MTRL 358

Solid-Liquid Separation
2012
Introduction
This is a critically important operation in both mineral processing and at various stages in
hydrometallurgical extraction. It is often quite costly, requiring large equipment and facilities.
Poor liquid-solid separation characteristics can undo what would otherwise be a successful
process. This requires careful attention.
Water may need to be reclaimed for a couple of reasons. First to adjust process stream
characteristics so that they are suitable for subsequent treatment (applies to both tailings and
other process streams). Second to recover or recycle water, which reduces consumption (very
important in dry areas) and to prevent contamination of fresh water sources. On the other hand
solids may need to be removed from a solution in order to obtain a pure metal product, or to
further process the solids themselves.
Slurries, suspensions and tailings may contain from 10% to almost 100% water by
weight. Dewatering is accomplished by four basic methods:
(a) Screening (larger particles retained on screens as water passes through)
(b) Sedimentation (decantation or thickening - relies on the same principles as
sedimentation classification)
(c) Filtration
(d) Thermal drying (may be costly since the heat capacity of water is high)
The effectiveness of water removal as a function of particle size (on a log scale) is
shown in the figure below. The vertical axis lists volume % water retained in the dewatered
product. There are numerous types of screens. Screening a slurry can very simply remove
excess water from a desired size fraction. The smaller the particle size, the greater the total
surface area per unit weight and the more water that is retained by the solids. A sieve bend is a
type of screen that uses a curved surface. Slurry flows over the concave surface and in doing so
experiences some centrifugal force due to the curvature. They are therefore somewhat more
efficient than flat screens.
There are numerous types of classifiers. Classifiers have use in separating small
particles from large particles or particles on the basis of density differences. They may also be
used for dewatering. In this case the slurry may be fed into a long trough. Solids settle and are
dragged up an incline by spirals, rakes etc. A disadvantage is that the aqueous phase may be
significantly diluted. Very fine particles may also be deliberately removed from the pulp, with the
aqueous phase (desliming). A thickener is a type of classifier. According to the figure a thickener
can achieve about 75-80% water content by volume in the discharged underflow slurry. This
seems rather large, but it should be remembered that minerals are much more dense than

water. In many instances thickeners can achieve 50% water retention by weight. Relatively new
paste thickeners use much deeper, narrower vessels and have solids (mud) zones that are
several meters thick; much more than in conventional thickeners. This produces a much denser
slurry (paste) that contains less water and exhibits non-Newtonian flow properties (rheology). An
important type of classifier not indicated in the diagram is a hydroclone. These use centrifugal
force to accentuate density differences. They are used for size separations, and for dewatering
as well. Centrifuges are accelerated sedimentation devices that spin rapidly, also accentuating
density differences. In a hydroclone, the machine stays fixed and the slurry is introduced
tangentially into the cylindrical housing.
Filtration is commonly practiced in hydrometallurgy. Common types of filters are drum
filters (explained later), belt filters and filter presses. Drum and belt filters employ reduced
pressure on the underside of a porous membrane to draw off liquid. Filter presses use positive
pressure on the side where the slurry contacts the filter cloth. Vacuum filters, for instance, are
good at removing fine material and lower water content to as low as 10% by volume.
It is apparent from the figure that no matter what the particle size range, no mechanical
dewatering system can removal all water. Further, as particle size decreases mechanical
methods become less effective, due to the increased surface area per unit mass. Reduction in
water content to low levels ultimately requires thermal drying. This is increasingly expensive as
the cost of energy increases. Feeds to pyrometallurgical smelters may required thermal drying.
In some instances this is also required for hydrometallurgical processes, but not commonly.

Figure 1. Overview of dewatering methods [1].

In sedimentation the settling rates of very small particles (a few microns in diameter)
may be very slow under gravity alone. Flocculants may be added which act to agglomerate fine
particles into more massive aggregates, which settle more rapidly. A wide variety of flocculants
are available. Many are polymers with charged sites that attract oppositely surface-charged
particles. This is illustrated in the figure below. This is an important technique in sedimentation.
The objective now is not to separate one type of solid from another, but to separate all the solids

