Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
This report describes trials conducted with SGS Mineral Services on a Holman Wilfley Wet Shaking table for WRAP project MDD018/23. The aim of the project was to trial innovative techniques to tackle some of the more difficult separations encountered by primary and secondary WEEE processors. Recovering copper from mixed WEEE is a notoriously difficult separation and several techniques have been tested during this project to attempt to find a solution to the problem. The wet shaking table is a technique which originates from the mineral processing industries and has been in use for many years. Its use in the recycling industry is a recent development. The aim of this specific trial was to test the techniques ability to recover fine copper from a copper plastic mixture. Fine copper is often found in the WEEE plastic stream and the recovery of it from plastic is currently a problem for which there are no suitable solutions. The copper-rich plastic mixture was pre-treated in two ways in order to size reduce the sample material. This allowed for an investigation into the effect of particle size on the success of the separation to be carried out. One sample of the copper-rich plastic was granulated to a <2.36mm fraction and a 2.36 to 5mm fraction. Another sample was hammer milled, producing three fractions with size ranges 0-3mm, 3 to 5mm and >5mm. Some of the copper-rich plastic material was left in its original condition at 8-12mm. Each of the samples was processed on the wet shaking table, with the following conclusions. The <2.36mm and 0-3mm fractions performed best and significant amounts of copper were recovered from both. The other four fractions performed poorly, but it should be noted that in the cases where the material had been size reduced and screened, most of the copper from the feed material appeared in the smallest particle size fraction and hence there was actually very little copper to recover from the larger fractions. If a wet shaking table is selected as a technique to recover a copper fraction from WEEE, the copper-rich plastic should be size reduced to below 3mm.
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport A wet shaking table capable of processing 1 tonne per hour of size reduced copper-rich plastic from WEEE processing has an installed capital cost of 110,000 and a payback time of nine months. Therefore this technique has good potential for use in the WEEE recycling sector.
Table of contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Information from Trial ........................................................................................... 6 Photograph of Trial Equipment ........................................................................... 6 Description of Trial Equipment ............................................................................ 7 Trial Objectives................................................................................................ 10 Sample Material ............................................................................................... 10 Trial Methodology ............................................................................................ 10 Trial 1 - less than 2.36mm granulated copper rich plastic ...................................... 12 Feed Material................................................................................................... 12 Results ............................................................................................................ 13 Photographs of product samples ....................................................................... 14 Analysis of product samples.............................................................................. 16 Discussion of results ........................................................................................ 17 Conclusions from trial....................................................................................... 18 Trial 2 - 2.36 to 5mm granulated copper rich plastic.............................................. 19 Feed Material................................................................................................... 19 Results ............................................................................................................ 19 Photographs of product samples ....................................................................... 20 Analysis of results samples ............................................................................... 22 Discussion of results ........................................................................................ 23 Conclusions from trial....................................................................................... 23 Trial 3 - Copper-rich plastic without pre-treatment ................................................ 23 Feed Material................................................................................................... 23 Results ............................................................................................................ 24 Photographs of product samples ....................................................................... 25 Analysis of product samples.............................................................................. 28 Discussion of results ........................................................................................ 28 Conclusions from trial....................................................................................... 28
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport 5.0 Trial 4 - +5mm milled copper rich plastic.............................................................. 29 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.0 9.0 Feed Material................................................................................................... 29 Results ............................................................................................................ 29 Photographs of product samples ....................................................................... 30 Analysis of results samples ............................................................................... 32 Discussion of results ........................................................................................ 32 Conclusions from trial....................................................................................... 32 Trial 5 - 3mm to 5mm hammer milled copper rich plastic....................................... 33 Feed Material................................................................................................... 33 Results ............................................................................................................ 33 Photographs of product samples ....................................................................... 34 Analysis of product samples.............................................................................. 36 Discussion of results ........................................................................................ 36 Conclusions from trial....................................................................................... 36 Trial 6 - 0mm to 3mm milled copper rich plastic.................................................... 37 Feed Material................................................................................................... 37 Results ............................................................................................................ 37 Photographs of product samples ....................................................................... 38 Analysis of product samples.............................................................................. 41 Discussion of results ........................................................................................ 42 Conclusions from trial....................................................................................... 42 Economic calculation ........................................................................................... 43 Overall final conclusions of the trial ...................................................................... 46
