Comparative studies on flotation of kasolite using cationic and anionic surfactants

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 03 Issue: 04 | May-2014, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 225
COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON FLOTATION OF KASOLITE USING
CATIONIC AND ANIONIC SURFACTANTS
Y. K. Abd El Moneam1
, M. M. Fawzy2
, G. M. Saleh3
, A. M. Abu El Soad4
, M. S. Atrees5
1
Faculty of Science, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt
2
Nuclear Materials Authority, Cairo, Egypt
3
4
5
Abstract
Low grade uranium ore was obtained from Abu Rusheid area, South Eastern Desert of Egypt The present work is concerned with
the flotation studies which were performed towards pre-concentration of uranium mineral. In the studied sample two chelating
agents were used as collectors for flotation of uranium bearing mineral in the sample, those are sodium lauryl sulfate (sodium
dodecyl sulfate) (SLS) and cupferron (ammonium N-nitroso phenyl hydroxyl amine). Variables such as grain size, effect of pH,
collector concentration and conditioning time were studied. The tests were done using hallimond tube. When finely ground sample
(less than 62 µm) was floated using both (1×10-3
M) of cupferron at pH 6.5 for 120 sec. and (1×10-4
M) of sodium lauryl sulfate at
pH 7.8 for 120 sec., the recovery of uranium was 91.29% and 79.11% respectively.
Keywords: Uranium, Flotation, Cupferron, Sodium lauryl sulfate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
Uranium is an important element in view of industry,
especially in the nuclear energy production. Mining, nuclear
fuel preparation and waste management require number of
chemical methods for purification, enrichment and its
determination. The preconcentration techniques, hitherto
developed for uranium (VI) are based on the physical,
physico-chemical and chemical principles. These include
liquid–liquid extraction, ion exchange, extraction
chromatography, flotation, electro deposition and solid
phase extraction [1, 2]. A pre-concentration of the ore by
physical beneficiation method is expected to reduce the high
acid consumption in leaching of the low grade ore and
would also be helpful in safe disposal of tailings [3]. This
work is concerned with the applicability of froth flotation of
uranium mineral (Kasolite) from low grade uranium ore
obtained from Abu Rushied area, South Eastern Desert,
Egypt. Froth flotation is a highly versatile method for
physically separating particles based on differences in the
ability of air bubbles to selectively adhere to specific
mineral surfaces in mineral/water slurry [4]. The basis of
froth flotation is the difference in wettability's of different
minerals. Particles range from those that are easily wettable
by water (hydrophilic) to those that are water-repellent
(hydrophobic). If a mixture of hydrophobic and hydrophilic
particles are suspended in water, and air is bubbled through
the suspension, then the hydrophobic particles will tend to
attach to the air bubbles and float to the surface. The froth
layer that forms on the surface will then be heavily loaded
with the hydrophobic mineral, and can be removed as a
separated product. The hydrophilic particles will have much
less tendency to attach to air bubbles, and so it will remain
in suspension and be flushed away [5]. There are numerous
researches performed on the recovery of uranium using
flotation technique. For instance, Tripathi et al., (2013)
create a novel floating polymeric-magnetite cryobead for the
recovery of hexavalent uranium from the aqueous sub-
surfaces. The alginate-agarose-magnetite cryobeads were
synthesized by the process of cryotropic-gelation at subzero-
temperature [6].
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Ore Sample
The sample under study was obtained from Abu Rusheid
area; South Eastern Desert. The sample was ground to less
than 500 µm and physically treated with heavy liquids.
Grains of yellow colors were separated from the heavy
fractions by hand picking. These grains were then subjected
to X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD, using Phillips PW-
3710). The mineralogical composition of the studied sample
was detected by X-ray diffraction (XRD, using Phillips PW-
3710)
2.2 Collectors
In the present study two chelating collectors were used in
froth flotation of uranium bearing mineral. A chelating
collector’s molecule may be considered to comprise two
parts, viz. the hydrocarbon part and the functional chelating
part. The chelating part is hydrophilic while the hydrocarbon
part is hydrophobic. It is the chelating group that bonds with
the cations in a mineral present on the wet host (ore) particle
and thus attaches the collector molecule to the mineral by
chemisorption. Otherwise the hydrophobic part made up of

