1. MEMO
PLATINUM
From The Plant Metallurgist
To Technical Services Manager
CC Concentrator Manager
Plant Production Manager
Section Engineer
C&I Engineer, Metallurgical Laboratory Supervisor
Process Improvements Metallurgist, Shift Metallurgists
Date 15 June 2015
Subject D8620 Flocculant Performance
Section Unki Concentrator Concentrates and Tailings Handling Sections
Executive Summary
After extensive repetitive flocculant settling tests were done on a Chinese flocculant D8620
supplied by Dongying Desheng, it was resolved to do a plant trial on the flocculant. The trial
was done over a period of twelve days 27th of May 2015 to June 8th 2015. The trial was largely
successful with a 21% reduction in consumption and a 32% saving in flocculant costs. It was
recommended to replace Senfloc156Q with D8620 as a flocculant.
Introduction
Since the introduction of a new CMC depressant DLMC300C in May 2014 which was a
replacement of Finnfix300, there was remarkable improvement in plant recovery. It was
however not the case with solid liquid separation for both concentrates and tailings. DLMC300C
is more dispersing than depressing compared to Finnfix300 which is more depressing than
dispersing. Extensive searches for a replacement flocculant and coagulant replacement for the
current suite was embarked on. After extensive repetitive laboratory flocculant settling tests
were done on a Chinese flocculant D8620 supplied by Dongying Desheng, it was resolved to
do a plant trial on the flocculant. The flocculant was observed to be more consistent than the
other flocculants that were also tested on.
Method
Prior to the trial the, 30m3 flocculant mixing tanks were flashed with raw water. Normal 0.05%
solution strength mixes of the new flocculant D8620 were done in the mixing tanks. Flow rates
were commissioned at the same dosage rates as for the running flocculant Senflo156Q
supplied by Senmin. After six days consumption rates were gradually reduced after visual
assessment of the flocculant performance.

2. Results and Discussion of Results
A summary of the performance of the two flocculants is tabled below
Table 1 A comparison of the two flocculants performance
UOM Senfloc
156Q
(OLD)
D8620
(NEW)
Var % Var
Consumption g/t 33 26 7 21
Overflow
Clarity
Tailings
Thickener
7 35 28 400
Concentrates
Thickener
2 45 43 2150
Tailings
Clarifier
25 50 25 100
Concentrates
Clarifier
18 50 32 178
Underflow
Densities
Tailings
Thickener r.d
1.35 1.39 0.04 3
Concentrates
Thickener r.d
1.45 1.46 0.01 0.7
Moisture in
Concentrates
% 18.78 19.01 (0.23) (1.2)
Cost USD/kg 3.54 2.40 1.14 32
There was a 21% reduction in consumption when using D8620 as compared to using
Senfloc156Q in spite of the reduction initiative being commissioned midway through the trial.
The overflow clarity of the two thickeners improved significantly with the concentrates thickener
achieving the best improvement.
Underflow densities of the two subsequently improved.
There was no notable change in moisture of the concentrates. The trial was done under larox
pressure filter challenge where there is no proper cleaning of the unit due to the concentrates
that are in the shed.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The new flocculant D8620 outperformed the current flocculant Senfloc156Q. It is recommended
to replace the old flocculant with D8620 and make D8620 a stock item.
Regards
Richard Chatikobo
Plant Metallurgist