from the water or solution. Thickeners are the most important type of sedimentation unit. They
are similar in design and size to sedimentation classifiers. Diameters on the order of ~100 m
exist. They are cylindrical and have conical bottoms. A variety of designs and types exist. They
operate continuously. The overflow is the substantially clarified water/solution. The underflow
slurry is higher in solids concentration than the feed slurry is, but is still quite high in water or
solution content. A radially aligned rake turns, moving along the bottom to direct the solids to the
discharge.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of how a flocculant gathers small particles into a floc and makes
a denser, more easily settled agglomerate.
CCD Washing
When a solid-liquid separation must be performed it may be preferable to use a
thickener. Often solids settle readily under gravity, but filtration and washing turn out to be
uneconomically slow. Additionally, as the tonnage of slurry to be separated increases, the cost
of the thickener per tonne of material decreases. But, to filter and wash a large tonnage of slurry
will require several filters in parallel. (Filters have relatively low capacities.) The capital cost of
filters is proportional to the throughput. A single series of thickeners will often suffice to handle a
large tonnage throughput. Thickeners can be made very large.
The solution in a slurry of leached ore often needs to be separated from the solids.
Passing the slurry through a single thickener would still leave a substantial fraction of the
solution (an hence valuable solute) going out the bottom of the thickener with the solids. This
residual solution can be recovered by washing the solids. This is achieved by counter-current
decantation. In this technique a series of thickeners are used. This is illustrated in the diagram
below. Overflow from a thickener becomes the wash solution to the preceding thickener. It is
preferable to have the underflow contain as high percent solids as possible. This minimizes the
fraction of valuable metal in the underflow solution exiting with the solids. The final underflow
slurry still contains some solute in solution. This is minimized when the underflow slurry has the
highest possible solids content (less solution, and hence less solute), and with increasing
number of wash thickeners.
In the schematic diagram below the total number of stages here is just three. In practice
many more stages may be used, depending on the application. The number of wash stages in
this example above is two, after the first , or lead (lead as in front, not as in Pb) thickener, to
which feed slurry is added and from which the final clarified solution overflows. (The number of

wash stages is always 1 less than the total number of thickeners in the circuit.) Wash

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of a simple CCD circuit.

water (or spent solution, low in the solute of interest) enters the last thickener and moves up to
preceding thickeners. Underflow solids move from the first thickener to be combined with the
wash solution as shown. The solids move in one direction and the solution overflow in the other.
Hence the term counter-current decantation, or CCD. )The term decantation refers to the idea of
pouring off a solution from a settled mass of solids.) It is important that the concentration of
solution be uniform in the thickeners. This is achieved by ensuring good mixing of the underflow
with the wash stream, as indicated by the confluence of streams in the diagram. If the flow of
solutions and slurry is turbulent, a good rule of thumb is that the combined streams should flow
through a distance equal to the radius of the thickener. Then mixing of the streams is sufficient
to provide a uniform composition solution in the slurry. It is this mixing that results in the
overflow solution and underflow solution form a thickener having the same composition! If
mixing is inadequate there will be some loss of efficiency. It is often necessary to add
flocculating agents to aggregate small particles in order to facilitate settling. Too strongly
flocculated particles may trap some solution phase in the floc and this can result in excessive
loss of solute to the final underflow.
Test work needs to be done for new processes in order to determine the settling rates of
solids, for example after leaching of an ore. Another critical variable is the efficiency of the circuit
as indicated by the recovery. Recovery is the ratio of the mass of solute in the final overflow
(the pregnant solution) to the total mass of solute in the feed solution (the feed solution, again,
being associated with a slurry). The remainder is lost to the final underflow solution exiting with
the solids slurry leaving the final thickener. A key parameter for evaluating efficiency is the
concentration of solids in the underflow. And the higher the solids content, the less the amount
of solution, and therefore solute, that exits with the underflow slurry from each thickener. Then a
lower number of stages may be required to effect the same degree of recovery. Washing results
in a substantial dilution of the final recovered solution. The final PLS solute concentration is
typically still >50% of the starting value. With enough thickeners virtually complete recovery can
be obtained. The theoretical limit is 100%, albeit with a very large number of thickeners. In
practice, since thickeners are capital intensive, there is an economic limit. A tradeoff between
technical feasibility and economic feasibility must be made. Each additional stage recovers a
smaller percentage of the solute; the law of diminishing returns.
To calculate recovery and efficiency a mass balance approach may be used. Consider a
thickener into which a leach slurry enters. The overflow is the pregnant solution. In this example

there are four stages, three of which are wash stages. In practice there may be several more
stages. This is a variable. A diagram illustrating the solution flows is shown below.