_______________________________________________________________________________________
the carbon skeleton of the molecule does not participate
directly in bonding with the minerals [7].
2.3 Instruments
Widely used methods for uranium determination in
environmental samples are inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS), neutron activation analysis (NAA),
gamma and alpha spectrometry [8-10] and electro analysis
using ion selective electrode [11-14]. In this work the
uranium is determined using an Inductively Coupled Plasma
Optical Emission Spectrometer (Prism ICP, Teledyne
technologies) due to its high sensitivity and low detection
limit.
2.4 Calculations
Uranium recovery (R U3O8%): It is the percentage of uranium
metal in the original feed that is recovered in the
concentrate. This was calculated from the Eq. (1) using
weights and assays as follows:
RU3O8 % = (Cc)/ (Ff) ·100 (1)
Where F and C are the % weights of the feed, and
concentrate respectively; and f and c are the assays of the
feed and concentrate.
The Selectivity Index was calculated from the Eq. (2) as
follows [15]:
Selectivity Index (η) =
tailsOU
floatOU
(%)
(%)
83
83
(2)
2.5 Chemicals and Reagents
Extra pure sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) obtained from
MERCK in powder form and analytical grade cupferron
obtained from SIGMA-ALDRICH were used as collectors
for flotation of uranium ore. Hydrochloric acid obtained
from BDH (37%), nitric acid (69-72%) obtained from
Panreac, sulfuric acid (97-99%) obtained from ADWIC and
hydrofluoric acid obtained from Ubichem were used for
complete dissolution of froth and sink products , Laboratory
grade sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide were used for
maintaining pH of the pulp.
2.6. Methods
The flotation process was performed under different
conditions summarized in Table 1, to achieve the best
recovery of uranium mineral. The bench scale flotation
experiments were performed using hallimond tube. For this
purpose 3 gram of the sample (less than 62 µm) was
conditioned in 120 ml of collector solution for 10 min. and
allowed to be floated .The froth was skimmed from the top
of the hallimond tube to a beaker by the aid of a clean glass
plate. At the end of the test, the froth and sink products were
dried, weighed and analyzed using an Inductively Coupled
Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer (Prism ICP,
Teledyne technologies).
Table -1: Studied factors affecting the flotation of uranium bearing minerals
Factors Factors,
values Fixed conditions
Cupferron SLS Grain size(µm) pH Collator conc.
(M)
Time (sec.)
Cupferron SLS Cupferron SLS Cupferron SLS Cupferron SLS
Grain
size
-62, -88, -149 µm -62, -88, -149 µm - - 6.5 7.8 (1×10-3
) (1×1
0-4
)
120 120
pH 2, 4.5, 6.5, 8 2.5, 5, 7.8, 10.5 -62 -62 - - (1×10-3
) (1×1
0-4
)
120 120
Collector
conc.
(1×10-2
), (1×10-3
),
(1×10-4
) M
(1×10-2
), ( 1×10-3
),
(1×10-4
) M
-62 -62 6.5 7.8 - - 120 120
Time 30, 60, 90, 120 sec. 30, 60, 90, 120 sec. -62 -62 6.5 7.8 (1×10-3
) (1×1
0-4
)
- -
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Mineralogy of the Sample
The presence of radioactive mineral kasolite
Pb(UO2)[SiO4].H2O was indicated by X-ray spectra and
compared with the ASTM card no. (8-0297) when yellow
color grains were subjected to X-ray diffraction analysis.
The X-ray spectrum of uranium bearing mineral is shown in
fig. (1). The x-ray spectrum of the studied sample is shown
in fig. (2). The sample contain many minerals in major
portions, those are Montmorillonite (Na0.2Ca0.1Al2Si4O10
(OH) 2(H2O) 10, quartz (SiO2) and kaolinite (Al2Si2O5 (OH)
4).The chemical analyses of the studied sample (less than
500 µm) are given in table (2). The sample used for the
studies was all passing below 500 microns. It assayed
0.0825 % U3O8. The granulometry of different size fractions
of the sample is shown in fig. (3). Uranium concentration of

