Biotechnological procedure to remove magnetic sulfur impurities from iron concentrate ores

Abstract

Present invention describes a biotechnological procedure to remove magnetic sulfur impurities from iron concentrate, wherein includes: to bioleach iron concentrate ores agglomerated in heaps under temperature condition between 5 and 35° C., inoculating the iron concentrate ores with Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans cultures, with an inoculum concentration 10.sup.4 and 10.sup.6 cel/g and addition of water supplemented with nitrogen and phosphorous source (0.01 to 0.5 g (NH.sub.4).sub.2HPO.sub.4/L), without potassium addition, adjusting pH between 1.0 and 9.0, and a feeding rate between 5 and 15 L/h/m.sup.2; this procedure allows a removal efficiency above 80% in 21 days, with a maximum iron loss of 3%.

Claims

1. A biotechnological procedure to remove magnetic sulfur impurities from iron concentrate ore, comprising: inoculating bioleach iron concentrate ore agglomerated on heaps, under temperature conditions between 5 and 35° C. with Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans culture, with an inoculum concentration between 10.sup.4 and 10.sup.6 cel/g; and adding water supplemented with nitrogen and a phosphorous source, without potassium addition, adjusting pH between 1.0 and 9.0, and a feeding rate between 5 and 15 L/h/m.sup.2. wherein the chemical composition of the iron concentrate ore consists essentially of chalcopyrite, pyrite, pyrrothite, magnetite, hematite, limonite, clay, chlorite, anhydrite, biotite, sericite, plagioclase, apatite, calcite, quartz, tourmaline, epidote and gypsum, and wherein the culture is the deposited strain DSM 17318, denominated Licanantay.

2. The biotechnological procedure according to claim 1, wherein the iron concentrate ores have a particle size below 0.15 mm.

3. The biotechnological procedure according to claim 1, wherein the phosphorous source concentration is 0.01 to 0.5 g (NH.sub.4).sub.2HPQ.sub.4/L).

4. The biotechnological procedure according to claim 1, wherein the chemical composition of the iron concentrate ore are present in an amount of 0.16% weight chalcopyrite, 3.21% weight pyrite, 0.58% weight pyrrothite, 40.99% weight magnetite, 0.13% weight hematite, 0.19% weight limonite, 1.59% weight clay, 2.35% weight chlorite, 0.59% weight anhydrite, 2.31% weight biotite, 2.36% weight sericite, 19.38% weight plagioclase, 0.20% weight apatite, 0.59% weight calcite, 16.51% weight quartz, 3.75% weight tourmaline, 4.16% weight epidote and 0.94% weight gypsum.

5. The biotechnological procedure according to claim 1, wherein the chemical composition of the iron concentrate ore are present in an amount of 0.15% weight chalcopyrite, 11.05% weight pyrite, 0.80% weight pyrrothite, 41.63% weight magnetite, 0.24% weight hematite, 0.22% weight limonite, 1.35% weight clay, 2.00% weight chlorite, 0.00% weight anhydrite, 2.01% weight biotite, 2.02% weight sericite, 16.42% weight plagioclase, 0.16% weight apatite, 0.47% weight calcite, 14.10% weight quartz, 3.01% weight tourmaline, 3.55% weight epidote and 0.81% weight gypsum.

6. The biotechnological procedure according to claim 1, wherein in the chemical composition of the iron concentrate ore Fe is present 28.39% weight and S is present 1.096% weight.

7. The biotechnological procedure according to claim 1, wherein in the chemical composition of the iron concentrate ore Fe is present 40.70% weight and S is present 0.950% weight.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1. Figure shows the magnetic sulfur impurities removal kinetics on mini-columns Group I with potassium addition, incubated at pH 3.0 and 30° C. with iron concentrate samples inoculated with strain Licanantay. (-⋄-) % Sulfur removal before magnetic concentration; (-.square-solid.-) % Sulfur removal after magnetic concentration. (A): Iron concentrate sample 1. (B): Iron concentrate sample 2.

