Potentiality of Physical Upgrading for Valuable Heavy Minerals from Sermatai Area, Egypt

Abstract

In this work we are concerned with the potentiality of using mineral processing for raising the grade of the valuable heavy minerals (VHMs) from the Quaternary stream sediments of Wadi and Delta Sermatai located on the southern coast of the Red Sea, Egypt. A rigorous understanding of the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the studied samples is a prerequisite for the selection and development of the physical processing used in order to produce a high-grade concentrate. For this purpose, the grain size distribution analysis, heavy liquid separation tests as well as XRF, and SEM analysis are performed. The magnetite, ilmenite, garnet, zircon, rutile, apatite, sphene, pyrolusite, celestine, and heavy green silicates are the valuable heavy minerals recorded in the studied samples; but their quantity varies between Wadi and Delta. The upgrading experiments are performed via a shaking table in conjunction with the low and high-intensity magnetic separator in order to obtain the high-grade concentrates from the valuable heavy minerals, and after applying the optimum separation conditions, the total heavy mineral (THM) assay increase from 8.32% to 46.04% for Wadi Sermatai, while for Delta Sermatai increase from 8.37% to 50.13% into 8.89% and 9.59%, respectively, by mass yield. The THM recovery values reach 66.84% for Wadi Sermatai and 67.23% for Delta Sermatai. After the results of the chemical analysis of the concentrates, it is proved that the Sermatai area is considered as a potential source for some economic elements such as Fe, Ti, Zn, Zr, Cr, V, and Sr.

Full text

Journal of Mining and Environment (JME) Published online
Corresponding author :
mm1_fawzy@yahoo.com (M. Moha med Fawzy).
Shahrood
University of
Technology
Iranian Society
of Mining
Engineering
(IRSME)
Journal of Mining and Environment (JME)
journal homepage: www.jme.shahroodut.ac.ir
Potentiality of Physical Upgrading for Valuable Heavy Minerals from
Sermatai Area, Egypt
Mohamed Diab1, Mohamed Abu El Ghar2, Ibrahim Mohamed Gaafar1,Abdel Hay Mohamed El shafey1, Ahmed Wageh
Hussein2 and Mona Mohamed Fawzy1*
1- Nuclear Materials Authority, P. O. Box 530 Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
2- Geology Depart ment, Faculty of Science, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
Article Info Abstract
Received 13 December 2021
Received in Revised form 24
January 2022
Accepted 31 Janua ry 2022
Published online 31 January 2022
DOI:
10.22044/jme.2022.11479.2136
In this work we are concerned with the potentiality of using mineral processing for
raising the grade of the valuable heavy minerals (VHMs) from the Quaternary stream
sediments of Wadi and Delta Sermatai located on the southern coast of the Red Sea,
Egypt. A rigorous understanding of the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of
the studied samples is a prerequisite for the selection and development of the physical
processing used in order to produce a high-grade concentrate. For this purpose, the
grain size distribution analysis, heavy liquid separation tests as well as XRF, and
SEM analysis are performed. The magnetite, ilmenite, garnet, zircon, rutile, apatite,
sphene, pyrolusite, celestine, and heavy green silicates are the valuable heavy
minerals recorded in the studied samples; but their quantity varies between Wadi and
Delta. The upgrading experiments are performed via a shaking table in conjunction
with the low and high-intensity magnetic separator in order to obtain the high-grade
concentrates from the valuable heavy minerals, and after applying the optimum
separation conditions, the total heavy mineral (THM) assay increase from 8.32% to
46.04% for Wadi Sermatai, while for Delta Sermatai increase from 8.37% to 50.13%
into 8.89% and 9.59%, respectively, by mass yield. The THM recovery values reach
66.84% for Wadi Sermatai and 67.23% for Delta Sermatai. After the results of the
chemical analysis of the concentrates, it is proved that the Sermatai area is considered
as a potential source for some economic elements such as Fe, Ti, Zn, Zr, Cr, V, and
Sr.
Keywords
Sermatai
Southern coast of Red Sea
Valuable heavy minerals
Gravity concentration
Magnetic separation
1. Introduction
The Sermatai area is located in the extremely
southern part of the Eastern Desert of Egypt nears
the Sudan Borders. It is bounded by the latitudes
of 22° 00` and 22° 25` N, and the longitudes of 36°
20` and 36° 45` E (Figure 1). It is located between
the Abu Ramad city in the north and the Halaieb
city in the south, covering an area of about 180
km². The Quaternary deposits in the studied area
are represented by the gravels, sabkha, and wadi
deposits. The alluvial wadi deposits are well-
distributed in the large parts of the studied area
along the Red Sea shoreline. It exposed mainly in
Wadi Sermatai, Wadi Hibru, and many other
wadis in the studied area.
Generally, the stream sediments are formed by
the erosion and transport of soil, rock debris, and
other materials within the catchment basin [1-3].
Heavy minerals (HMs) such as rutile, zircon,
ilmenite, magnetite, sillimanite, monazite,
chromite, tourmaline, garnet, and staurolite can be
present within the stream sediments, and some of
these HMs have a greater economic value than the
others due to their importance in various industrial
products such as pigments (ilmenite, rutile, and
leucoxene), ceramics (zircon) or for the recovery
of high-value components such as rare earth
oxides (monazite). Other heavy minerals; of lower
value; such as garnet and magnetite can also be

