ArticleName |
Analysis of the sample preparation methods based on piecewise variation coefficients of component mass fractions |

ArticleAuthorData |
Ural State Mining University (Ekaterinburg, Russia):
**Kozin V. Z.**, Head of Chair, Doctor of Engineering Sciences, Professor, **gmf.dek@ursmu.ru**
**Komlev A. S.**, Senior Researcher, Candidate of Engineering Sciences, **tails2002@inbox.ru**
PJSC «MMC «Norilsk Nickel» (Dudinka, Russia):
**Stupakova E. V.**, Chief Manager of Technological & Metrological Control Dfrection |

Abstract |
Sample preparation methods are usually developed following respective recommendations of the applicable sampling standards. Modern sampling theories allow designing and optimizing these methods. Random errors in sample preparation are calculated based on a theoretical description of the piecewise heterogeneity of the sample obtained using the formulas for the fundamental sampling error. The concept of a piecewise coefficient of variation is introduced and used to develop a formula for the relative error of the sample preparation method. Using a method compiled in accordance with GOST 14180-80 for copper ore as an example, the relative error is established for the preparation of an ore sample with the copper mass fraction of 1.3 %. It is shown that a change in the final preparation size from 0.1 to 0.08 mm affects the error only insignificantly, and sample size changes by stages allow designing a preparation method with the smallest error. It is advisable to analyze the method compiled and change its parameters on the basis of a structural assessment of the influence of individual preparation stages on the error. Sample preparation examples for copper and gold-bearing ore are used to demonstrate the analysis procedure and the parameter changes. Traditionally, the minimum sample masses are established for all stages based on the volumetric heterogeneity of the sample being tested and the size of the sample material. The minimum masses should be found depending on the grain size of the valuable mineral in the ore, the permissible relative error for the size reduction, and the material size for the sample reduced by a factor of 1.5 for nonferrous metal ores. |

References |
1. Engström K., Esbensen K. H. Evaluation of sampling systems in iron concentrating and pelletizing processes — Quantification of total sampling error (TSE) vs. process variation. *Minerals Engineering*. 2018. Vol. 116. pp. 203–208. 2. Lotter N. O., Evans C. L., Engström K. Sampling — A key tool in modern process mineralogy. *Minerals Engineering*. 2018. Vol. 116. pp. 196–202. 3. Karpenko N. V. Testing and quality control of ore dressing products. Moscow: Nedra, 1987. 215 p. 4. Kozin V. Z., Komlev A. S., Stupakova E. V. On the use of duplicate testing to estimate random errors. *Obogashchenie Rud*. 2019. No. 6. pp. 36–41. DOI: **10.17580/or.2019.06.07**. 5. Kozin V. Z., Komlev A. S. Random sampling error experimental determination at processing plants. *Obogashchenie Rud*. 2017. No. 2. pp. 44–48. DOI: **10.17580/or.2017.02.08**. 6. Stupakova E. V. Measuring errors in the compositional reference materials of gold ore. *Izvestiya Vuzov. Gorny Zhurnal*. 2019. No. 6. pp. 136–143. 7. Nikitenko E. M., Evtushenko M. B., Yushina T. I. Improving the assay test for the Degdekan deposit ores. *Obogashchenie Rud*. 2019. No. 1. pp. 34–38. DOI: **10.17580/or.2019.01.05**. 8. Brand N. W. Gold homogeneitu in certified reference materials: A comparison of five manufakturers. Explore. *Newsletter*. 2015. No. 169. 24 p. 9. Gy P. Sampling of particulate material: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1982. 431 p. 10. Geelhoed B. Approaches in material sampling. Delft University Press, 2010. 152 p. 11. Geelhoed B. Is Gy's formula for the fundamental sampling error accurate? Experimental evidence. *Minerals Engineering*. 2011. Vol. 24, Iss. 2. pp. 169–173. 12. Francois-Bongarcon D., Gy P. The most common error in applying ‘Gy's Formula’ in the theory of mineral sampling, and the history of the liberation factor. *The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy*. 2002. November/December. pp. 475–479. 13. Dihalu D. S., Geelhoed B. A new multi-axial particle shape factor-application to particle sampling. *Analyst*. 2011. Vol. 136, Iss. 18. pp. 3783–3788. 14. Kozin V. Z. Testing of mineral raw materials. Ekaterinburg: UGGU, 2011. 316 p. 15. Krasnov D. A. Theoretical foundations and calculation formulas for determining the weight of samples. Moscow: Nedra, 1969. 126 p. 16. Krylov G. V. Simplification of processing of exploration samples. *Proc. of the meeting «Questions of methods of testing ore deposits during exploration and exploitation»*. Moscow: Gosgeoltekhizdat, 1962. pp. 27–35. 17. Napier-Munn T. J., Whiten W. J., Faramarzi F. Bias in manual sampling of rock particles. *Minerals Engineering*. 2020. Vol. 153. Article 106260. 18. Uhlig S. Process control by modern X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. *Proc. of the XX International mineral processing congress. 21–26 September 1997, Aachen, Germany*. pp. 175–182. 19. Hassell D. S., Bowman E. M. Process analytical chemistiy for spectroscopist. *Applied Spectroscopy*. 1998. Vol. 52, Iss. 1. pp. 18A–29A. 20. Moore P. Making if elementary. *International Mining*. February 2018. pp. 10–17. 21. Gleeson D. Getting to the core. *International Mining*. February 2019. pp. 64–68. |