_______________________________________________________________________________________
different size fractions of the sample is shown in table (3).
The distribution of uranium oxide in different size fraction is
shown in fig. (4). From fig. (4), it appears that the greatest
concentration of uranium is present in the fine size ranges.
Fig -1: X-ray diffraction of uranium bearing mineral.
Fig -2: X-ray diffraction analysis of the studied sample.
Fig -3: The granulometry of different size fractions of the sample.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig -4: The distribution of uranium oxide in different size fraction.
Table -2: chemical composition of the selected ore sample
MAJOR OXIDES TRACE ELEMENTS REES
OXIDE WT. (%) ELEMENT CONC. (PPM) ELEMENTS CONC. (PPM)
SiO2 48.3 Co 348.9 La 113.11
TiO2 1.12 Zn 14415 Nd 3128.9
Al2O3 17.3 Zr 465.15 Sm 130.00
Fe2O3 14.8 Cu 823.00 Gd 82.070
CaO 2.50 Pb 2853.5 Dy 82.500
MgO 7.95 Ga 222.50 Ho 42.500
MnO 0.53 Ni 122.16 Er 45400
NaO2 1.40 V 1617.0 Lu 88.360
K2O 2.40 Cr 18.700
P2O5 1.70 Nb 31.00
L.O.I 1.39 Rb 115.00
TOTAL 99.4 Sr 1.80
Y 36.00
Ba 1806
Table -3: Grain size (Wt. %) and uranium concentration of 1461 gm. of the sample
Grain size Wt. of grain size
(gm.)
Wt. % Conc. of U
(ppm)
+149 µm 1041.2 71.26 608.15
-149 + 88 µm 186.8 12.79 619.85
-88 + 62 µm 125.4 8.58 659.75
-62 µm 107.6 7.37 658.15
Original sample 1461 100 700
Two collectors sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and cupferron
were used for flotation of uranium bearing mineral in the

_______________________________________________________________________________________
present study. The effects of different factors on the
recovery of uranium and the selectivity index were studied
in details as follows:
3.2. Effect of Grain Size
Increasing the fineness of the feed and hence a decrease in
the particle size was found to be effective in increasing the
recovery of uranium bearing mineral and also give higher
value of selectivity index using both cupferron and sodium
lauryl sulfate (SLS). Increasing the fineness of the feed from
(less than 149 µm) to (less than 62 µm) increased the
recovery of uranium from 58.73% to 91.29% in case of
cupferron and from 57.20 % to 79.11 % in case of sodium
lauryl sulfate. It also increases the selectivity index from
0.99 to 1.43 in case of cupferron and from 1.01 to 1.19 in
case of sodium lauryl sulfate. The increase in fineness of the
feed gives higher recovery. This may be attributed to the
increase in surface area of the particle and also the action of
collector will be increased. As the fineness increased, the
ability of the air bubbles to carry the particle on its surface
will be increased. This is in agreement with Fuerstenau,
(1980) [16] who found that the maximum recovery was
noticed in the range 10-100 µm; he also suggested that
chemisorption improved fines recovery for the following
reasons:
a) Specific chemical interactions maintain selectivity.
b) The free energy of adsorption is large, resulting in lower
reagent consumption;
c) The electrical charge on the mineral is lower, resulting in
better recovery if collector adsorption occurs by exchange or
neutral molecule adsorption; and
d) The reduced adsorption of collector on bubble surfaces
contributes to better recovery of fines. The results are shown
in Figs (5, 6). This set of experiments was conducted using
collector concentration of (1×10-3
)M and (1×10-4
)M in case
of cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate respectively, for 120
sec. in case of both cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate and
at pH 6.5 and 7.8 in case of cupferron and sodium lauryl
sulfate respectively.
Fig -5: Relation between Grain size µm and recovery of
uranium % using cupferron concentration (1×10-3
) M at pH
6.5 for 120 sec. and SLS concentration (1×10-4
) M at pH
7.8 for 120 sec.
Fig -6: Relation between Grain size µm and the selectivity
index using cupferron concentration (1×10-3
) M at pH 6.5
for 120 sec. and SLS concentration (1×10-4
) M at pH 7.8 for
120 sec.
3.3. Effect of pH
pH has a great effect on the surface chemistry of most
minerals. pH also plays an important role in the adsorption
of the flotation reagents and hence floatability of minerals.
Two sets of experiments were performed using the ground
ore (less than 62 µm) in case of both cupferron and sodium
lauryl sulfate, using collector concentration (1×10-3
) M and
(1×10-4 )
M in case of cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate
respectively and for 120 sec. in case of both cupferron and
sodium lauryl sulfate.
Figs (7, 8) reveal that at pH 6.5, the recovery of uranium and
the selectivity index give the highest values .The values of
the recovery of uranium increased from 78.82 % at pH 4.5
to 91.29 % at pH 6.5, on the other hand that value decreased
at pH 2 and 8 in case of cupferron while in case of sodium
lauryl sulfate at pH 7.8, the recovery of uranium and the
selectivity index give the highest values. The values of the
recovery of uranium increased from 64.21 % at pH 2.5 to
79.11 % at pH 7.8, on the other hand that value decreased at
pH 5. As shown in figs (7, 8) the values of the selectivity
index increased from 1.14 at pH 4.5 to 1.43 at pH 6.5, on
the other hand that value decreased at pH 2 and pH 8, the
best recovery of uranium was found to be between pH 4.5
and 6.5 in case of cupferron and this is similar to that
observed by Muthuswami, et. al. (1983) who found that
good recovery of uranium is between pH 4 and 6 and
referred to the formation of complex between cupferron and
uranium ion in the reduced state (U4+
) in a strongly acid
medium [17-19], while in case of sodium lauryl sulfate the
values of the selectivity index increased from 1.03 at pH 2.5
to 1.19 at pH 7.8, on the other hand that value decreased at
pH 5. This means that the best recovery of uranium was
found to be between pH 7.8 and 10.5. This may be attributed
to the chemical composition of kasolite mineral, which is
containing lead. It may be suggested that sodium lauryl
sulfate attaches to kasolite mineral through lead and brings it
to the froth. This is in agreement with Alessandra Gorette de
Morais, et.al (2013) who found that the great recovery of
lead was obtained by flotation at pH 10 with only (1×10-3
)
M sodium lauryl sulfate and poor selectivity was observed
under alkaline conditions resulting in low grade concentrate
[20].
Grain sizem
-160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40
Recoveryofuranium%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cupferron
Sodium lauryl sulfate
Grain size m
-160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40
Selectivityindex
0
1
2
Cupferron