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
recovered for the commercial applications [4-6].
Exploitation of HMs from the stream sediments
has been carried out for the first time effectively
since the 1950s [7]. Nowadays, processing of
HMs from the stream sediments has become a
profitable business in many countries such as
Australia, China, Indonesia, and India [8-11], and
for this reason, the Nuclear Materials Authority is
working hard in order to explore and exploit the
Egypt's resources of VHMs.
The physical upgrading for the stream sediments
are important and necessary processes that must
be carried out in order to raise the grade of
minerals of economic value and to get rid of, as
far as possible, the useless associated minerals.
Normally, the physical upgrading for stream
sediments does not require any comminution
processes, reducing the processing costs, and
saving energy [12]. Most of the physical
upgrading processes begin with a gravity
concentration in order to separate HMs from the
associated gangue, and are mainly composed of
quartz and feldspar [5, 8-10, 13-22]. After gravity
concentration, the obtained HMs can be separated
by the magnetic, electrostatic; or flotation
separation techniques, depending on the
mineralogical content and the properties of each
mineral being separated [23-30]. Therefore, it is
essential to decide on the physical upgrading
processes that can recover the most VHMs at a
fast and efficient processing rate.
In this research work, we aimed to study the
potentiality of mineral processing in order to
recover and concentrate the VHMs from the
Quaternary stream sediments of Wadi and Delta
Sermatai located on the southern coast of the Red
Sea, Egypt. In order to achieve the recovery and
concentration of VHM, this work dealt with the
grain size distribution analysis, heavy liquid
separation tests as well as mineralogical and
chemical analysis were performed. As a result of
the aforementioned analysis, the gravity
separation was chosen as a first step for
concentration, and then the magnetic separation
was followed at different magnetic field
intensities in order to obtain the concentrates of
different economic minerals.
Figure 1: (A) A general location map of Sermatai area. (B) Geological map showing sample location for Sermatai
area, southeast of the Eastern Desert, Egypt. [31, 32]
2. Sampling and Methodology
The studied area covers about 84 km2, which
includes the Sermatai Wadi and Delta. The
Sermatai Delta covers about 34 km2 and was
studied by taking 40 samples represented in 4
radial profiles. As for Sermatai Wadi, it covers 50
km2 and was studied by taking 20 sampling
points. All samples were taken by applying an
auger sampler to a depth of about 1 m with a
weight ranging from 10 kg to 15 kg for each

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
sample and the distance between each sample and
the next one was about 2 km.
Initially, the total weight of each sample was
determined and divided into the representative
portions using the John's riffle splitter; one of
these representative portions of each sample was
kept as a reference sample while other the
representative parts were used in the various
experiments such as the grain size distribution
analyses, apparent density measurements, slimes
and organics determinations, and heavy mineral
separation.
The grain size distribution analyses were
performed for a representative sample weighing
about 250 g by sieving through a sieve series of 2,
1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, and 0.063 mm (ASTM codes)
representing gravel, very coarse sand (V.C. sand),
coarse sand (C. sand), medium sand (M. sand),
fine sand (F. sand), very fine sand (V.F. sand),
and mud sizes respectively.
The apparent density values shed light on the
presence of HM concentrations in the raw sand or
not [33, 34]. Therefore, the apparent density
measurements were performed for each sampling
point by weighing the representative sample,
pouring it into a graduated cylinder, and
compacting it well by pressing to simulate the
field deposit. The sample weight was divided by
its volume in order to obtain the apparent density
value.
Another representative portion was used to
calculate the percentage of the samples' content of
slime and organic matter, starting by treating with
hydrogen peroxide (30%) to get rid of the organic
matter, and then washing it with water for several
times to get rid of the slime and salts. Thereafter,
the deslimed fractions were subjected to heavy
liquid separation using bromoform (CHBr3) with a
specific gravity of 2.89 for estimating the total
heavy minerals (THMs) content in each sample.
The grain size distribution analyses for THMs
were done in order to determine the size
distribution of these target minerals. Identification
of VHMs that was obtained from bromoform
separation was performed using optical
microscopy and a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) supplied with a Philips XL 30 energy-
dispersive spectrometer (EDS) unit.
The potentiality of upgrading VHMs was
initially implemented by preparing two
technological samples weighing about 20 kg to 25
kg per sample, one representing the Delta
samples, and the other representing the Wadi
samples. The physical upgrading processes were
first conducted via gravity concentrator using the
Wilfley Shaking Table No. 13. The magnetic
separation of the concentrate that was obtained as
the shaking table product was carried out using a
Carpco dry high intensity magnetic separator
(DHIMS).
The major and trace element analyses for both
the feed samples and concentrated products were
performed via wavelength dispersive X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry using Axios
advanced, Sequential WD_XRF Spectrometer
[35]. For the XRF measurements, the
representative samples were ground up into
powder (less than 75µm) within an agate mortar
and the total loss on ignition (L.O.I.) was
determined after heating for 2 h at 1000 °C. The
detection limit for the elements measured using
the XRF technique was estimated at 20 ppm for
the major elements and 2 ppm for the measured
trace elements.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Mineralogical characterization results
The grain size distribution analyses for the Wadi
and Delta Sermatai samples were presented in
details at Tables 1 and 3. The samples show a
high degree of homogeneity: indeed, the sandy
fraction, with about 89.63% and 81.4 % of the
total percentages in weight of Delta and Wadi
Sermatai, respectively, on average, was most
present, while the others, the gravelly and silty-
clayey fractions, showed lower percentages in
weight.
The cumulative percent passing curves show the
distribution percentages of different size fractions
for the representative samples of Wadi and Delta
Sermatai (Figure 2). From these curves, the
effective diameter values of D80 are 0.37mm and
0.67 mm for Delta and Wadi Sermatai
respectively.
The apparent density values for the Sermatai
Delta samples are ranging from 1.57 g/cm3 to 2.24
g/cm3, with an average of about 1.85 g/cm3. As
for the values of the Wadi samples, they ranged
from 1.66 g/cm3 to 2.17 g/cm3 with an average of
about 1.83 g/cm3 and this indicates displaying of
HMs in the studied samples, but in medium
concentrations. The apparent density values are
listed in details at Tables 1 and 3.