Figure 4. Schematic illustration of solution flows and concentrations in CCD streams.

The feed enters the lead thickener (number 0) with a solution flow rate of F in convenient
units. The concentration of a solute is C*. The pregnant solution overflow exits at a flow rate of V
(> F) and a lower concentration C0 (because of dilution by wash water). Wash water enters the
final thickener (number 3) at a concentration of solute = C 4. If there is none of the solute in the
water then C4 = 0. The wash water flow rate is designated O. This is also the overflow flow rate
from each thickener, except number 0. (If this were not so, then solution would accumulate or
deplete in the circuit.) It is assumed that the solute concentration in each thickener is uniform.
The concentration in solution associated with thickener 2 is designated C2 and so on. Underflow
from each thickener exits at a flow rate U of solution phase. The solids flow rate out the bottom
adds to the total mass flow, but the mass balance is being carried out on the basis of solution.
The concentration of solute in solution exiting thickener 2 is C 2 for both the overflow and the
underflow.
Now mass balance equations can be written for the solute. The mass balance properly
requires knowledge of the mass flow rates and concentrations expressed in terms of mass of
solute per unit mass of solution. However, mass flow rates may not always be readily available;
pumps deliver known volumes per unit time. If the solution and wash densities are close to 1
g/mL, which in many instances is valid, the concentrations in mass/volume (e.g. Kg/m 3) and flow
rates in volume/time may be used. If the density of the leach solution, for example, is
significantly higher than one, which may occur with concentrated solutions, then volumetric
concentrations and flow rates will introduce a degree of error. Incorporating solution densities
into the calculations then will overcome this error, but make the equations more complicated.
For the sake of simplicity, in this discussion we will assume solution densities are 1 g/mL. Then
1 Kg of water or solution = 1 L volume.
A mass balance equation may be set up for each stage. At steady state, what enters
must equal what leaves:
For 0 FC* + OC1 = VC0 + UC0

(1)

For 1 UC0 + OC2 = OC1 + U C1

(2)

For 2 UC1 + OC3 = OC2 + UC2

(3)

For 3 UC2 + OC4 = OC3 + UC3

(4)

In general for n wash stages,

UCn-1 + OCn+1 = OCn + UCn

(5)

Note the pattern of concentrations on the left and right. This symmetry leads to convenient
simplification of the math later. The equations may be rearranged as follows:
FC*/U + (O/U)C1 = (V/U + 1)C0

(6)

C0 + (O/U)C2 = (O/U + 1)C1

(7)

C1 + (O/U)C3 = (O/U + 1)C2

(8)

C2 + (O/U)C4 = (O/U + 1)C3

(9)

The ratio O/U is called the overflow-underflow ratio, also called the wash ratio. This very
important variable is the volumetric ratio of the overflow volume from each wash thickener to the
underflow solution volume from each thickener. Let this be x. If C4 is zero, for wash water,
C3 = C2
x+1

(10)

Now we have C3 in terms of C2. Next we express C1 in terms of C2, and so on. In other words,
start with the nth thickener and work back. Substitute (10) into (8):
C1 + xC2 = (x + 1)C2
x+1

(11)

Rearranging gives:
C2 =

C1
x+1- x
x+1

(12)

Similarly, substituting (12) into (7) yields:

(13)

Finally, substituting (13) into (6) leads to:

(14)

Note the repeating pattern in x terms! There is one set of these per wash thickener.
Recovery of solute from the 0th thickener is expressed as:
Recovery = VC0/FC*

(15)

Multiply this by 100 and we have the recovery in %. Note also that the pregnant solution
overflow rate must obey the equation:
F+O-U=V

(16)

assuming there are no changes in volume upon mixing. This is the mass balance for solution
flows. Recovery then is:
(17)

The concentration C* disappears, which makes sense; fractional recovery cannot depend on
concentration. It is just a ratio of masses. F disappears in (17) too, but reappears later when V is
converted into F + O - U as per (16). Substituting (16) into (17) and multiplying by (1/U)/(1/U) to
convert O terms into O/U = x terms leads to:
(18)

It turns out that the function,

(19)

is precisely equivalent to:

xn+1 - x
(20)
xn+1 - 1
where n = the number of wash stages (the total number of thickeners less one). Recovery then
is:
R=

F/U + x - 1

(21)