(2) FIG. 2. Figure shows the precentage of soluble iron after magnetic concentration on mini-columns Group I with potassium addition, incubated at pH 3.0 and 30° C. with iron concentrate samples inoculated with strain Licanantay. (A): Iron concentrate sample 1. (B): Iron concentrate sample 2.

(3) FIG. 3. Figure shows the magnetic sulfur impurities removal kinetics on mini-columns Group II without potassium addition, incubated at pH 3.0 and 30° C. with iron concentrate samples inoculated with strain Licanantay. (-⋄-) % Sulfur removal before magnetic concentration; (-.square-solid.-) % Sulfur removal after magnetic concentration. (A): Iron concentrate sample 1. (B): Iron concentrate sample 2.

(4) FIG. 4. Figure shows the precentage of soluble iron after magnetic concentration on mini-columns Group II without potassium addition, incubated at pH 3.0 and 30° C. with iron concentrate samples inoculated with strain Licanantay. (A): Iron concentrate sample 1. (B): Iron concentrate sample 2.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

(5) Present invention discloses a procedure to achieve an efficient removal of magnetic sulfur impurities content from iron concentrate to reach a final sulfur of 0.1%.

(6) The disclosed procedure of the present invention to remove magnetic sulfur impurities includes: to bioleach iron concentrate ores agglomerated in heaps, under temperature conditions between 5 and 35° C., inoculating the iron concentrates with cultures of Acidthiobacillus thiooxidans, with an inoculation concentration of between 10.sup.4 to 10.sup.6 cel/g and addition of water supplemented with nitrogen and phosphorous sources (0.01 to 0.5 g (NH.sub.4).sub.2HPO.sub.4/L), without potassium addition, with a pH adjusted between 1.0 to 9.0, and a feeding between 5 and 15 L/h/m.sup.2.

EXAMPLES

(7) Iron Concentrate ore Samples Characterization

(8) Two iron concentrate ore samples were used. First sample named “Sample 1” with 28.39% Fe and 1.096% S. Second sample named “Sample 2” with 40.70% Fe and 0.950% S. Besides, a mineralogical analysis was performed to both samples including a liberation analysis. The basic chemical characterization of iron concentrate ore samples is shown in Table 1.

(9) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Chemical characterization of iron concentrate ore samples. Iron Sulfur Sample % % Sample 1 28.39 1.096 Sample 2 40.70 0.950

(10) A microbiological characterization of the iron concentrate ore samples was done by quantitative PCR (qPCR) based on patented methodologies (U.S. Pat. No. 8,492,093 y U.S. Pat. No. 8,207,324), and is shown in Table 2, indicating the sole presence of heterotrophic species of the genus Sulfobacillus in low concentrations. Chemolitoautotrophic sulfur-oxidizing species were not detected.

(11) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Microbiological characterization of iron concentrate ore samples by qPCR. Total Sulfobacillus bacteria A. A. Leptospirillum Acidiphilium Ferroplasma spp. Total 10.sup.4 ferrooxidans thiooxidans spp. spp. spp. 10.sup.4 archaea Sample [cel/g] [cel/g] [cel/g] [cel/g] [cel/g] [cel/g] [cel/g] [cel/g] Sample 1 8.9 n.d.* n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 8.2 n.d. Sample 2 3.6 n.d.  n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 1.7 n.d. *n.d.: below detection limit.

(12) The mineralogical composition of both iron concentrate ore samples was done using the statistical method of dot counting using an integration plate. The summary of the mineralogical characterization for each sample is given in Table 3.