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Table 1. Detailed results of apparent density measurements, slime, and organics content, heavy and gangue light mineral content, and grain size distribution analyses for
Sermatai Delta samples.
Grain size distribution analyses %
Gangue light
silicate
minerals %
Heavy
minerals
%
Slimes and
Organics %
Apparent density
g/cm3
Sample
No.
Profile
No. Silt
-0.063
V.F .sand
-0.125+0.063
F. sand
-0.25+0.125
M. sand
-0.5+0.25
C. sand
-1+0.5
V.C. sand
-2+1
Pebble
+2 (mm)
3.43 8.52 15.88 26.09 22.66 11.38 12.04 87.60 6.57 5.83 1.93 S1
1
1.94 8.79 19.27 26.66 20.34 10.97 12.03 90.07 6.34 3.58 1.88 S2
8.25 20.49 41.51 17.67 3.56 2.05 6.47 83.61 9. 29 7.10 1.78 S3
3.24 20.25 38.38 28.9 6.85 2. 37 0.00 85.41 11.12 3.47 1.78 S4
0.7 8.40 76.08 14.79 0.01 0.03 0.00 77.72 20.05 2.23 1.73 S5
2.61 7.60 23.39 29.82 19.69 9.58 7.32 88.54 5.61 5.85 1.76 S6
1.82 8.31 30.8 25.96 14.47 10.45 8.19 92 .36 3.33 4.31 1.85 S7
4.02 14.14 33.26 27.44 10.52 5.78 4.83 88.41 6.60 4.99 1.81 S8
2.66 12.77 18.26 20.17 23.64 11.62 10.88 89.14 5.69 5.17 1.91 S9
6.65 20.96 26.12 27.54 14.73 4 0.00 78.38 7.41 14.21 1.82 S10
3.04 13.77 30.52 25.1 13.72 6.78 7.07 84.44 7.20 8.36 2.16 P1 Rep.
3.49 13.09 32.13 24.56 13.65 6.82 6.26 85.97 8.11 5.92 1.86 Average
2.89 6.95 11.00 21.68 27.35 16.5 13.63 90.56 5.54 3.90 1.90 S11
2
3.14 11.30 20.51 30.04 19.16 8.15 7.7 88.36 8. 33 3.31 1.92 S12
13.65 27.63 23.99 16.26 11.79 6. 55 0.11 81.57 10.93 7.50 1.79 S13
7.64 17.24 20.78 26.01 20.21 7.99 0.14 83.62 9.34 7.04 1.83 S14
6.7 25.06 24.16 19.08 15.89 9.12 0.00 80.37 10.83 8.80 1.86 S15
4.73 24.10 25.14 19.48 18.19 8.37 0.00 80.21 9.79 10. 0 1.84 S16
2.62 15.33 36.65 34.34 9.39 1.22 0.44 90.09 7. 08 2.83 1. 68 S17
4.05 12.58 27.4 30.76 21.25 3.63 0.33 88.91 7.55 3.54 1.74 S18
1.89 5.14 13.68 37.48 35.02 6.6 0.18 88.81 7. 21 3.98 1. 76 S19
6.17
20.65
20.83
19.17
15.11
11.14
6.94
83.98
10.10
5.92
1.89
S20
4.76 18.08 22.19 24.81 18.2 7.44 4.51 83.44 10.07 6.49 1.88 P2 Rep.
5.29 16.73 22.39 25.37 19.23 7.88 3.09 85.44 8.80 5.76 1.83 Average
7.73 22.19 21.05 19.2 16.51 13 .16 0.15 85.81 10.43 3.75 1. 78 S21
3
7.05 14.42 18.64 23.51 25.73 10.57 0.08 85.73 8.66 5.61 1.88 S22
7.27 13.3 20.3 28.34 22.09 8.69 0.00 84.44 8.25 7.31 1.88 S23
5.62 15.39 23.3 24.37 19.42 7.64 4.25 79.64 8.30 12.06 1.93 S24
8.74 14.78 23.61 22 14.27 7.17 9.42 79.56 7.89 12.54 1. 92 S25
0.69 4.06 21.02 40.49 24.16 6.61 2.96 94.29 3.97 1.75 1.77 S26
4.38 7.55 12.92 23.02 25.45 14.61 12.07 91.00 5.31 3.69 1.93 S27
2.57 14.49 34.29 26.58 11.74 6.69 3.63 88.33 9.05 2.62 1.80 S28
7.44 8.32 36.42 30.93 6 .3 5. 75 4.84 79.08 3.99 16.93 1.60 S29