F/U + x - xn+1 - x
xn+1 - 1
When terms are collected for equation (19) hairy polynomials result, one in the
numerator and one in the denominator. Multiplying these by (x-1)/(x-1) results in equation (20).
Hence the n+1 powers. It turns out that these numerators and denominators are always factors
of xn+1-x and xn+1-1, respectively; x-1 is the other factor.
Equation (20) is called the wash efficiency. It indicates the effectiveness of the total of
all the washing thickeners. Note that as the number of stages increases the wash efficiency gets
closer to 1, i.e. 100% recovery:
(xn+1 - x) 1
(xn+1 - 1)

(22)

as n gets large, and if x > 1. Note too that as O/U increases the wash efficiency improves. The
higher O/U is, the less the amount of solution present with the solids in the underflow. In other
words, the higher the solids content of the underflow, the better the wash efficiency and
recovery. This is reasonable; the less of the solution that is going out the bottom with the solids,
the more of it is being recovered with the overflow from each thickener. Hence the O/U ratio is
absolutely critical to performance of thickeners.
Equation (14) may be rearranged with the same considerations as above to read,

C0 =

FC*
U
F + x - xn+1 - x
U
xn+1 - 1

(23)

A CCD wash circuit is designed around experimental data obtained during testwork to
engineer a process. If it turns out that the % solids in the underflow is significantly less than the
testwork suggested, then wash efficiency and total recovery will be correspondingly poor. This
results in loss of metal values and it can be economically fatal. In conclusion, recovery and
wash efficiency are improved by increasing the number of wash stages and increasing the %
solids in the underflow. Each additional thickener improves recovery, but to an ever decreasing
extent, as noted previously. With the equations above the effect can be quantified. Sometimes a
thickener malfunctions (the walls fall off). While it is being repaired it must be bypassed. This
lowers the number of stages and lowers recovery. If this happens too often, overall performance
will be decreased.
When solute is also present in the wash solution

The equations developed above assumed that the wash water contained none of the
solute of interest. Then C4 in equation (9) was zero, or more generally, C n+1 = 0. If this is not the
case then the algerbra is a bit more complicated, but the equations can still be readily solved.
The same method is used. The value of the solute concentration in the wash solution must be
known. All the same assumptions as previously apply. The solute concentration in the PLS from
the zeroth thickener is then found to be,

(24)

Note that there are two terms:

FC*
U
F + x - xn+1 - x
U
xn+1 - 1

xn+1(x - 1) Cn+1
xn+1 - 1
F + x - xn+1 - x
U
xn+1 - 1

(25)

The first is identical to equation (23). The second is entirely due to the solute in the wash
solution. The two contributions are completely separable.
Recovery becomes a matter of how you want to define it. Ignoring the contribution from
the wash solution, the recovery of solute that is fed into the lead thickener is the same as it was
before and is expressed by equation (21). The wash efficiency is also still the same as equation
(20). If this were not so, then we could increase recovery of solute from the feed just by adding
some of it to the wash water. That would violate the principle that you cannot get something for
nothing, thermodynamically speaking. We can write and equation for recovery of solute that
incorporates the solute added both from the feed and the wash solution. Then,
R =

VC0

(26)

FC* + OCn+1
Substituting equation (24) for C0 and collecting terms finally yields the equation below,

(27)

For Cn+1 = 0, i.e. wash water, the ratio on the right goes to unity and the familiar recovery from
equation (21) results. The ratio on the right is the factor due to solute being present in the wash
solution. In the limit of large n the ratio on the right tends toward,
FC* + Cn+1 x - Cn+1
U

(28)

FC + Cn+1 x
U
Thus the ratio on the right in equation (27) is always <1. Hence the recovery, when defined as
above, must be less than the recovery if wash water alone were used. The effect becomes
greater as Cn+1 increases. This stands to reason. A fraction of the wash solution in the n th
thickener goes out the bottom with the underflow. That fraction is just,
Cn U
O+U

(29)

However, the overflow PLS solution concentration is always somewhat higher than if wash
water alone is used. A wash solution containing solute might be recovered from a tailings pond,
for example. Recycling that water ultimately improves the overall recovery a little. This may
seem to contradict the previous statement that recovery as calculated from equation (27) is less
than if water alone is used for washing. However, the recovery of solute relative to that in the
feed is given by equation (15),
R = VC0
FC*

(15)

