Control of Autoclave Scaling During Acid 1984
Control of Autoclave Scaling During Acid 1984
Control of Autoclave Scaling During Acid 1984
An operating problem encountered at the Moa Bay operation in Cuba, where nickeliferous laterite ore
is processed by sulfuric acid pressure leaching, is the formation of alunite and hematite deposits on
the autoclave walls. The AMAX Extractive Research & Development, Inc., metallurgical laboratory
(Golden, Colorado) has made substantial improvements in the Moa Bay process in the area of metal
recovery, energy consumption, and feed versatility. One of the advantages of AMAX's process is its
ability to treat substantial portions of nickel- and magnesium-rich serpentine while maintaining acid
utilization efficiency. Scale formation is minimized by combining staged acid addition with vigorous
agitation and 270 ~ operation. This paper describes how advantage can be taken of MgSO4" XH20
precipitation both to inhibit alunite scaling and to disperse hematite scale within the MgSO4" XH20
matrix. Cooling the autoclave from its 270 ~ operating temperature down to 180 ~ takes advantage
of the reverse solubility of magnesium sulfate. The magnesium dissolves, liberating entrained hema-
tite, thus providing a means for control of autoclave scale with minimum process disruption.
Fig. 3 - - T h e left photograph shows the interior of autoclave compartment F following Run 3. The right photograph is a shot of the inside of level-control
pot V306 following Run 4.
ALUNITE +
HEMATITE
Fig. 4--Cross section of an 11 mm thick piece of scale sampled from the wall of compartment A
following Run 4.
Fig. 5 - - ( a ) is a magnified secondary electron image of the interface between scale deposited during Run 4
in compartment A using Iow-Mg feed during startup (bottom portion of each photo) and that subsequently
deposited using high-Mg feed. (b) (c), and (d) are iron K alpha, magnesium K alpha, and aluminum K alpha
X-ray images, respectively. Magnification of (a) 113 times.
Campaign A B C D E F 20
1 12.5 9.6 1.2 1.1 0,2
2 11.6 2.8 0.8 8.3 1.4 1,4
3 7.4 6.2 1.5 7.3 6.4 3,6
4 4.7 4.8 4.3 7.9 -- 3,7
Io
the often large quantity of Mg that dissolved from the
residue as magnesium sulfate when the sample was cooled
below 200 ~
o ~ I i h
IV. MAGNESIUM SULFATE 190 230 270
SOLUBILITY RELATIONSHIPS tEMPER,#/'ORE {oc}
The solubility of magnesium sulfate decreases with in- Fig. 6-- Solubilityof magnesiumas a functionof temperatureand sulfuric
creasing temperature, as shown in Figure 6. Above 200 ~ acid concentration,tL
addition of sulfuric acid increases magnesium solubility.H
These data, as prepared by W. Marshall, apply to a solution pensity was enhanced by acid added to B and C, which
free of other salts. A number of solubility experiments were increased the solubility of magnesium (Figure 6). Scaling
also performed by AMAX Extractive R&D personnel to recommenced in D not only due to HTN (high temperature
determine the effect of the nickel, iron, and aluminum in neutralization) addition of solids, but also due to the de-
laterite leach liquor on the high-temperature solubility of creasing liquor acidity. This decreased acidity caused a por-
magnesium sulfate. With 20 grams per liter free acid, the tion of the magnesium soluble in C to precipitate in D.
solubility of magnesium in laterite leach liquor at 200 ~ One would have expected magnesium scaling in compart-
was about 25 pct higher than that published by W. Marshall ment A of Run 2 based on the 2.4 grams per liter solubility
(Figure 6). Thus, presence of about 8 grams per liter total differential. Perhaps there was sufficient intermittent
aqueous nickel, iron, and aluminum does not decrease the backmixing from the more acidic compartment B solution
solubility of magnesium. Which hydrate of magnesium sul- to dissolve magnesium scale buildup in compartment A.
fate is the stable phase depends on temperature. The hexa- Or perhaps the water wash prior to shutdown dissolved
hydrate is stable at about 60 to 80 ~ whereas at higher away the compartment A scale. The same water, now loaded
temperatures, the monohydrate becomes the stable phase. with magnesium, would be less effective in dissolving
A comparison of the concentration of aqueous magnesium magnesium scale from compartment D.