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Table 1. Continues of Table 1.
6.79 13.71 16.39 20.03 18.81 12.46 11.82 87.97 7.26 4.77 1.96 S30
5.4 13.14 22.46 26.28 19.08 9.28 4.37 85.40 8.00 6.60 1.57 P3 Rep.
5.79 12.85 22.76 25.89 18.51 9.33 4.87 85.57 7.37 7.06 1.82 Average
9.64 19.84 25.78 21.62 15.67 7.45 0.00 77.75 9.14 13.10 1. 83 S31
4
3.85 10.75 21.12 35.39 20.99 7.90 0.00 86.41 7.74 5.85 2.24 S32
6.97 12.61 20.49 21.91 14.65 11.24 12.14 85.70 7.47 6.83 1.91 S33
7.80 15.51 23.81 21.23 12.37 10.67 8.61 81.11 7.20 11.68 1.94 S34
5.03 12.25 19.83 23.87 19.67 13.23 6.13 88.27 5.49 6.24 1.94 S35
4.64 18.65 29.25 23.70 13.76 8.55 1.44 80.74 9.03 10.23 1. 88 S36
10.51 21.41 26.49 20.60 13.28 7. 73 0.00 79.84 9.17 10.99 1.86 S37
7.23 16.74 23.49 20.50 13.94 10.32 7.79 80.23 7.59 12.18 1.93 S38
6.87 13.90 30.08 30.66 4.92 3.95 9.62 85.96 9. 41 4.63 1. 79 S39
8.51 17.78 21.79 13.52 12.30 15.95 10.15 79.64 6.83 13.53 1. 83 S40
9.51 13.54 24.16 24.48 15.36 9.68 3.27 82.49 8.06 9.45 1.88 P4 Rep.
7.32 15.72 24.21 23.41 14.26 9.70 5.38 82.56 7.92 9.52 1.91 Average
5.69 15.06 24.04 25.08 17.16 8.29 4.68 85.42 8.37 6.21 1.79 S (1-40)
Table 2. Detailed results of HMs distribution analyses; and magnetic separation fractionation for Sermatai Delta samples.
Magnetic separation of heavy mineral contents Heavy mineral size distribution analyses %
Sample
No.
Profile
No. Non-mag.@ 3 amp.
%
Mag. @3 amp.
%
Mag. @1 amp.
%
Magnetite
%
-0.063
Mm
-0.125
+0.063
-0.25
+0.125
-0.5
+0.25
-1
+0.5
-2
+1
+2
mm
5.27 41.58 38.51 14.64 5.8 30.69 34.51 21.22 7.5 0.28 0 S1
1
6.69
35.7
40.4
17.21
5.74
32.5
36.18
19.26
6.32
0
0
S2
8.12 40.59 42.79 8. 5 12.49 48.16 32.73 5.2 1.14 0.28 0 S3
10.04
36.19
45.67
8.1
7.06
55.87
29.63
5.96
1.19
0.28
0
S4
7.25 52.37 36.96 3.43 0.33 12.07 85.84 1.64 0.13 0 0 S5
10.92
37.85
41.34
9.9
5.68
47.6
38.14
6.7
1.89
0
0
S6
10.37 50.37 33.7 5.56 4.81 39.26 40.74 10.37 4.81 0 0 S7
9.84 46.04 35.93 8. 2 11.89 39.05 34.59 10.95 3.51 0 0 S8
8.79 46.21 37.15 7.86 10.01 44.66 25.43 12.52 7.38 0 0 S9
9.04 40.61 37.83 12.52 10.21 42.21 32.14 12.97 2.48 0 0 S10
7.19
43.37
40.4
9.05
7.52
37.36
41.43
10.23
3.45
0
0
P1 Rep.
8.5 42.81 39.15 9.54 7.41 39.04 39.21 10.64 3. 62 0.08 0 Average
6.48 35.55 40.75 17.22 6.12 27.94 29.2 23.7 13.03 0 0 S11
2
8.19 43.14 33.13 15.54 10.01 36.35 34.09 15.61 3.93 0 0 S12
13.02 40.16 32.1 14.72 18.06 47.66 22.95 7. 97 3.36 0 0 S13
10.66
40.13
32.37
16.85
20.06
30.02
28.69
15.4
5.83
0
0
S14
12.24 32.65 40.09 15.01 19 39.88 26.47 9.43 5. 22 0 0 S15
13.76
35.36
38.39
12.5
14.61
43.32
25.99
10.13
5.95
0
0
S16