Since C0 is greater when solute is present in the wash solution than when it is not, R as defined
by equation (15) must also be greater. So overall recovery relative to what is fed in is greater.
Recovery as calculated by equation (15) may exceed 100% due to the contribution from solute
in the wash solution.
Thickener Design
Overflow Quality and Thickener Depth
The depth of a thickener depends on the rate of settling of the solids. The objective is a
clear overflow solution. Even so, very fine solids might still be present. Flocculation is the
process of particles coming together. Hence the growth of a floc requires interaction of two
particles. This then may be expected to obey second order kinetics,
dC/dt = -kC2

(30)

where C is the concentration of particles, k is the rate constant for flocculation and t is time.
Rearranging,
-dC/C2 = kdt

(31)

This may be integrated over the limits C0 to C and 0 to t,

-dC/C2 = kdt
Co

(32)

10

Then,
1/C = kt + 1/C0

(33)

The overflow quality is indicated by 1/C = Z. When C is small, the overflow is largely free of
solids and 1/C is large. The volumetric flow rate of slurry is designated Q 0, e.g. m3/hr. The
residence time in the thickener is volume / flow rate,
t = Q0 / Ah

(34)

where A is the thickener surface area and h is the depth. Then,

Z = 1/C = kAh / Q0 + 1/C0

(34)

If k is large then h can be small to achieve a given quality. But, if k is small, i.e. flocculation is
slow, then h must be large to achieve the same quality.
Surface Area Determination
In order to determine the required surface area for a thickener settling tests are
performed. These involve mixing up a slurry of the required solids with varying additions of
flocculant. The mixture is poured into a large graduated cylinder (e.g. 1 L) and inverted several
times to ensure it is well mixed. Then it is allowed to stand for about a day. As the solids fall a
definite interface appears. Above is clear solution. Below is a bed of slurry. Theinterface drops
over time as the solids settle. A plot of slurry bed depth with time is the settling curve. This may
be analyzed by a number of methods that involve geometric constructions to estimate the
required thickener area per unit flow rate. The methods vary widely, some over-estimating and
some under-estimating the required area. In practice it is better to over-estimate than underestimate. Mineral processing textbooks may be consulted for details of the methods.
Filtration
Filtration involves a physical barrier which is porous enough to allow passage of water or
solution, but not solids. The solids are retained on one side and the solution/water passes
through to the other side. A pressure difference must be applied to obtain reasonable rates.
Vacuum filters employ reduced pressure on the clarified solution side. Solution is then sucked
through. A filter press uses positive pressure on the side where solids are retained. As water
passes through a filter cake builds up which progressively impedes the flow.
Filters can handle very fine solids. As a filter cake begins to build up it acts to prevent
movement of very fine particles through the filter membrane. If particles are too fine they can
block the pores in the filter cloth, preventing solution from going through. Important factors in
filtering are particle size and shape (affects how the particles will pack together in the cake and
in the surface of the filter cloth), particle size distribution (small particles in among larger ones
can block inter-particle spaces and slow filtration), solution viscosity, pressure drop across the
filter, filter cloth porosity, thickness etc. Thorough testing is required for each new application.
There are many types of filters, but one of the more common is a drum filter. These are
long cylindrical devices. An illustration is provided in the diagram below. A filter cloth surrounds
the drum. The drum dips into a trough containing the feed slurry and rotates at about 0.1-3 rpm.

11

The drum is divided into several compartments. First slurry is picked up by the drum under
reduced pressure. The solution passes through and may be directed for further processing.
Next the cake is washed. Wash water passes through the drum and is collected separately. As
the drum continues to rotate the wash water is sucked through and the caked is partially dried.
In the final section the cloth passes over a roller. A blade scrapes the partially dried cake off.
The cloth is then washed with water and returns to the trough to pick up fresh slurry. This is a
continuous process. Belt filters work similarly, but they use a long belt onto which slurry is fed.
Again the belt passes over various sections. A great deal of research, work and engineering
goes into designing and implementing solid-liquid separation processes.
(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Illustration of a drum filter (a) and photograph of one in action (b). [2].

