Copper extraction problem?

This post was last edited by FILTRATION-MAN on 2010-3-30 10:18 -- Since you are using CP150, you need to consult your supplier for CP150. If you plan to use the M5640, you can also ask its supplier about it. Your supplier will give you a proper reply. However, I’ve never seen a process like 3 extract 2 wash 3 reverse. In other plants, where the copper content in the liquid material exceeds 50 grams per liter, a process of 2 extractions, 1 washing, and 2 backwashes is still used. Why three extra slots? I guess such an extraction and mixing clarification chamber should function in a similar way to the one used for nickel and cobalt extraction. Similarly, I guess the volume of copper extraction you handle isn’t very large; the annual copper production is likely below 1,000 tons, but above 300 tons. It is very important that you cannot rely solely on the copper loading of the extractant for calculations, as this can lead to misguidance. --

The organic phase should be prepared based on the amount of copper transferred in net form; with 6 g/l of copper in the solution, a mass fraction of 20% (on a volume basis) may be required, and two stages of extraction, one stage of washing, and one stage of back-extraction will suffice. Specifically, this can be determined through extraction tests.

This post was last edited by FILTRATION-MAN on 2010-3-30 at 10:54 – a process of 2 extractions, 1 washing, 1 backwashing at a 20% concentration doesn’t seem suitable for the original poster in my opinion. 1. The extractants used by the poster are M and CP. For both of these extractants, there is the issue of difficulty in back-extraction. This is also why the original poster chose to use grade 3 back-extraction. 2. The two extractants used by the poster are both those with modifiers added, and moreover, the poster’s system employs stirring leaching; therefore, the levels of calcium, magnesium, and soluble silicon are likely to be high as well, which means there will inevitably be a large amount of third phase present, resulting in more entrainment. This is why the original poster chose to use level 2 washing. 3. Due to the addition of modifiers, these two extractants have a relatively high specific gravity; as a result, they are not suitable for creating organic phases with high concentrations. This is also why the original poster chose such a low concentration of 5%. 4. The concentration is very low, and although these two extractants have a high copper loading, the net transfer amount is not necessarily high; therefore, the original poster also needs to use three-stage extraction. So, the 3-extraction 2-rinse 3-reverse process used by the original poster does make sense after all. However, the copper content range of the liquid material provided by the original poster is too wide; I wonder if the poster has considered this issue. 5 grams per liter and 20 grams per liter are two values that differ significantly. Even if we calculate using 5 grams per liter, and based on the method described by the original poster, even with a pH of 2.0, the extraction recovery rate is only around 50% to 60%, which is far below the required extraction recovery rate of over 95%. When it comes to solvent extraction, one should not rely solely on theoretical knowledge; it is important to go out and gain practical experience. It is particularly important to take time to accumulate. --

I haven’t been here in a long time. I had time to take a look today and learned *. Thank you all?

At an extractant concentration of 5%, the maximum loading capacity allows for the extraction of only 2.6 g/L of copper. The back-extraction using these two extractants is not as difficult as the poster claimed. I’ve done it before; there’s no problem. A 20% extractant concentration, based on the net transfer amount of the two extractants, can extract 5–6 g/l of copper.

-- Are the 3rd floor and the 6th floor the same unit or belongs to the same person? If LIX973NS-LV is used, the maximum loading capacity at a 5% extractant concentration is 2.8–2.9 g/L of copper. The net transfer amount is copper >=2.7 g/L (10% v/v). Both CP and M5640 are aldoximes, and years of research and practice have shown that the back-extraction of aldoximes is more difficult than that of similar oximes, requiring higher acidity. Experiments on the 6th floor were likely carried out in a laboratory; pure sulfuric acid was used as the eluent for back-extraction, so the difficulties were not significant. However, in actual production, both domestically and internationally, primary back-extraction is rarely used for these two types of extractants. --

For a copper sulfate solution at 20-30 g/l with a pH of 1-1.5, what extractant and extraction process should be used to achieve an extraction efficiency of over 95%? Thank you

This post was last edited by FILTRATION-MAN on 2010-4-9 at 16:36 -- Based on the copper acid ratio, we know that extracting 20 g/L of copper will produce 30 g/L of acid. Therefore, assuming a 3-stage extraction process, it is very difficult to achieve an extraction efficiency of over 95% without inter-stage neutralization. Because that implies a very high concentration of the extractant, as well as a large ratio, which would cause significant difficulties in the production process and has no practical value. My suggestions are: 1: Adjust the initial pH to 1.8–2.0; 2: Perform inter-stage neutralization. As for what pH value should be achieved during this inter-stage neutralization, you can conduct experiments on your own, or I can carry out simulated calculations for you. 3: The LIX973NS-LV extractant is used because it is suitable for low pH and high concentrations. Only in this way can the extraction efficiency be maintained above 95%. As for the process, it depends on the degree of neutralization that can be achieved between stages and the concentration of the extractant; in such cases, a choice is generally made between 3 extractions followed by 2 back-extractions or 2 extractions followed by 2 back-extractions. As for whether a washing section is needed, it depends on the circumstances. --

Dude, are you that sure I was made in a lab? I suggest you go and check out those factories in Yunnan; I’m sure you’ll reach the right conclusion then.

-- There might be some errors here; it’s impossible to say whether they are correct or not. The focus is mainly on technical issues. Just like easy and difficult, it cannot be quantified; different people have different understandings of it. The standard I use is when both extraction and back-extraction are at 1. Regardless of the extractant, its process requirements can be met by adjusting the ratio, at the cost of performance in other aspects. --