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
List of figures
Figure 1: Photograph of the trial equipment...................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Close up of wet shaking table deck .................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Schematic indicating where each of the product fractions is collected in relation to the table......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Photograph of the -2.36mm granulated copper-rich plastic feed material ........... 12 Figure 5: Photograph of the -2.36mm material on the wet shaking table .......................... 13 Figure 6: Photograph of trial 1 concentrate 1 .................................................................. 14 Figure 7: Photograph of trial 1 concentrate 2 .................................................................. 14 Figure 8: Photograph of trial 1 concentrate 3 .................................................................. 15 Figure 9: Photograph of trial 1 middlings ........................................................................ 15 Figure 10: Photograph of trial 1 tailings .......................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Photograph of concentrate 1 from scavenge trial ............................................ 18 Figure 12: Photograph of the +2.36 mm granulated copper rich plastic material ............... 19 Figure 13: Photograph of trial 2 concentrate 1 ................................................................ 20 Figure 14: Photograph of trial 2 concentrate 2 ................................................................ 21 Figure 15: Photograph of trial 2 concentrate 3 ................................................................ 21 Figure 16: Photograph of trial 2 middlings ...................................................................... 22 Figure 17: Photograph of trial 2 tailings .......................................................................... 22 Figure 18: Photograph of the copper-rich plastic material as it is .................................... 24 Figure 19: Wet shaking table in operation on the copper-rich plastic without size reduction .................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 20: Photograph of trial 3 concentrate 1 ................................................................ 25 Figure 21: Photograph of trial 3 concentrate 2 ................................................................ 26 Figure 22: Photograph of trial 3 concentrate 3 ................................................................ 26 Figure 23: Photograph of trial 3 middlings ...................................................................... 27 Figure 24: Photograph of trial 3 tailings .......................................................................... 27 Figure 25: +5mm milled copper-rich plastic feed material................................................ 29 Figure 26: Trial 4 concentrate 1 ..................................................................................... 30 Figure 27: Trial 4 concentrate 2 ..................................................................................... 30 Figure 28: Trial 4 concentrate 3 ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 29: Trial 4 middlings ........................................................................................... 31 Figure 30: Trial 4 tailings ............................................................................................... 32 Figure 31: 3-5mm milled copper rich plastic feed material ............................................... 33 Figure 32: Trial 5 concentrate 1 ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 33: Trial 5 concentrate 2 ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 34: Trial 5 concentrate 3 ..................................................................................... 35 Figure 35: Trial 5 middlings ........................................................................................... 35 Figure 36: Trial 5 tailings ............................................................................................... 36 Figure 37: 0-3mm hammer milled copper rich plastic material.......................................... 37 Figure 38: Wet shaking table in operation on the 0-3mm hammer milled material............. 38 Figure 39: Trial 6 concentrate 1 ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 40: Trial 6 concentrate 2 ..................................................................................... 39 4
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport Figure 41: Trial 6 concentrate 3 ..................................................................................... 39 Figure 42: Trial 6 middlings ........................................................................................... 40 Figure 43: Trial 6 tailings ............................................................................................... 40
List of tables
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: Throughput information for trial 1 ..................................................................... 13 2: Mass balance results for trial 1.......................................................................... 16 3: Analysis of feed, middling and tails fractions from trial 1 .................................... 16 4: Analysis of concentrate 1, 2 and 3 from trial 1 ................................................... 17 5: Results of copper anaylsis including product sepaartion efficiency, Q................... 17 6: Throughput information for trial 2 ..................................................................... 20 7 : Mass balance results for trial 2......................................................................... 23 8: Throughput information for trial 3 ..................................................................... 24 9: Mass balance results for trial 3.......................................................................... 28 10: Throughput information for trial 4 ................................................................... 30 11: Mass balance results for trial 4........................................................................ 32 13: Throughput information for trial 5 ................................................................... 33 14: Mass balance results for trial 5........................................................................ 36 15: Throughput information for trial 6 ................................................................... 37 16: Mass balance results for trial 6........................................................................ 41 17: Results of analysis on feed, middling and tails from trial 6 ................................ 41 18: Analysis of concentrates 1, 2 and 3 ................................................................. 41 19: Results of copper analysis for trial 6 including product separation efficiency, Q .. 41 20: Payback calculation for a wet shaking table ..................................................... 44