12

Filters give better solid-liquid separation than thickeners and better washing. Sometimes
a filtration may be required after CCD washing; the final overflow from a CCD wash circuit may
still have unacceptably high levels of fine solids. It is much easier to filter a solution containing
low amounts of solids than to filter a slurry with a high percentage of solids. Hence the rationale
for combining CCD washing with a final filtration.
There are two basic types of filters. Vacuum filters utilize reduced pressure on the
underside of the filter cake, as in the drum filter example above. These are better suited to
filtration of higher pulp density slurries. Pressure filters utilize positive pressure on the feed side
of the filter. These are best for slurries with low solids content, like CCD overflow clarification.
Filter Theory
Filter theory follows the analogy of electrical circuits with resistance to flow being
expressed in a similar manner as resistance to electric current flow. Let the rate of passage of
clear solution through a filter be dV/dt = Q f. Experimentally it has been shown that Q f may be
expressed as follows (Darcys law),
Qf = A
L

(1)

where A = surface area,

P = pressure drop
= filtrate viscosity (e.g. Kg/m sec units)
L = filter cake thickness
1/ = specific cake resistance
This is logical. The higher the filter area and pressure, the faster the filtration will be. Similarly,
the larger the viscosity of the solution, the harder it is for it to flow between the particles and
through the filter cloth pores. And the deeper the filter cake (which grows with increased filtration
time), the greater the resistance to flow. the term 1/ is called the specific cake resistance and
is a proportionality constant.
This may be rearranged,
P
= L
(1/A)dV/dt

(2)

In general resistance = driving force / flux, e.g. as in electricity,

V = IR = Il/A = (I/A)l = jl

(3)

V/j = l

(4)

where V = voltage, I = current, R = resistance, = resistivity (ohm cm), l = length, A = area and
finally, j = current density (A/cm2 = C/sec/cm2, the charge flux).

13

The quantity,
P
(5)
(1/A)dV/dt
is analogous to V/j in the equation above. The denominator has units of flow per unit time per
unit area. Hence L is analogous to l, i.e. a measure of resistance. This term refers to
resistance of the filter cake alone. Another term is needed for the resistance of the filter cloth.
Both the filter cake and the filter cloth resist solution flow. The resistances are additive,
P
= (resistances) = Rcake + Rmedium
(1/A)dV/dt

(6)

From the preceding discussion,

Rcake = L

(7)

The resistance of the filter cloth can be written as,

Rmedium = R

(8)

where R is characteristic of the filter cloth. The incorporation of is reasonable since resistance
to flow involves the same solution for both cake and filter cloth. In addition, it is helpful to
separate out solution viscosity since this can vary form one solution to the next. Now we may
write,
P
(1/A)dV/dt

= L + R

(9)

Note that the cake thickness increases in direct proportion (linearly) with the amount of filtrate
collected. (This assumes that the cake does not compact, which is not necessarily true.) Hence
the rate of cake thickness increase is proportional to the concentration of solids in the slurry.
L = kCV/A

(10)

where C = solids concentration in the slurry (e.g. in g/L)

V = volume of filtrate passed
k = constant of proportionality
Again this is reasonable. The higher the solids concentration, the greater the cake thickness for
a given volume of solution. Likewise, the greater the filtrate volume collected, the greater the
amount of cake deposited on the filter. And cake thickness will be thinner the larger the area.
The constant k incorporates the bulk density of the solids. Mass/density = volume and volume
over area = height (L). If the weight % solids in the slurry is used in lieu of
mass/volume concentration units, then,
L = kSV/A
(11)
where S = weight% solids (sometimes called the pulp density) and k is a different
proportionality constant. Substituting (10) into (9),

14

P
(1/A)dV/dt

= kCV + R
A

= (kCV + R)
A

(12)

Combine k into ,
P
= (CV + R)
(1/A)dV/dt
A

(13)

Rearranging,
dV/dt =

P
1 (CV + R)
A
A

dV/dt =

A2P
(CV + AR)

P
1 (CV + AR)
A2

(14)

(15)

Integrating gives,
V
t
2
(CV + AR)dV = A P dt
0
0
CV2 + ARV V =
2
0
CV2 + ARV
2
t/V =

for fixed P

A2Pt

(16)

(17)

A2Pt

(18)

(CV + AR)
A2P 2

(19)

t/V = (C) V + R
2A2P
AP

(20)

Hence a plot of t/V versus V should yield a straight line with slope,
C
2A2P

(21)

and y-intercept,
R
AP

(22)

15

If a filter test is done for a specific slurry and filter, and the volume of filtrate is measured
with time then the t/V versus V plot can be drawn. The terms parameters , C, A and P are
either known or measured. Then and R may be found. Care must be taken to ensure that the
units are all consistent. With the following units:
A
P
C

V
t

m2
Kg/m sec2
Kg/m3 (Kg solids per m3 of slurry)
Kg/m sec
m3
sec

The units of are m/Kg and the units of R are m -1. From the values of and R the size of a
filter can be estimated for a given application. This assumes that is a constant, i.e. that the
cake is incompressible. This is not necessarily so in real life. But, a good first estimate for the
required filter size (area) can be obtained. The filtrate volume required in a given time is the
required design parameter. From equation (18),
PA2t - ARV - CV2 = 0

(23)

Then the required area can be found. With a drum filter one must bear in mind that the filter is
partially submerged in slurry and that the filter cake is removed continuously. This is illustrated
in the diagram below, and these factors must also be taken into account.