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig -7: Relation between pH and recovery of uranium %
using cupferron concentration (1×10-3
) M, on the ground ore
(less than 62 µm) for 120 sec. and SLS concentration of
(1×10-4
) M, on the ground ore (less than 62 µm) for 120 sec.
Fig – 8: Relation between pH and the selectivity index
using cupferron concentration (1×10-3
) M, on the ground ore
(less than 62 µm) for 120 sec. and SLS concentration of
(1×10-4
) M, on the ground ore (less than 62 µm) for 120 sec.
3.4. Effect of Collector Concentration
Collector concentration is important from the view of
commercial application. As the collector concentration
decreased, the amount of reagent needed will be decreased
and this is commercially desirable. Two sets of experiments
were performed using the ground ore (less than 62 µm) in
case of both cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate, at pH 6.5
and 7.8 in case of cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate
respectively and for 120 sec. in case of both cupferron and
sodium lauryl sulfate.
As shown in Figs (9, 10) the recovery of uranium and the
selectivity index give the highest values at cupferron
concentration of (1×10-3
) M. On the other hand, the recovery
of uranium decreased at concentration of ( 1×10-2
)M and
(1×10-4
) M in case of cupferron while in case of sodium
lauryl sulfate the recovery of uranium and the selectivity
index give the highest values at sodium lauryl sulfate
) M.
From Figs (9, 10), it can be observed that at lower as well as
at higher concentrations, the selectivity index, an indicator
of separation efficiency, varied between 1.16 and 0.73 in
case of cupferron. This may be illustrated as following:
At lower concentration, the amount of cupferron adsorbed
on uranium bearing mineral would have been insufficient to
impart flotation effect and at higher concentrations, the
selectivity would have been lost due to masking of uranium
bearing minerals by excessive cupferron concentration than
what was necessary for floating uranium bearing mineral.
The optimum concentration was found to be ( 1 × 10-3
) M
which would have been just sufficient enough to
preferentially form a coating / layer to float uranium bearing
mineral and to give better selectivity as proven by the
selectivity index and the recovery values. Singh et.al.,
found that 0.312 kg/t of cupferron is not sufficient and an
increase dosage to 0.625 kg/t improves uranium recovery
but a further increase in cupferron dosage showed a decline
in uranium recovery [21]. On the other hand, the values of
the recovery of uranium and the selectivity index decreased
at higher concentrations to be 61.83 % and 1.03 respectively
in case of sodium lauryl sulfate. This decreasing in the
values of the recovery of uranium and the selectivity index
exhibited at higher concentration of collector may be
attributed to the nature of the froth as was observed during
the performance of the experiments; bubbles were very
small and not very persistent to keep the heavier particles of
uranium bearing mineral at its surface.
Fig -9: Relation between collector concentration(M) and
recovery of uranium % using cupferron at pH 6.5, on the
ground ore ( less than 62 µm) for 120 sec. and SLS at pH
7.8, on the ground ore ( less than 62 µm) for 120 sec.
pH
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Recoveryofuranium%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cupferron
pH
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Selectivityindex
0
1
2
Cupferron
Collector concentration M
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Recoveryofuranium%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cupferron