at room temperature (in slurry samples collected from the One would have also expected to find more scale after
270 ~ prototype autoclave) was made with Marshall's Run 4 than 3, based on apparent leach liquor magnesium
solubility values. This comparison appears in Table V. Also concentrations. The lower measured scale thickness follow-
shown is the "Mg scale quantity number" obtained by multi- ing Run 4 probably was due to the autoclave being washed
plying the measured scale thickness in mm (Table III) by particularly thoroughly with water during the shutdown
the magnesium analysis of the scale (Table II). For Run 1, procedure that followed this high-magnesium campaign.
the solution concentration in all six compartments never Thus, residual magnesium scale was greater following
exceeded the solubility of magnesium. Refer to Table V. Run 3 than following Run 4 due to the difference in flush-
Therefore, there was very little magnesium sulfate scaling in out procedures.
the prototype plant autoclave during this run.
During Runs 2, 3, and 4, the solubility of magnesium
V. E F F E C T OF MAGNESIUM SULFATE
sulfate was exceeded by a substantial margin. The quantity
DEPOSITION ON ALUNITE AND
of scale was highest in the autoclave compartments where
HEMATITE SCALE FORMATION
magnesium-containing ore was added (i.e., A and D). Mag-
nesium scaling of compartments B and C was nil because The photographs shown in Figures 4 and 5 are striking
the liquor had already been relieved of its excess magnesium evidence of the change in scale morphology that can re-
via scaling in compartment A. This relief of scaling pro- sult from the presence of MgSO4" H:O. During Run 1, the
Table IV. Apparent Concentrations of Aqueous Mg and H2804 in the High Pressure Autoclave Compartments
A B C D E F
Run Mg H2SO4 Mg HzSO4 Mg H2504 Mg H2SO~ Mg H2SO4 Mg H2SO4
1 7.0 33 7.3 42 7.3 47 7.6 46 8.2 40 8.3 40
2 10.0 34 11.7 45 11.1 51 10.8 45 11.4 45 10.4 45
3 12.0 32 12.9 48 13.6 56 13.4 46 12.4 46 12.6 44
4 15.7 33 18.3 49 17.9 58 15.4 44 15.7 42 15.2 40
METALLURGICALTRANSACTIONSB VOLUME15B,SEPTEMBER1984--437
Table V. Comparison of Apparent Aqueous Mg with Mg Solubility and the "Mg Scale Quantity" (Dimensionless)
Autoclave Compartment
Run Parameter* A B C D E F
1 apparent Mg, grams/liter 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.6 8.2** 8.3
Mg solubility, grams/liter 7.5 9.6 10.3 10.2 9.1 9.1
Mg scale quantity 4.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 --
2 apparent Mg, grams/liter 10.0 11.7 11.1 10.8"* 11.4 10.4
Mg solubility, grams/liter 7.6 10.1 11.2 10.1 10.1 10.1
Mg scale quantity 0.6 0.2 0.04 28.0 0.1 0.3
3 apparent Mg, grams/liter 12.0 12.9 13.9 13.4"* 12.4 12.6
Mg solubility, grams/liter 7.2 10.6 12.0 10.2 10.2 9.9
Mg scale quantity 84.0 0.3 0.2 83.0 74.0 0.9
4 apparent Mg, grams/liter 15.7 18.3 17.9 15.4"* 15.7 15.2
Mg solubility, grams/liter 7.3 10.9 12.5 9.9 9.6 9.1
Mg scale quantity 38.0 1.0 0.9 50.0 -- 23.0
*ApparentMg is the analysis of the aqueous phase of the slurry sampled from each autoclave compartment. This assay is the sum of magnesium soluble
at autoclave temperature, plus magnesium solubilized from MgSO~ H20 during cooling of the sample. Mg solubility is the solubility of magnesium at 270 ~
as read from Figure 6. Mg scale quantiO, is the product of scale thickness (Table III) multiplied by the magnesium assay of the scale (Table II).