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
1.0
Trial host: SGS Mineral Services, the trial was conducted at a facility in Cornwall, UK. Trial equipment: Holman Wilfley wet shaking table Trial date: 10th February 2009
1.1
Figure 1 is an annotated photograph of the wet shaking table used in the trial. Feedtrough Deckwithriffles Watersupplytotable Additional watercanbe addedtothe feedhere Feedhopper
Head motion
Top edge
Bottom edge
1.2
The wet shaking table at SGS mineral services in Cornwall is a half sized Holman Wilfley table. This means it has a quarter of the area of a full sized unit but operates in the same way as a full table. Figure 1 shows the feed point in the corner of the table where the feed material is added. Water flows out of holes in a pipe which runs along the top of the table. There is also a separate supply of water into the feed trough. In operation, the table moves forward and backward, this motion is called the stroke. The table is made with shallow longitudinal ridges running from one side to the other called riffles. The movement of the stroke is in the direction of the riffles. The table is pushed forward with a slow stroke, tensioning a spring as it does so. When the table reaches the specified stroke length the spring then releases its tension and pulls the table back quickly, hitting the retaining stops. As the table moves forwards the particles rise and are momentarily suspended. As the table moves backwards the dense particles settle back down and the motion gradually causes the particles to move along the riffles in the direction of the tables forward stroke. The light material stays in the upper layer and flows down 7
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport over the riffles with the flow of water. An analogy for the movement would be to compare it to a magician pulling a table cloth from under the table contents. In the context of WEEE separation, copper (coarse, dense material) will settle against the riffles and travel upwards to the far side of the table. Plastic will settle in the upper layer and will travel down over the riffles with the water to the bottom edge of the table. The height of the riffles decreases along the length of the table from the feed to the product end. The riffles are higher near the feed and tailings edge of the table, approximately 78mm high. The riffles decrease in height to only a few millimetres near the concentration end and top edge of the table. The riffles are approximately 5cm apart. The plastic particles jump over the high riffles whilst the copper travels up the riffles. The height of the riffle is connected to the material being processed on the table and different riffle patterns can be used depending on the material being processed. For coarser particles, common within the recycling industry, the height of the riffles can be as much as 20-25mm. Depending on the type of material, the size of table used in this trial would be expected to process 400-450kg/hr. A full size table, dimensions 5.8m long x 1.75m wide x 1.2m high with a nominal deck area of 8.0m2, can handle around 2-2.5 tonnes per hour. If the material is coarse and has a close size distribution then the throughput can be as high as 3.5-4.0 tonnes per hour. Finer material or material with a wide size distribution will have a lower throughput. There are four process variables for a wet shaking table: Stroke length (maximum stroke length of 19mm); Deck angle; Wash water flow rate; and Position of splitter plate.
The first three variables have an effect on whether a separation is achieved. The last one has an effect on the products collected both in terms of quantity and quality. The stroke length is the distance the table moves forwards and backwards. For all the trials it remained constant at 15mm. The stroke can be increased to a maximum of 19mm for coarse material or decreased to 5mm for very fine material. If the particle size is large and the feed material has a low density then a longer stroke is required to separate the particles. The deck angle can be adjusted from 0 to a maximum of 9. During the trials the deck angle was set at 7. Typically for fine material a flatter deck angle is used but the actual settings need to be fined tuned during start up and are relative to the density of the material. The feed rate should be kept constant and the solids feed density should be around 25%. This is to ensure that a steady state on the deck is maintained, as fluctuations in the flow of 8
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport material will affect the separation. The wash water flow rate range is 18 to 38 litres per minute. The table produces five product fractions, illustrated in Figure 3. There are three concentrate fractions produced at the end of the table which consist of the dense material. Concentrate 1 is from the top corner, concentrate 2 is from the upper middle part of the table and concentrate 3 is from the lower middle part of the table. Beneath these three fractions, at the bottom corner of the table, is a fraction known as the middlings. This fraction will often contain a mixture of the concentrate material and the tailings material and may need reprocessing. At the centre bottom edge of the table is the tailings fraction which is the light material. The table can also be tuned for a three way split, one product in the concentrate, one product in the middlings and one product in the tailings. The copper material will be found in concentrates 1, 2 and 3. Glass may be found in concentrate 3 whilst the middling and tailings are mainly plastic. Concentrate1 Concentrate2 Concentrate3 Riffles Directionoftable movement
Middlings
Tailings
Figure 3: Schematic indicating where each of the product fractions is collected in relation to the table
A moveable splitter plate determines what material is collected as concentrate 3 and what material is rejected in the middlings. During operation the bed of material on the table is observed in order to determine if the splitter plate position needs to be adjusted. It should be positioned just at the point where the two materials being separated form a distinct line. Once correctly set, the table will operate in steady state with constant flows of materials, so the plate should not require further adjustment. If the splitter plate is positioned incorrectly, valuable product (i.e. copper) could be rejected to the middlings fraction, which would then need reworking in order to recover the copper. Conversely, the splitter plate could be positioned so that the concentrate contains less valuable materials (i.e. plastic/glass), which is also undesirable. If concentrate 3 contained very little copper and more plastic/glass then it should be directed into the middlings fraction.