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Fig -10: Relation between collector concentration (M) and
selectivity index using cupferron at pH 6.5, on the ground
ore (less than 62 µm) for 120 sec. and SLS at pH 7.8, on the
ground ore (less than 62 µm) for 120 sec.
3.5. Effect of Time
Two sets of experiments were performed using the ground
ore ( less than 62 µm) in case of both cupferron and sodium
lauryl sulfate, at concentration of (1×10-3
) M and ( 1×10-4
)
M in case of cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate
respectively, at pH 6.5 and 7.8 in case of cupferron and
sodium lauryl sulfate respectively. As shown in Figs (11,
12), the recovery of uranium and the selectivity index give
the highest values at time 120 sec. for both cupferron and
sodium lauryl sulfate. This may be attributed to the fact that
increasing time will increase the chance of the particles to
react with the reagent and hence increase the floatability of
uranium bearing mineral.
Fig -11: Relation between time (sec.) and recovery of
uranium % using cupferron concentration (1×10-3
) M at pH
6.5, on the ground ore (less than 62 µm) and SLS
concentration (1×10-4
) M at pH 7.8, on the ground ore (less
than 62 µm).
Fig -12: Relation between time (sec.) and the selectivity
index using cupferron concentration (1×10-3)
M at pH 6.5,
on the ground ore (less than 62 µm) and SLS concentration
(1×10-4
) M at pH 7.8, on the ground ore (less than 62 µm).
4. CONCLUSIONS
Flotation studies were performed on the ore sample to obtain
the highest recovery of uranium bearing mineral. The
sample contains 0.0825 % U3O8.The flotation study was
applied using two kinds of collector, one of them is cationic
and the other is anionic. The fine size (less than 62 µm) was
found to be the desirable size of uranium recovery for both
cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate. The slightly acidic and
slightly alkaline media was found to be the desirable media
for cupferron and for sodium lauryl sulfate respectively. The
) M and (1×10-4
) M was found to be
the desirable concentration of cupferron and sodium lauryl
sulfate respectively. The preferable time for the process was
120 sec. for both cupferron and sodium lauryl sulfate. Under
these optimum conditions the recovery of uranium reaches
91.29 % and 79.11 % for cupferron and sodium lauryl
sulfate respectively. For commercial applications sodium
lauryl sulfate will be preferable due to its low price
compared with cupferron which is not economical flotation
reagent.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by Prof. Dr. M. S.
Atrees, Head of beryl project, Nuclear materials authority.
The others thank Prof. Dr. M. S. Atrees for suggesting the
flotation approach, for advice during the course of this work
and for his assistance.
REFERENCES
[1]. Prasada Rao, T., Metilda, P. and Mary Gladis, J. (2006).
Preconcentration techniques for uranium (VI) and thorium
(IV) prior to analytical determination - an overview. Talanta.
68 (4), 1047–1064.
[2]. Mizuike, A. (1984). Enrichment Techniques for
Inorganic Trace Analysis, Berlin. Fresenius' Zeitschrift für
analytische Chemie, Springer, 319 (4), 415- 417.
Collector concentration M
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Selectivityindex
0
1
2
Cupferron
Time (sec.)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Recoveryofuranium%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cupferron
Time (sec.)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Selectivityindex
0
1
2
Cupferron