**Compartment to which the ALR feed was added.
Table VI. Effect of Magnesium on Location and Extent of Alunite and Hematite Scaling
Feed Quantity of Scale
(kg/h) Stage A Stage B Stage C
Run Mg A1 Fe Mg AI Fe Mg AI Fe Mg AI Fe
1 10 20 160 4 220 85 0.9 120 230 0.2 22 20
2 12 18 140 0.6 180 130 0.2 5 100 0.1 2 40
3 18 13 120 85 7 50 0.3 70 160 0.2 12 50
4 19 9 75 55 4 30 1.0 <20 240 0.9 <9 230
solubility of magnesium was not exceeded in autoclave increasing acid concentration slows down the rate of alu-
compartment A. See Table V. The scale deposited in com- minum hydrolysis much more than the rate of iron hy-
partment A was composed of refractory intergrown crys- drolysis. ~0.~4It is therefore hypothesized that where there is
tals of alunite and hematite (Figure 5 and Table II). When insufficient magnesium to deposit magnesium sulfate, depo-
the autoclave feed was changed over to high-magnesium sition of hematite and alunite on autoclave surfaces should
material (Run 4; Table I), deposition of alunite essentially increase with increasing magnesium concentration. Increas-
ceased (Figure 5). The scale deposit became MgSO4" H20 ing acid concentration should retard aluminum hydrolysis
containing a fine dispersion of iron plus traces of aluminum. relative to iron hydrolysis, particularly at shorter reten-
Further evidence of the effect of magnesium in changing tion times.
the quantity of aluminum and iron in the autoclave scale is
presented in Table VI. The "quantity of scale" shown in this
table is attained by multiplying the scale thickness on the
VI. C O N T R O L OF M A G N E S I U M
wall (mm/30 days, as shown in Table 1II) by either the
SULFATE D E P O S I T I O N
Mg, A1, or Fe analysis of the scale (Table II). Thus, in
compartment A of Run 1, the scale was primarily alunite; Magnesium sulfate deposition sharply inhibits the rate
magnesium sulfate content was low. The same was true for of alunite scaling. For instance, the highest scaling rate
Run 2. However, in Runs 3 and 4, the compartment A scale measured on the north wall of the autoclave was 12 m m / 3 0
was primarily magnesium sulfate. Alunite content was low. days in compartment A following Run 1 (low magnesium).
Hematite was significant, but lower than in Runs 1 and 2. This scale was primarily alunite assaying 17 pct A1 and
Very little magnesium deposited in autoclave compart- 0.3 pct Mg. Doubling the magnesium content of the feed
ments B and C due to the relatively high acid concentration (Run 3) resulted in the deposition of 7 m m / 3 0 days of pri-
(Table VI). Iron deposition in compartments B and C was marily magnesium sulfate scale assaying 1 pct A1 and 11 pct
generally higher, and aluminum deposition generally lower, Mg. This substitution of magnesium for aluminum is im-
in the high-magnesium runs. Sulfuric acid concentration portant for autoclave descaling. Unlike alunite and hema-
was also higher in compartments B and C during the high- tite, magnesium sulfate hydrate dissolves rapidly in water or
magnesium runs (Table IV). dilute acid at temperatures below 200 ~ Hematite precipi-
Both the extent of hydrolysis of aluminum and iron at a tates on autoclave internal surfaces along with magnesium
given temperature and acid concentration are increased as sulfate, but the hematite is dispersed within the magnesium
the level of magnesium sulfate is increased, x2~3At 270 ~ sulfate matrix. Magnesium sulfate has an inverse solubility
Fig. 7--Conceptual diagram of ore, acid, and steam sequencing for at-
taining protective magnesium deposition in each autoclave compartment. VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
1. Sulfuric acid pressure leaching of nickeliferous laterite
with temperature. Cooling the autoclave from 270 ~ to ore containing high levels of magnesium silicates leads to
180 ~ sharply increases magnesium solubility, resulting deposition of magnesium sulfate. Precipitation of mag-
in magnesium dissolution and liberation of the hematite. nesium sulfate is highest where the ore is fed, where acid
The dissolved MgSO4 exits from the autoclave with the concentration is low or decreasing, and where tempera-
pregnant liquor. The liberated hematite follows the leach ture is high or increasing.
residue to tailings disposal. Thus, magnesium sulfate pro- 2. The magnesium sulfate precipitates as a fine-grained,
vides a means not only for inhibiting alunite scaling, but water-soluble Mg(Ni)SOa'H20 binary salt having a
also for facilitating removal of hematite scale. Mg:Ni ratio corresponding to the ratio of Mg to Ni con-
To be effective as a practical alunite-hematite scale in- centration in the leach liquor.