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
1.3
Trial objectives
The overall objective of the trial was to separate valuable metals from glass, stone and plastic. The specific aim was to produce a high purity copper stream which has a saleable potential. The key to achieving an effective separation is likely to be the particle size and shape. Market research indicates that the combustible component of the copper fraction must be reduced to below 5% by weight to make it attractive to the majority of copper smelters in Europe. A higher content of stone and glass can be tolerated as they are inert in the smelter. However separating copper from stone and glass increases the value of both fractions. The stone and glass has no value when mixed and sold with copper but may be saleable as a useful aggregate substitute if it can be separated with a low copper content.
1.4
Sample material
The samples used for these trials were copper-rich plastic fraction sourced from Axions WEEE processing plant in Salford, UK. The copper-rich plastic was size reduced in two different ways: granulation and hammer milling. This produced five different fractions, along with the original material itself for testing. The different samples were chosen to allow the effects of particle size on the separation to be investigated. The six samples were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. <2.36mm granulated copper-rich plastic; 2.36-5mm granulated copper-rich plastic; Copper-rich plastic as it is; 0-3mm hammer milled copper-rich plastic; 3-5mm hammer milled copper-rich plastic; and +5mm hammer milled copper-rich plastic.
1.5
Trial methodology
The objective for each sample of material was the same, so the trial methodology used for each sample was also the same. Prior to processing the material the feed rate was measured by timing a fixed amount of material though the feed system. The results for each of the throughputs are shown in the relevant trial sections. After each of the samples was tested on the table the samples were dried by SGS Services and returned to Axions facility at Salford. A scavenge of the tailings for trial 1 was conducted. This involved passing the tailings material over the table again to see if there was any copper which had not been recovered by the first pass. Two techniques were used to determine the composition of the fractions in order to analyse the sample material.
10
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport In order to identify any losses of copper in the middlings and tailings fractions a sodium polytungstate solution was used as a sink-float medium. This method was chosen as any residual copper would be very small and difficult to hand sort. The same procedure was applied to the feed material to allow the analysed feed composition and the back calculated feed composition to be compared. The same method was used for samples of feed, middlings and tailings. A small sample spear was used to take a representative sample from each bag. The sample was then weighed and added to a container of sodium tungstate solution with a density of 1.7g/cm3. Ideally the copper would sink and everything else would float. The two fractions were removed from the container and dried. Where the material was large enough the fractions were hand sorted. An estimation of the copper content was made for those fractions where a hand sort was not possible due to very small particle size. Once the physical analysis of the samples was completed, product and reject separation efficiencies, Q and R, were calculated. For this trial the product separation efficiency, Q, is the probability of correctly recovering copper to the desired product stream. The reject separation efficiency, R, is the probability that everything else is correctly sorted to the secondary product stream. In this case the secondary product stream is of no use and only the copper is a useful product. The three concentrate fractions from the table are classed as the product stream and the middling and tailing fractions is the secondary product.
11
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
12
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
2.2
Results
Trial 1
Times s 21.0
13
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
2.3
14
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
15
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
2.4
Table 2 shows the mass balance for trial 1. It should be noted that the feed amount was not weighed It has been back-calculated from the product fractions so the loss/gain is zero. For all other trials the feed amount was correctly weighed and the loss determined.
Trial 1
Feed Con1 Con2 Con3 Middlings Tailings Amount g g % g % g % g % g % 4214.7 193.7 5% 322.9 8% 387.3 9% 867.8 21% 2443 58%
Loss/Gain g 0.0
Trial
Weight Dry %of ofdry copper copper sample weight 15.39 2.6 17% 10.56 0.24 2% 5.92 0 0%
16
Trial1 g % g % g % Concentrate1 186 96% 5 3% 2 1% Concentrate2 291 90% 32 10% 0 0% Concentrate3 198 51% 189 49% 0 0%
2.5
Discussion of results
Table 3 and 4 show the results of the analysis for each of the product fractions from the trial 1.