(13) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Mineralogical distribution of opaque minerals and gangue on iron concentrate ore samples. Sample 1 Sample 2 Minerals Empirical formula % Weight % Weight Chalcopyrite CuFeS.sub.2 0.16 0.15 Pyrite FeS.sub.2 3.21 11.05 Pyrrothite Fe.sub.1−xS 0.58 0.80 Magnetite Fe.sub.3O.sub.4 40.99 41.63 Hematite Fe.sub.2O.sub.3 0.13 0.24 Limonite FeOOH 0.19 0.22 Clay Al.sub.4(Si.sub.4O.sub.10)(OH).sub.3 1.59 1.35 Chlorite (Mg,Al).sub.3(AlSi.sub.3O.sub.10)(OH).sub.2Mg.sub.3 2.35 2.00 (OH).sub.6 Anhydrite CaSO.sub.4 0.59 — Biotite K(Mg,Fe).sub.3(AlSi.sub.3O.sub.10)(OH,F).sub.2 2.31 2.01 Sericite KAl.sub.2(AlSi.sub.3O.sub.10)(OH).sub.2 2.36 2.02 Plagioclase (Ca,Na)(Al,Si)AlSi.sub.2O.sub.8 19.38 16.42 Apatite Ca.sub.5(PO.sub.4).sub.3(Cl) 0.20 0.16 Calcite CaCO.sub.3 0.59 0.47 Quartz SiO.sub.2 16.51 14.10 Tourmaline NaMg.sub.3Al.sub.6B.sub.3Si.sub.6O.sub.27(OH).sub.4 3.75 3.01 Epidote Ca.sub.2Al.sub.2FeSi.sub.3O.sub.12(OH) 4.16 3.55 Gypsum CaSO.sub.42H.sub.2O 0.94 0.81 Total 100.00 100.00

(14) The mineralogical characterization confirms the presence of pyrrothite as the main magnetic sulfur impurity present on iron concentrate ore samples.

(15) As part of the iron concentrate ore sample mineralogical analysis, a liberation analysis for main minerals was performed, based on a statistical method of free, mineral/gangue associated and mineral/gangue included dot counting, using an integration plate. Results are shown in Table 4.

(16) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Liberation Analysis of Main Mineral son Iron Concentrate Ore samples. Assoc, Incl, in Assoc Assoc, Assoc, Assoc, Assoc, Incl, in Gn incl. Free to Mgt Gn to Hem to Cpy to Gn to Py to Pirr Mixed Mgt in Minerals % % % % % % % % % % % Sample 1 Cpy 41.67 16.67 25.00 16.67 Hem 66.67 33.33 Lim 44.71 55.29 Mgt 83.35 0.61 0.95 0.61 11.39 0.91 0.57 1.22 0.38 Py 82.35 9.80 1.96 5.88 Pyrr 60.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 Sample 2 Cpy 59.09 18.18 18.18 4.55 Hem 33.33 66.67 Lim 100.00 Mgt 81.92 2.05 0.35 0.34 10.82 0.34 3.99 0.18 Py 92.12 7.27 0.61 Pyrr 84.62 15.38 Abbreviations: Pyrr: pyrrothite; Py: pyrite; Mgt: magnetite; Hem: hematite; Cpy: chalcopyrite; Lim: limonite; Gn: gangue. Assoc: associated; Incl: included.

(17) Such analysis showed that pyrrothite is mainly free (60 y 85%), and on a lesser extent associated to pyrite and magnetite (20 y 15%), depending on the sample, with no observed pyrrothite fraction included in gangue. This analysis indicates that the magnetic sulfur fraction present in these iron concentrate ore samples is bio-available towards the sulfur-oxidizing activity of strain Licanantay.