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
9.67 34.6 46.16 9.57 5.85 43.99 35.84 12.12 2.19 0 0 S17
Table 2.
Continues of Table 2.
10.68 44.17 33.75 11.4 10 40.8 32.39 12.12 4.69 0 0 S18
10.88
36.93
36.49
15.7
4.58
20.35
32.49
36.32
6.26
0
0
S19
10.56 38.58 36.31 14.55 14.33 45.16 25.25 10.53 4.73 0 0 S20
14.21
38.92
37.78
9.09
12.04
40.49
27.61
13.89
5.98
0
0
P2 Rep.
10.94 28.55 47.98 12.54 6.12 27.94 29.2 23.7 13.03 0 0 S21
3
11.38
41.72
36.21
10.69
10.01
36.35
34.09
15.61
3.93
0
0
S22
9.33 42.82 36.41 11.44 18.06 47.66 22.95 7. 97 3. 36 0 0 S23
9.51 42.82 39.11 8.56 20.06 30.02 28.69 15.4 5.83 0 0 S24
9.31 38.16 40.33 12.21 19 39.88 26.47 9.43 5.22 0 0 S25
7.74 51.68 30.13 10.44 14.61 43.32 25.99 10 .13 5. 95 0 0 S26
10.53 46.88 30.97 11.63 5.85 43.99 35.84 12.12 2.19 0 0 S27
5.67 38.56 45.3 10.46 10 40.8 32.39 12.12 4. 69 0 0 S28
10.67 45.01 41.3 3.02 4.58 20.35 32.49 36.32 6.26 0 0 S29
9.77 29.49 45.35 15.39 14.33 45.16 25.25 10 .53 4. 73 0 0 S30
10.47 38.01 41.26 10.26 12.04 40.49 27.61 13.89 5.98 0 0 P3 Rep.
9.57 40.34 39.49 10.6 12.24 37.81 29.18 15.2 5.56 0 0 Average
8.69 36.76 43.70 10.85 10.68 44.94 28.01 11 .31 5. 06 0 0 S31
4
7.44
43.18
38.22
11.16
6.58
31.92
35.60
20.87
5.02
0
0
S32
8.57 44.25 37.53 9.65 10.03 39.81 31.27 13.87 5. 02 0 0 S33
7.22
41.16
40.87
10.74
10.93
42.98
31.76
10.65
3.68
0
0
S34
8.59 50.15 32.52 8.74 13.98 38.25 30.41 15.21 2. 15 0 0 S35
7.80
38.34
44.80
9.06
8.53
47.43
31.25
9.49
3.31
0
0
S36
8.89 45.51 36.06 9.54 12.35 50.12 26.77 7.97 2.79 0 0 S37
8.22 45.94 36.57 9.28 7.80 50.66 27.96 9.38 4. 21 0 0 S38
6.18 36.24 47.37 10.20 5.61 44.20 37.89 11.15 1.15 0 0 S39
10.75 37.44 43.93 7.88 20.13 54.50 18.84 3.95 2.57 0 0 S40
8.77 38.62 42.97 9.64 11.04 42.78 29.73 12.27 4. 18 0 0 P4 Rep.
8.28 41.60 40.41 9.70 10.70 44.33 29.95 11.46 3. 56 0 0 Average
12.33 34.76 41.26 11.65 13.18 38.58 30.72 12.76 4.76 0 0 S (1-40)

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Table 3. Detailed results of apparent density measurements, slime and organics content, heavy and gangue light mineral content, and grain size distribution analyses; for
Wadi Sermatai samples.
Grain size distribution
analyses %
Gangue light
silicate mineral
contents %
HMs
contents %
Slimes and
Organics %
Apparent
density
3
g/cm
Sample
No. Silt
-0.063
V
.
F.
sand
-
0.125+0.063
F. sand
-0.25+0.125
M. sand
-0.5+0.25
C. sand
-1+0.5
V. C. sand
-2+1
Pebble
+2(mm)
7.11
18.36
25.86
24.27
15.44
5.22
3.73
85.93
9.23
4.84
1.78
S41
3.22
4.75
11.27
23.81
22.88
9.99
8.05
88.95
6.73
4.32
1.83
S42
2.80
6.49
13.77
25.15
24.11
15.82
11.87
88.80
6.76
4.44
1.94
S43
1.97
5.33
12.50
23.45
25.86
17.63
13.26
88.80
5.93
5.27
1.87
S44
1.51
4.05
8.43
14.90
24.04
23.15
23.92
92.25
4.64
3.11
1.98
S45
3.36
4.45
10.15
21.79
27.09
17.64
15.52
89.83
6.15
4.02
1.77
S46
9.07
11.72
18.07
25.13
19.10
8.43
8.49
80.93
8.30
10.77
1.87
S47
7.37
13.64
19.08
25.23
19.35
6.76
8.57
83.34
9.15
7.51
1.77
S48
5.35
4.48
9.13
17.94
24.24
17.17
21.69
89.78
5.88
4.34
1.84
S49
2.00
4.29
11.04
19.40
23.13
17.08
23.07
90.21
5.40
4.39
1.82
S50
2.23
3.98
9.97
24.23
25.74
17.08
16.77
89.81
6.65
3.54
1.76
S51
0.62
1.09
3.87
14.28
26.00
27.96
26.18
94.42
3.37
2.21
1.79
S52
5.15
13.03
24.65
35.38
17.88
3.40
0.52
83.87
11.46
4.67
1.66
S53
5.59
6.76
15.85
26.13
24.31
11.63
9.73
88.38
8.33
3.29
1.82
S54
3.57
7.85
14.14
24.81
31.89
17.28
0.46
85.34
9.49
5.17
1.77
S55
2.08
4.32
8.09
16.16
21.46
19.59
28.31
90.23
6.38
3.39
2.17
S56
4.65
10.11
16.55
22.75
22.21
14.69
9.04
84.73
10.87
4.40
1.83
S57
2.92
7.55
19.82
25.76
16.03
11.75
16.17
86.54
8.98
4.48
1.81
S58
2.58
7.52
18.21
26.91
19.38
11.09
14.30
86.87
9.66
3.47
1.81
S59
1.76
15.37
24.12
23.82
16.86
8.07
10.01
81.66
12.02
6.32
1.78
S60
3.98
8.09
14.75
22.94
21.89
13.73
14.62
87.34
8.32
4.34
1.82
S Rep.
3.76
7.77
14.73
23.06
22.33
14.06
13.54
87.53
7.79
4.68
1.83
Average