Table 5 shows just the copper analysis as this is the main area of focus. It can be seen that the copper concentration in concentrate 1 is 96% and in concentrate 2 is 90%. Both of these are high purities for copper fractions recovered from WEEE and should meet the copper smelters requirements. 67% of the copper in the feed was recovered in 17
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport concentrates 1 and 2. Over a quarter of the copper was recovered to concentrate 3 but only at a 50% purity level. The back calculated copper content of the feed, 16%, is very close to the actual analysed copper content of the feed, 17%, which shows that the analysis is consistent. The product separation efficiency, Q value (which is the probability that the copper is correctly sorted into one of the three product fractions) is 94% for concentrates 1, 2 and 3. This is a high separation efficiency and means that the majority of the copper is recovered. The results of a scavenge on the trial 1 tailings is illustrated in Figure 11 below, concluding that no copper had been lost in the tailings fraction in the first trial.
2.6
The technique is very good for the separation of copper from plastic with this feed material. A copper fraction with 26% recovery at 96% purity was produced. Taking into account all three concentrate fractions the copper recovery is 95%, at a purity of 75%. The probability that the copper is correctly sorted into one of the concentrate fractions is 94%. Therefore the trial objective of recovering the copper into a saleable fraction has been achieved. With further system adjustments and fine tuning even better results may be obtained.
18
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
Figure 12: Photograph of the +2.36 mm granulated copper rich plastic material
3.2 Results
There was much less copper in the feed material for trial 2, compared to trial 1, which indicates that most of the copper went into the less than 2.36mm fraction when the material was granulated and sieved. There was a clear layer of glass which occurred at the transition zone between the copper and plastic. It may be possible to fine tune the machine to produce only glass in the middling fraction. The throughput results are shown in Table 6.
19
Times s 20.5
20
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
21
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
22
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport Feed Total Con1 Con2 Con3 Middlings Tailings Trial Loss/Gain Amount Output g g % g % g % g % g % g g 2 10559 44 0.4% 272 3% 51 0.5% 1440 14% 8257 78% 10064 495
23
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
4.2 Results
During the trial it was observed that the material tended to flow over the table and the riffles did not catch the copper. Figure 19 shows the material on the table and it can be seen that it has lumped together on the table and not spread out correctly. This is probably due to the shape of the plastic particles; the plate-like shape means they flow with the water over the riffles. The separate throughput timings are shown in Table 8.
24
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
Figure 19: Wet shaking table in operation on the copper-rich plastic without size reduction
25
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
26
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
4.4
27
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
Trial 3
Feed Total Con1 Con2 Con3 Middlings Tailings Amount Output g g % g % g % g % g % g 10676 53.6 1% 390.8 4% 952.7 9% 4670.0 44% 3666.6 34% 9733.7
Loss/Gain g 942.3
28
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
5.2 Results
At the start of this trial it appeared that there was no separation occurring but it became apparent that there was very little copper in the sample. The table tilt was increased to 9 to see if this helped achieve a separation, but it had no effect. The water pressure dropped during this trial, which had an effect on the wetting of the material, which was very dry. Even taking this into account the separation would still have been poor due to the small amount of copper in the feed. Table 10 shows the throughput information for trial 4, which is in the same range as the other trials.
Trial 4
Times s 20.4
29
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
30
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
31
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
32
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
6.2 Results
Again there was very little copper in this sample of material so no significant separation occurred. There was a small amount of copper and plastic present in the middling and tailings fractions and some balled up copper was observed in concentrate 1 and 2. Table 12 shows the throughput information for trial 5.
Trial 5 Material Quantity g 542 Times s 20.0 Feedrate kg/hr 97.6
33
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
34
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
35
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
Trial 5
Con3 g 292 % 3%
Middlings g 1346
36
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
7.2 Results
It was noted during the trial that the feed material contained a significant proportion of plastic particles greater than 3mm. This means that the material was not screened correctly, perhaps due to a hole in the screen. The throughput measurement for this trial is shown in Table 14.