(18) Later and once the iron concentrate ore samples were characterized, each sample was inoculated with strain Licanantay DSM 17318, in order to incorporate the sulfur oxidizing autotrophic activity that promotes an optimal oxidation of the magnetic sulfur impurities. The determination of the magnetic sulfur impurities removal kinetics from both iron concentrate ore samples through the application of strain Licanantay was done in column assays, packing 500 g of iron concentrate ore previously agglomerated with water and inoculum at a dose of 10.sup.6 cel/g, and mixed by rolling over a plastic liner. At the beginning of the leaching cycle, every column was fed at a rate of 5 L/h/m.sup.2 with water adjusted to pH 3.0 and addition of 0.5 g (NH.sub.4).sub.2HPO.sub.4/L. Assays were done from 7 up to 60 days with forty columns in total, divided in two groups of twenty columns each. The first group of twenty columns (Group I) included potassium addition (0.006 g KH.sub.2PO.sub.4/L) as part of the feeding solution, while the second group (Group II) was modified without any potassium addition on the feed. The two iron concentrate ore samples were included on both groups. Tables 5 and 6 specify the operating conditions for both groups of columns.

(19) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Operating conditions for Group I column assays of Removal of Magnetic Sulfur Impurities from Iron Concentrate Ore samples. Operation Ore Feeding Time Column Sample Inoculation Composition [days] 1 Sample 1 Strain With nitrogen, 7 2 DSM17318 phosphorous 14 3 Licanantay (0.5 g 21 4 (NH.sub.4).sub.2HPO.sub.4/L) 28 5 and potassium 35 6 addition (0.006 g 42 7 KH.sub.2PO.sub.4/L), 49 8 incubated at pH 56 9 3.0 and 30° C. 60 10 60 11 Sample 2 7 12 14 13 21 14 28 15 35 16 42 17 49 18 56 19 60 20 60

(20) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Operating conditions for Group II column assays of Removal of Magnetic Sulfur Impurities from Iron Concentrate Ore samples. Operation Ore Feeding Time Column Sample Inoculation Composition [days] 21 Sample 1 Strain With nitrogen, 7 22 DSM17318 phosphorous (0.5 g 14 23 Licanantay (NH.sub.4).sub.2HPO.sub.4/L) 21 24 and no 28 25 potassium 35 26 addition, 42 27 incubated at pH 49 28 3.0 and 30° C. 56 29 60 30 60 31 Sample 2 7 32 14 33 21 34 28 35 35 36 42 37 49 38 56 39 60 40 60

(21) To determine the magnetic sulfur impurities removal kinetics through the application of strain Licanantay DSM17318 on both iron concentrate ore samples, with and without potassium addition, columns were drained and discharged at the end of the operation times indicated on Tables 5 and 6. Dry samples of treated ore were analyzed for % Fe y % S before and after the Davis test tube (Dtt) for magnetic concentration.

(22) FIG. 1 shows the magnetic sulfur impurities removal kinetics for Group I columns, with potassium addition. On these assays, based on the % S determination after magnetic concentration, an efficiency of 49 and 38% is observed in 60 days for samples 1 and 2, respectively. On the other hand, FIG. 2 indicates that the loss of iron in solution reached a value of 4% after treatment for this group of columns.

(23) The determination of the magnetic sulfur impurities removal kinetics for columns of Group II under potassium limiting conditions is shown in FIG. 3. In these assays, based on the % S determination after the magnetic concentration test, and efficiency of 77 and 83% was observed in 21 days for iron concentrate ore samples 1 and 2, respectively. These results demonstrate a significantly higher magnetic sulfur impurities removal activity from inoculated Licanantay strain, involving a decrease in total sulfur content from 1.096 to 0.230% for sample 1, and from 0.950 to 0.160% for sample 2, expressed as the total sulfur content after magnetic concentration (Dtt). With respect to the operation conditions of Group II column assays, this nutrient limitation creates a higher energetic requirement for strain Licanantay, which is translated in a higher sulfur-oxidizing activity, and consequently in a significantly higher removal of magnetic sulfur impurities from iron concentrate ore samples. This significantly higher removal doubles the one observed with addition of potassium (Group I columns), and is obtained in a three times shorter time period.

(24) Complementing the previous and as shown on FIG. 4, the loss of iron in Group II columns is negligible since its concentration in solution allows to calculate a maximum iron loss of 3% after treatment, which is below the observation for columns with addition of potassium.