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Table 4. Detailed results of HM distribution analyses; and magnetic separation fractionation for Wadi Sermatai samples.
Magnetic separation of heavy mineral contents
Heavy mineral
size distribution analyses %
Sample No.
Non
-
mag.
@ 3A %
Mag. @3A
%
Mag. @ 1A
%
Magnetite
%
-
0.063
Mm
-
0.125
+0.063
-
0.25
+0.125
-
0.5
+0.25
-
1
+0.5
-
2
+1
+2
mm
6.95
31.04
47.16
14.85
10.93
42.47
30.76
12.26
3.59
0
0
S41
5.02
29.38
46.92
18.67
5.48
25.33
33.84
25.71
9.64
0
0
S42
5.59
26.44
50.38
17.60
8.59
26.69
34.70
20.60
9.42
0
0
S43
4.69
35.33
40.14
19.84
5.64
24.32
34.31
23.62
12.10
0
0
S44
4.20
32.68
42.43
20.69
7.63
20.96
29.79
25.00
16.62
0
0
S45
6.01
33.66
43.16
17.18
6.97
24.13
30.82
24.97
13.11
0
0
S46
6.49
38.74
40.37
14.39
10.67
33.08
31.57
18.32
6.36
0
0
S47
8.19
37.76
41.24
12.81
13.55
36.56
28.99
15.67
5.22
0
0
S48
7.09
40.00
40.00
12.91
10.33
25.19
26.45
22.42
15.62
0
0
S49
2.78
36.18
43.23
17.81
4.84
22.35
31.10
25.14
16.57
0
0
S50
3.82
37.16
41.34
17.68
5.83
19.29
33.69
27.74
13.45
0
0
S51
3.31
38.85
46.45
11.40
7.16
10.25
28.77
34.32
19.51
0
0
S52
8.30
35.64
40.42
15.65
10.84
33.53
35.51
16.65
3.47
0
0
S53
8.57
31.03
42.16
18.25
23.66
16.46
31.27
21.06
7.55
0
0
S54
10.99
29.46
42.06
17.48
7.62
24.95
30.30
23.60
13.52
0
0
S55
7.47
36.80
37.12
18.61
12.19
19.57
30.27
23.85
14.12
0
0
S56
8.95
36.32
34.27
20.47
11.56
28.24
32.48
18.83
8.89
0
0
S57
6.57
34.42
41.05
17.97
12.07
25.65
39.03
17.22
6.04
0
0
S58
7.36
29.19
44.82
18.62
14.38
21.64
38.04
19.73
6.21
0
0
S59
13.21
31.75
38.88
16.16
12.20
40.03
30.79
13.32
3.67
0
0
S60
13.03
40.17
30.65
16.14
9.80
28.49
32.25
20.37
9.09
0
0
S Rep.
7.08
34.38
41.63
16.91
10.09
26.15
32.13
21.45
10.18
0
0
Average

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Figure 2. Grain size distribution analyses of Wadi and Delta Sermatai original samples.
Figure 3. Histogram showing grain size distribution analyses for Wadi and Delta Sermatai original samples in
comparison with their heavy mineral distribution analyses.
Figure4. Pie-charts showing and comparing percentages of heavy and light mineral content as well as slimes and
organics for Wadi and Delta Sermatai original samples.
The slimes and organic matter content values
were presented in details for each sample of the
Wadi and Delta at Tables 1and 3, where the
values ranged between 1.75% and 16.93% mass
for the Delta Sermatai with an average of 6.99%
mass, while the Wadi values ranged between

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
2.21% and 10.77% mass with an average of
4.68%.
The HM content of each Sermatai sample was
estimated by separating about 100 g of the
representative sample using bromoform (CHBr3,
with specific gravity of 2.89), in which the ratio of
the heavy minerals to the light minerals was
calculated after separation, acetone washing and
drying; the results obtained were presented in
details at Tables 1 and 3.The light gangue
minerals of the Delta and Wadi Sermatai samples
represented high values, as the average values of
the delta were 85.42% mass, while the Wadi
average reached 87.34% mass. As for the values
of the heavy mineral content, they ranged between
3.33% and 20.05% mass with an average of
8.37% mass for the Delta samples and for the
Wadi samples, it ranged between 3.37% and
12.02% mass with an average of 8.32% mass.
The microscopic examination of the light
gangue minerals of all samples confirmed that
they contained abundant amounts of quartz,
feldspars, and micas. This seems very plausible
science it comes from the rocks surrounding the
area; while the microscopic examination of the
heavy minerals with the aid of SEM that provided
with EDS confirmed the presence of a large group
of VHM as magnetite (Figs. 5a and 5b), garnet
(Figure 5c), ilmenite (Figure 5d), khatyrkite
(Figure 6a), sphene (Figs. 6b and 6c), xenotime
(Figure 6d), pyrolusite (Figs. 7a and 7b), apatite
(Figure 8a), zircon (Figure 8b), celestine (Figure
8c), and rutile (Figure 8d).
The grain size distribution analysis of THM was
carried out, and it was resulted that 86.82% of the
heavy minerals in the delta samples and 90.2% of
the heavy minerals in the Wadi Sermatai samples
were present in the sandy size. The heavy mineral
distribution analyses were listed in details at
Tables 2 and 4 and also graphically represented in
histogram at (Figure 3).
Figure 5. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images and corresponding EDS spectra for a. and b. magnetite, c.
garnet, and d. ilmenite.