Trial 6
Times s 30.0
37
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
Figure 38: Wet shaking table in operation on the 0-3mm hammer milled material
Figure 38 shows a photograph of the wet shaking table in operation during the trial. At the top edge of the table a clear copper stream can be seen flowing up and along the riffles. In the lower section of the photograph there is a darker material, mainly plastic and dust which is flowing down over the riffles.
38
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
39
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
7.4
40
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
Trial 6
Feed Total Con1 Con2 Con3 Middlings Tailings Loss/Gain Amount Output g g % g % g % g % g % g g 9976 25.7 0.3% 389.3 4% 324.7 3% 361.3 4% 8400 84% 9501.0 475.0
Table 16: Results of analysis on feed, middling and tails from trial 6
Glass Plastic
Table 18: Results of copper analysis for trial 6 including product separation efficiency, Q
41
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
42
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
43
Trial Equipment
Capacity te/hr Costof unitincludingfeedsystemand installation Basisofoperation hr/yr Overall EquipmentEffectivenessOEE % PlantInput te/yr OperatingCosts Water Quantity Cost(assuming2/te) Power Quantity Cost(assuming10p/kWhr) WaterandPowercosts WaterandPowercosts Wearcostsforgranulator
kg/hr /hr
100 0.20
50 5 5.20 10920 6 12600 45000 0 68520 Assume 10%offeedis separatedasproduct 210 1000 210000 141480 15
Margin Paybacktime
44
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport The calculation assumes a capacity of 1 tonne per hour for a full size Holman Wilfley separation table and an installed cost for the unit, including feed granulator, of 180,000. The plant is assumed to operate 12 hours per day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, giving 3,000 hours of operation per year. The payback calculation assumes a overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) of 70%, where the OEE is defined as follows:
OEE capacity rate x quality rate x availability actual throughput capacity rate rated throughput quality rate % of on specification product availability actual run hours available run hours
Therefore the overall plant throughput will be 2,100 tonnes per year, Operational costs: The feed material is currently sent to landfill and once the copper has been recovered the residue material will still be sent to landfill so there is no net cost or benefit from disposal of the residue fraction. It is assumed that 10% fresh water is lost per tonne of material sent to landfill with a water cost of 2/te. A total power consumption of 50 kW is assumed for operation of the granulator, separation table and associated pumps and sieves. The power cost is assumed to be 10p/kW hr. Wear costs for the granulator are estimated to be 6 per tonne of feed. The calculation assumes that the system will require one operator at a total job cost of 45,000 per year. The revenue estimate assumes that 10% copper is extracted the feed. This means that the plant will recover about 210 tonnes of copper concentrate. The value of this material will fluctuate but is assumed to be approximately 1,000 per tonne. Therefore the margin is 141,480 and so the payback time is nine months. The economic assessment shows that a unit processing 1 tonne per hour of size reduced copper-rich plastic from WEEE processing should generate an operating margin of about 140,000/year. This should pay back the 180,000 installed cost for the system in around 15 months.
45
WRAPMDD018WEEESeparationTechniques HolmanWilfleyWetShakingTableTrialReport
For the -2.36mm granulated material 95% of the copper was recovered, at a concentration of 75% copper. For the 0-3mm hammer milled material 56% of the copper was recovered at 90% purity. The wet shaking table was partially successful when trying to recover copper from the +2.4mm size fraction of the granulated copper rich plastic material. The wet shaking table, could not recover copper efficiently from copper-rich plastic mixtures which had not been size reduced. The copper content of the 3-5mm and +5mm fractions from hammer-milled copper-rich plastic was very low so there was no benefit in trying to separate these fractions. The trial showed that when copper-rich plastic is size reduced, the majority copper tends to end up in the smallest fraction; copper-rich plastic should therefore be milled or granulated to less than 5mm, ideally less than 3mm, prior to using a wet shaking table for copper recovery. The feed material should be fully wetted before processing in order to assist with separation. The wet shaking table can potentially be tuned to produce a glass fraction in the middlings. However the presence of glass in the copper fraction is not a problem for copper smelters because it ends up in the furnace slag fraction and does not interfere with furnace operation. The throughput of the quarter size table used for the trial varied from 80 kg/hr to 150 kg/hr depending on the material being processed. This means that the throughput of a full size table should be in the range 320 to 600 kg/hr. Axion believes that a modified feed mechanism should allow a single full size table to achieve 1te/hr with a -3mm feed material.
46