_______________________________________________________________________________________
[3]. Singh, R., Sengupta, S. K., Pathak, P. N.,
Chattopadhyay, A. and Maulik, S. C. (1997). Studies on
Pre-concentration of Domiasiat uranium ore by froth
flotation. Investigation Report, NML, Jamshedpur, India, pp.
1-37.
[4]. Klimpel, R. R. (1995). The Influence of Frother
Structure on Industrial Coal Flotation, ´´High-Efficiency
Coal Preparation: An International symposium (S. K.
Kawatra, ed.), Littleton, CO, SME, pp. 141-151, Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
[5]. Whelan, P. F., and Brown, D. J. (1956). Particle-Bubble
Attachment in Froth Flotation, Bulletin of the Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy. No. 591, pp. 181-192.
[6]. Tripathi, A., Melo, J. S. and D’Souza, S. F. (2013).
Uranium (VI) recovery from aqueous medium using novel
floating macroporous Alginate-agarose-magnetite
cryobeads. Journal of Hazardous Materials. vol. 246– 247,
pp. 87– 95.
[7]. Natarajan, R., Nirdosh, I. and Muthuswami, S. V.
(1999). Application of topological indices to froth-flotation
of an uranium ore. CURRENT SCIENCE. Vol. 77, No. 9,
10.
[8]. Ehmann, W. D. and Vance, D.E. in: Winfordner, J.D.
(Ed.), (1991). Radiochemistry and Nuclear Methods of
Analysis, Wiley, New York.
[9]. Parry, S. J. in: Winfordner, J.D. (Ed.) (1991). Activation
Spectrometry in Chemical Analysis, Wiley, New York.
[10]. Smales, A. A., Mapper, D. and Seyfang, A. P. (1961).
The determination of uranium in fairly pure beryllium metal
by neutron activation and gamma spectrometry. Analytica
Chimica Acta. Volume 25, Issue 6, December 1961, Pages
587–597.
[11]. Koji, O., Mitsuko, O., Yunhua, G., Kyue-Hyung, L.
and Shoji, M. (2003). Synthesis of novel chitosan resin
derivatized with serine moiety for the column
collection/concentration of uranium and the determination of
uranium by ICP-MS. Analytica Chimica Acta. vol. 480 (2),
pp.239- 249.
[12]. Shamsipur, M., Saeidi, M., Yari, A., Yaganeh-Faal, A.,
Mashhadizadeh, M.H., Azimi, G., Naeimi, H. and Sharghi,
H. (2004). UO2
2+
ion-selective membrane electrode based on
a naphthol-derivative Schiff's base 2,2′-[1,2-ethandiylbis
(nitriloethylidene)] bis (1-naphthalene). Bull. Korean
Chem. Soc. 25, 629–633.
[13]. Shamsipur, M., Soleymanpour, A., Akhond, M.,
Sharghi, H. and Massah, A.R. (2002). Uranyl-selective PVC
membrane electrodes based on some recently synthesized
benzo-substituted macrocyclic diamides. Talanta. 58 (2),
pp.237-46.
[14]. Hosseini, M.S., Raissi, H. and Yavari, H.R. (2006).
Synergistic flotation of U (VI)-alizarin complex with some
diamines followed by spectrophotometric determination of
U (VI) using 4,4`-diaminophenylmethane. Analytica
Chimica Acta. 559 (2), 181–185.
[15]. Madhavan, T. R., Somany, J. Y., and Majumdar, K. K.
(1963). Studies in the flotation of uranium ore from
Jaduguda. J. Mines, Metals and Fuels. Vol. 4.
[16]. Fuerstenau, D.W.: in Somasundaran P. (ed.), (1980).
Fine Particle flotation, fine particle Processing, SME/
AIME, New York, p. 669.
[17]. Muthuswami, S.V., Vijayan, S., Woods, D.R., and
Banerjee, S., (1983). Flotation of uranium from uranium
ores in Canada, Part I- Flotation results with Elliot Lake
uranium ores using chelating agents as collectors, J.
Chem.Engrs. 63, 728-744.
[18]. Muthuswami, S.V., Vijayan, S, and Woods, D.R.
(1985). Flotation of uranium from uranium ores in Canada,
Part II- Cupferron adsorption on uranium oxide, quartz, illite
and a uranium ore from Elliot Lake, J. Chem. Engrs. 65,
650-661.
[19]. Singh, A.K., Padmanabhan, N. P. H., Sridhar, U. and
Rao, N. K., (1992). Proceedings of National Seminar on
Research and Process Development in Mineral Preparation,
NML, Jamshedpur, pp. 217- 224.
[20]. Morais, A. G., Baltar, C. A. M. and Pereira, C. A.
(2013). Lead recovery by flotation with sodium lauryl
sulfate. Mineração Mining. 66(1), 117-121.
[21]. Singh, R., Sengupta, S. K., Pathak, P. N.,
Chattopadhyay, A. and Maulik, S. C.: Flotation studies on
processing of a low grade uranium ore. International
Conference on Challenges in Coal and Mineral
Beneficiation.

Comparative studies on flotation of kasolite using cationic and anionic surfactants

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Comparative studies on flotation of kasolite using cationic and anionic surfactants

More from eSAT Publishing House

Recently uploaded

Comparative studies on flotation of kasolite using cationic and anionic surfactants