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Figure 6. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images and corresponding EDS spectra for a. khatyrkite, b and c.
sphene, and d. xenotime inclusion.
Figure 7. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images and corresponding EDS spectra for a. pyrolusite, b. base metal
inclusion on pyrolusite surface, c. base metal inclusions on mica surface, and d. base metal inclusion on heavy
silicate mineral.

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Figure 8. Back-scattered electron (BSE) images and corresponding EDS spectra for a. apatite, b. zircon, c.
celestine, and d. rutile.
3.2. Physical upgrading results
The physical upgrading of VHM from the
stream sediments of Wadi and Delta Sermatai
began with gravity concentration processes a via
shaking table in order to eliminate low-density
gangue silicate minerals such as quartz and
feldspar, which were present in large proportions
and produced heavy mineral concentrates. The
magnetic separation processes were carried out as
a second step on the concentrates obtained from
the gravity concentrators in order to separate the
magnetic heavy minerals from the paramagnetic
heavy minerals and also from the diamagnetic
heavy minerals.
3.2.1. Shaking table concentration
Wilfely Shaking Table No. 13 was used as a
tool for raising the THM grade of the Wadi and
Delta Sermatai samples by going through two
rounds of scavenging concentration stages that
performed after a rougher step to recover the
remaining heavy minerals in tails that were not
recovered during the initial roughing stage.
The operation conditions for the roughing and
scavenging concentration stages using the shaking
table as the feed rate, water flow rate, stroke
length, and inclination angle were optimized and
listed at (Figure 9). It is quite clear that the
scavenging stages have greater values of the
operation conditions than the roughing stage, and
this comes as a result of the increase in the
proportion of the light gangue minerals and the
decrease in the heavy minerals during the
scavenging stages compared to the roughing
stages.
After completion of each gravity concentration
stage (rougher and scavenger), a representative
sample weighting about 100 g of each one of the
gravity concentration products (concentrate and
tail) was subjected to a heavy-liquid separation
test using bromoform for determination of the
THM assay and material balance.
The assay and material balance of the wet
gravity concentration processes for the Wadi and
Delta Sermatai samples were presented in (Figure
9). The results obtained revealed that the
scavenging was a very important and effective
stage science it raised THM recovery value from
35.7% after the rougher stage to 66.84% after two
rounds of the scavenging stages for the Wadi
Sermatai technological sample, while for the
Delta Sermatai sample, the scavenging stage

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
raised the THM recovery value from 27.77% after
rougher to 67.23 %.
The material balance also revealed that the
THM assay was raised from 8.32% to 46.04% for
the Wadi Sermatai sample and from 8.37% to
50.13% for the Delta Sermatai sample after the
rougher and scavenger concentration stages in
8.89% and 9.59% by mass yield for the Wadi and
Delta Sermatai samples respectively. The
enrichment ratio of the Wadi and Delta Sermatai
samples were 5.53% and 6%, respectively; this
means that the Wadi and Delta Sermatai
concentrates have 5.53 and 6 times, respectively,
the THM concentration of the feed.
The final concentrates of the studied samples
obtained after the wet gravity concentration
operations were collected, dried, weighed, and
analyzed elementally using XRF spectrometry,
and compared with the XRF analyses of the feed
samples and presented in Table 5 in addition to
the calculated elemental enrichment ratio (ER).
The elemental enrichment ratio was calculated by
dividing the grade of the concentrate by the grade
of the feed (c/f) and its value refer to how many
times the concentrate has element concentration
relative to the feed.
From the results of Table 5, the enrichment ratio
values of the major elements such as SiO2, Al2O3,
K2O, and SO3 indicate that their grades were
reduced in the concentrate than in the feed, and
this indicates a reduction in the percentages of the
gangue minerals that have low specific gravity
such as quartz and feldspar as a result of the wet
gravity separation processes via the shaking table.
To the contrary, the enrichment ratio values for
the elements such as Ti, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn, Pb, Zr,
Cr, Y, and Nb, and this in addition to some rare
earth elements such as Nd, Sm, Sc, and La
indicate a doubling of their grade in the
concentrate than in the feed sample, and this is
related to a doubling of the ratios of their minerals
such as ilmenite, magnetite, rutile, sphene, zircon,
garnet, and xenotime in the concentrate as a result
of the high value of its specific gravity during wet
gravity separation processes.
3.2.2. Magnetic separation
The Carpco high intensity magnetic separator
(HIMS) Model MLH (13) III-5" was used to
fractionate the heavy mineral concentrate obtained
from the gravity concentration processes into the
ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and diamagnetic
minerals in the studied samples, and obtained a
clean concentrate from these fractions. The
magnetic separation processes were achieved at
the pre-optimized factors of a medium air gap of
1.5 cm, magnetic field current at 1 and 3 amperes,
magnetic roll speed of 30 rpm, and optimum feed
rate of 39.2 g/min.
Four magnetic fractions were resulted from the
magnetic separation processes via HIMS;
ferromagnetic mineral fraction, paramagnetic
mineral fraction that separated at 1 ampere,
paramagnetic mineral fraction that separated at 3
amperes, and finally, the diamagnetic mineral
fraction that separated at 3 amperes. The
ferromagnetic fraction percentages were 11.53%
and 14.49% mass for the Wadi and Delta Sermatai
samples, respectively, while the paramagnetic
fraction at 1 ampere reached 38.21% and 25.93%
mass for the Wadi and Delta samples respectively.
As for the results of separating the paramagnetic
fraction at 3 amperes, they were 11.69% and
31.24% mass for the Wadi and Delta samples,
respectively. Finally, the diamagnetic fraction had
the percentages of 38.56% and 9.45% mass for the
Wadi and Delta Sermatai samples, respectively
(Figure 9).