hibitor, the deposition of magnesium sulfate must be reason- 3. Magnesium sulfate deposition sharply inhibits the rate of
ably uniform in all autoclave compartments. Figure 7 shows alunite scaling. Hematite precipitates on autoclave inter-
a profile of ore, acid, and steam additions to the autoclave nal surfaces along with the magnesium sulfate, but is
that is designed to achieve this uniformity. Sufficient ore is dispersed within the magnesium sulfate matrix.
added to compartment A to exceed the magnesium solu- 4. Where there is insufficient magnesium to deposit mag-
bility in this compartment by about 3 grams per liter. As nesium sulfate, deposition of hematite and alunite on
much acid as possible is also added to this compartment, autoclave surfaces appears to increase with increasing
commensurate with the titanium materials of construction magnesium concentration.
constraint. High initial acid concentration should also in- 5. To be effective as a practical alunite-hematite scale
crease nickel extraction, as compared to stage addition. 9 inhibitor, magnesium sulfate deposition must be reason-
Compartment A has the following features: ably uniform. This uniformity is controlled by appropri-
ate selection of the ore- , acid- , and steam-injection
I. Sufficient magnesium, as contained in the ore, is added locations.
to sharply inhibit alunite scaling, and to entrain the hematite
scale in the magnesium sulfate matrix; and
2. High acid concentration in compartment A allows room
for decreasing the acid concentration in compartments B, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C, and D, which distributes magnesium sulfate deposition The authors wish to extend their thanks to Compagnie
downstream. Franqaise d'Entreprise Mini~res, Metallurgiques et d'Inves-
In the prototype plant runs, no protective layer of mag- tissements (COFREMMI), a joint-venture company of
nesium sulfate was deposited on compartment B and C sur- AMAX and the Bureau de Recherches Grologiques et Mini-
faces due to increasing H2804 concentration (as compared to ~res (BRGM), Orlrans, France, for permission to publish
compartment A), which maintained aqueous magnesium in this paper, and to Jean-Paul Duterque (Process Engineer,
soluble form. This problem can be corrected by adding COFREMMI) for his assistance during the investigation.
L-ore and/or atmospheric leach residue (ALR) directly to
compartments B and C (Figure 7). Ore distribution is ad-
justed to precipitate the equivalent of 1 to 3 grams per liter
Mg in each compartment. The free-acid concentration in REFERENCES
compartment B is maintained lower than in A; also, acid 1. W.P.C. Duyvesteyn, G.R. Wicker, and R.E. Doane: "An Omniv-
concentration in compartment C is lower than in B. Al- orous Process for Laterite Deposits," International Laterite Sympo-
sium, New Orleans, LA, 1979.
though hematite deposits along with magnesium sulfate, it 2. E.T. Carlson and C.S. Simons: Extractive Metallurgy of Copper,
is dispersed within the MgSO4 H20 matrix. Refer to the Nickel, and Cobalt, Interscience Publishers, 1961, p. 363.
photomicrographs of Figure 5. 3. H. Kay and E. J. Michal: "The AMAX Acid Leach Process for Oxide
Magnesium sulfate scaling in compartment D was quite Nickel Ores," TMS-A1MEA78-36, 1978.
4. S.O. Fekete and G. R. Wicker: "Energy Conservation in Acid Leach-
high during operation of the prototype plant. This deposition ing of Lateritic Ores," 106th Annual AIME, March 6, 1977.
occurred not only due to all the ALR being added at this 5. C.J. Messa, G. R. Wicker, and S. O. Fekete: "Economic Analysis of
location, but also because of the sudden drop in free acid Nickel and Cobalt Recovery from Laterite Deposits Using the AMAX
concentration in passing from compartment C to D. This Acid Leach Process," 107th Annual AIME, Denver, CO, 1978.
problem can be corrected by adding only a portion of the 6. S.O. Fekete, G.R. Wicker, W. E C. Duyvesteyn, and D. E Shieh:
U.S. Patent 4,098,870, 1978.
ALR to compartment D. Magnesium deposition is also 7. S.I. Sobol: Revista Technologica, 1966, vol. 4(4), p. 3; 1969,
maintained in compartment E by injecting makeup steam vol. 7(1), p. 3.