Figure 6. Schematic illustration of the operation of a drum filter.

After filtration a filter cake is washed. In the example above this would happen after the
cake exits the slurry. Solution remains in the inter-particle spaces and the solute either needs to
be recovered or removed. The inter-particle space is the void volume.
Defining the following terms,

16

W = (Volume of wash water) / (void volume in the cake)

C = Concentration of solute in the wash
Co = Solute concentration in the filtrate
Cw = Solute concentration in the wash feed solution (0 for pure water)
W is the wash ratio. A typical washing curve is illustrated below.
When Cw = 0 (no solute in the added wash water),
C - Cw = C
Co - C w
Co

(24)

The mimimum value for the ratio in equation (23) is when C = C w. The maximum is when
C = Co. The limits then are 0 and 1. The expression is essentially the ratio of solute
concentration in the wash to that in the filtrate. For perfect plug flow all solute would be
displaced by W = 1. This does not occur. Solute is located within the interparticle spaces (and
even here perfect plug flow does not pertain), as well as within the particles in pores. The solute
in the latter diffuses out only rather slowly.

Figure 7. Illustration of a washing curve for a drum filter.

An empirical equation (the Montcrieff equation) has been developed to simulate solute
recovery,
1 - f = (1 - d)e -(W-d)/(1-d)

(25)

17

where f = fractional recovery of the solute (1 at most)

d = fraction of wash water that simply displaces solute
If Wd is the wash ratio where displacement is just complete, then,
d = Wd/W

(26)

(Within 0 to Wd, (C - Cw)/(Co - Cw) = 1. Beyond Wd the ratio is less than 1.) The term d then
varies with the amount of wash water added, i.e. with W. For example if W d = 0.5
and W = 1, then d = 0.5/1 = 0.5,
1 - f = (1 - 0.5)e-(1-0.5)/(1-0.5)

(27)

f = 0.816
If W = 2, d = 0.5/2 = 0.25 and f = 0.927. For a drum and belt filters W > 1 is used, but
W >4 would require too much time. The void volume within the filter cake is very small
compared to the filtrate volume. Hence even with W = 4 the dilution of the filtrate is very small.
With CCD wash circuits the extent of dilution is substantially greater.
Economic Aspects of Solid-Liquid Separation
Some aspects of this have already been mentioned. These are typically rather slow
processes. Capital costs are therefore high. Rates of removal of water tend to decrease rapidly
as the water content decreases (law of diminishing returns again). Going from 1% to 0.1% water
may take as long as going from 50% to 1% did. Likewise the same idea applies to removing
suspended solids from a solution. The more clear the liquid needs to be, the greater the time
and effort required. Sedimentation processes have moderate electricity requirements.
Flocculating reagents may be quite costly, but they tend to be added at low to moderate
concentrations. Drying costs may be quite high since high amounts of energy are required to
evaporate water. This is not commonly employed in hydrometallurgy.
The highest solid-liquid separation costs are encountered just after leaching of fine
solids in a reactor (tank or autoclave etc.). After initial separation to obtain a leach solution, the
solids must be washed and then dewatered again to recover valuable metals in solution. The
leach solution itself must be clarified to a high degree (very low suspended solids content) for it
to be suitable for metal recovery. This may involve considerable capital cost. Good lab testing is
always required. Generally the cost of solid-liquid separation increases with decreasing particle
size. It is preferable to avoid having to conduct solid-liquid separations on very fine particles.
References
[1] Hayes, P.C., Process Principles in Minerals and Materials Production," Hayes Publ. Co.,
1983, p. 117.
[2] Retrieved May 17/12 at:
(a) http://www.komline.com/docs/rotary_drum_vacuum_filter.html
(b) http://www.solidliquid-separation.com/VacuumFilters/Drum/drum.htm

18