: A new approach. J. Microsc.
Part 2 164 (November), 107.
Freeman, C., 2003. Mineral beneficiation of the platinum group
elements: A view through the hand-lens. Eng. Mining J. 3, 241–245.
Guerney, P.J., Laplante, A.R., O’Leary, S., 2003. Gravity recoverable
gold and the mineral liberation analyzer. In: CMP Conference,
Ottawa, pp. 402–412.
Henley, K.J., 1983. Ore-dressing mineralogy: A review of techniques,
applications and recent develops. Geol. Soc. South Africa 7, 175–
200 (Special Publication).
Johnson Matthey, 2002. http://www.matthey.com.2003.
Knauf, V.V., Kozyrev, S.M., 2002. Knelson’s concentrator: Extraction
evaluation, website of www.natires.com.
Kojonen, K., Isomaki, O.P., Pulkkinen, K., Knauf, V., 2003. Mineral
processing of base metal sulphides and platinum group minerals
(PGMs) at the proterozoric hitura Ni–Cu–PGEs deposit, Western
Finland. Proc. Appl. Mineral., Finland.
Kozyrev, S.M., Komarova M.Z., Emelina, L.N., Olesnkevich, O.I.,
Yakovleva, O.A., Lyalinov, D.V., Maximov, V.I., 2002. The
mineralogy and behaviour of PGM during processing of the
Noril’sk-Talnakh PGE–Cu–Ni ores. In: Cabri, L.J. (Ed.),
The Geology, Geochemistry, Mineralogy and Mineral benefication
of platinum-group elements. Canadian Institute of mining and
metallurgy, Special volume 54, pp. 757–773.
Laplante, A.R., 2001. Report on the Characterization of Gravity
Recoverable Gold in a Sample of Kemess #1 Ore, Technical
Report, McGill University, January.
Laplante, A.R., Putz, A., Huang, L., 1993. Sampling and sample
processing for gold gravity circuits. In: Proceedings, Professional
Development Seminar on Gold Recovery by Gravity, McGill
University, Montreal, May.
Laplante, A.R., Xiao, Z., 2002. Introduction to gold recovery by
gravity. Presented at the Quinto simposium international del Oro
Lima, Peru.
Lotter, N.O., Whittaker, P.J., Kormos, L., Stickingand, J.S., Wilkie,
G.J., 2002. The development of process mineralogy at Falcon-
bridge Limited and application to the Raglan Mill.
Martin, C.J., McKay, N.A., 2003. The role of mineralogical studies in
optimizing mineral processing at North American Palladium’s Lac
Des Iles Mill. 2003 Mineralogy Conference, Finland.
McDonald, D., 1960. A History of Platinum. Johnson Matthey and
Co. Ltd, London.
Mertie, J.B. Jr., 1969. Economic geology of the platinum metals. US
Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 938.
979
Moncrieff, D.A., Robison, V.N.E., Harris, J.B., 1978. Neutralization
of insulating surfaces in the scanning electron microscope. J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 12, 2315–2325.
Naldrett, A.J., Macdonald, A.J., 1980. Tectonic settings of some Ni–
Cu sulfide ores: their importance in genesis and exploration. In:
The continental crust and its Mineral Deposits. Geol. Assoc.
Canada Special Paper No. 20, pp. 633–657.
Petruk, W., 2000. Applied Mineralogy in the Mining Industry. Elsevier
Publishers.
Petruk, W., Hughson, M.R., 1977. Image analysis evaluation of the
effect of grinding media on selective flotation of two zinc–lead–
copper ores. CIM Bull. 70, 782, pp. l28–135.
Pignolet-Brandom, S., Reid, K.J., 1988. Mineralogical characteriza-
tion by QEM*SEM. In: Carson, D.J.T., Vassoilou, A.H. (Eds.),
Process Mineralogy VIII, EDX. TMS, Warrendale, PA, pp. 337–
346.
Razin, L.V., 1976. Geologic and genetic features of forsterite dunites
and their platinum-group mineralization. Econ. Geol. 71, 1371–
1376.
Reid, K.J., Pignolet-Brandom, S., 1988. Application of QEM*SEM
for beneficiation studies of Minnesota Taconite. In: Carson, D.J.T.,
Vassoilou, A.H. (Eds.), Process Mineralogy VIII, EDX. Minerals,
Metals and Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, pp. 369–377.
Reimer, T.O., 1979. Platinoids in auriferous proterozoric conglomer-
ates of South Africa. Evaluation of existing data. Neues. Jb. Miner.
Abh. 135, 287–314.
Robinson, B.W., 1998. The ‘‘GEOSEM’’ (low-vacuum SEM): An
underutilized tool for mineralogy, In: Cabri, L.J., Vaughan, D.J.
(Eds.), Modern Approaches to Ore and Environmental Mineral-
ogy, EDX, Mineral. Association, Can., Short Course 27, pp. 139–
151.
Schwellus, J.S.I., Hiemstra, S.A., Gasparrini, E., 1976. The Merensky
reef at the Atok platinum mine and its environs. Econ. Geol. 71,
249–260.
Sizgoric, M.B., 1985. Tracking platinum-group minerals in the milling
of Cu–Ni ores at Sudbury, In: Proceedings of the Ninth Interna-
tional Precious Metals Institute Conference, New York, pp. 923–
932.
Thurman, W.M., Allen, A.R., 1994. Flash flotation at stillwater
mining Co. Paper presented at the Montana Mining Association
Annual Meeting and Convention, Butte, Montana.
Turk, D.J., 2001. Stillwater Mining Company Nye Concentrator
Operation, SME Annual Meeting.
Vermaak, C.F., Hendriks, L.P., 1976. A review of the mineralogy of
the Merensky reef with specific reference to new data on the
precious metal mineralogy. Econ. Geol. 71, 1244–1269.
Williamson, J.E., Savage, J.A., 1965. The determination of Osmirid-
ium in Witwatersrand Ores. J. South African Inst. Min. Metall.
(January), 343–356.
Woodcock, F., Laplante, A.R., 1993. A laboratory method to measure
free gold content. In: Proceedings, Randol Gold Seminar, Beaver
Creek, September, pp. 151–155.
Xiao, Z., 2001. Developing simple regressions for predicting gold
gravity recovery in grinding circuit. Master of Engineering thesis,
McGill University, Montreal, pp. 9–14.
Xiao, Z., Laplante, A.R., 2003. Characterization of gravity recover-
able platinum group elements in a drill ore sample from Ni Rim
South. Report, 9 June 2003.
Zhou, Z., Zhang, D., 1975. Heavy mineral separation for platinum-
group minerals in platinum-bearing chromite deposits. Acta Geol.
Sin. (2), 187–193, in Chinese with English abstract.
Zientek, M.L., Cooper, R.W., Corson, S.R., Geraghty, E.P., 2002.
Platinum-group element mineralization in the Stillwater Complex,
Montana. In: Cabri, L.J. (Ed.), The Geology, Geochemistry,
Mineralogy and Mineral Beneficiation of Platinum-Group Ele-
ments. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum,
CIM special vol. 54, pp. 459–482.