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Table 5. XRF elemental analyses demonstrating feed grade, concentrate grade, and enrichment ratio (ER) for
Delta and Wadi Sermatai samples.
Wadi Sermatai
Delta Sermatai
Sample
ER
(c/f)
Conc. grade
(c)
Feed grade
(f)
ER
(c/f)
Conc. grade
(c)
Feed grade
(f)
Major elemental oxide in wt.%
0.77
52.57
67.96
0.60
40.57
67.32
SiO
2
4.68
2.62
0.56
10.63
5.95
0.56
TiO
2
0.95
13.11
13.85
0.76
10.76
14.15
Al
2
O
3
3.58
16.34
4.56
6.72
27.75
4.13
Fe
2
O
3
Total
3.30
0.32
0.097
6.63
0.63
0.095
MnO
1.99
3.23
1.62
1.68
2.98
1.77
MgO
1.94
4.53
2.34
2.05
6.22
3.04
CaO
0.76
3.60
4.71
0.53
2.14
4.06
Na
2
O
1.00
0.02
0.02
0.043
0.01
0.23
SO
3
0.47
1.23
2.64
0.34
0.76
2.23
K
2
O
1.76
0.44
0.25
1.38
0.29
0.21
P
2
O
5
1.61
1.21
0.98
2.03
L.O.I.
Trace elements in
ppm
10.07
340.4
33.8
17.72
659.3
37.2
V
2.68
39.4
14.7
3.30
54.1
16.4
Ni
2.82
190.5
67.5
4.65
240.0
51.6
Zn
2.05
15.0
7.3
2.25
15.3
6.8
Cu
1.89
16.8
8.9
4.56
28.7
6.3
Pb
1.58
320.8
203.6
1.68
388.4
230.6
Sr
0.73
36.8
48.9
0.36
15.1
41.8
Rb
5.19 1244.2 239.8 6.03 1244.2 206.4
Zr
2.82
26.5
9.40
8.93
62.5
7.0
Hf
6.96
156.7
22.5
25.88
944.6
36.5
Cr
1.35
26.0
19.2
1.61
24.4
15.2
Ga
7.00
2.80
0.40
3.20
1.6
0.5
Mo
7.41
32.6
4.40
4.73
29.3
6.2
Co
1.33
0.4
0.3
3.00
0.9
0.3
Ag
4.15
87.1
21.0
10.17
124.1
12.2
Nb
3.72
10.8
2.90
0.25
1.0
4.0
Ta
2.82
82.3
29.2
5.40
108.0
20.0
Y
4.92
43.3
8.8
6.72
50.4
7.5
Sc
5.03
97.5
19.4
5.41
104.5
19.3
La
10.48
211.6
20.2
6.42
291.5
45.4
Ce
50.05
95.1
1.90
16.32
115.9
7.1
Nd
18.4
18.4
-
14.70
14.7
-
Sm
0.25
0.30
1.20
4.43
3.1
0.7
U
2.24
19.0
8.50
4.31
28.0
6.5
Th

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
Figure 9. Flowsheet with material balance for recovery of THM from Wadi and Delta Sermatai feed sample
under optimum conditions.
4. Conclusions
About 60 sampling points were studied during
this work in order to cover the stream sediments
of the Sermatai area (Wadi and Delta), which has
an area of about 84 Km2. The present work
included two main parts: the mineralogical
characterization and the potentiality of physical
upgrading for VHM. The results of mineralogical
characterization and evaluation included that the
THM assay of the Wadi and Delta Sermatai
samples was 8.32% and 8.37%, respectively,
which were magnetite, ilmenite, garnet,
khatyrkite, sphene, pyrolusite, apatite, zircon,
celestine, and rutile, where these minerals were
found in the sandy size. The light gangue minerals
of the Delta and Wadi Sermatai samples
represented the high values of 85.42% and
87.34% mass, respectively, while the slimes and
organic matter contents were the least present,
amounting to 6.21% and 4.34% mass for Delta
and Wadi Sermatai, respectively.
The physical upgrading tests for the Wadi and
Delta Sermatai technological samples proved their
potentiality for raising the grade of VHM via a
shaking table in conjunction with a dry high-
intensity magnetic separator. From the assay and
material balance results, the scavenging
concentration stages proved to be effective
through the wet gravity concentration processes

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
science they raised the THM recovery values from
35.7% after the rougher stage to 66.84% after two
rounds of the scavenging stages for the Wadi
Sermatai sample, while for the Delta Sermatai
sample, the scavenging stage raised the THM
recovery value from 27.77% after rougher to
67.23%. The material balance also revealed that
the THM assay was raised from 8.32% to 46.04%
for the Wadi Sermatai sample and from 8.37% to
50.13% for the Delta Sermatai sample after the
rougher and scavenger concentration stages in
8.89% and 9.59% by mass yield for the Wadi and
Delta Sermatai samples, respectively.
Accordingly, the Sermatai area represents one of
the sites where the economic concentrations of
heavy minerals can be obtained through the
physical upgrading techniques that have proven
their effectiveness.
References
[1]. Graf, H. and Burkhalter, R. (2016). Quaternary
deposits: concept for a stratigraphic classification and
nomenclature—an example from northern Switzerland.
Swiss J Geosci, 109:137–147.
[2]. Woodward, J. Williams, M. Garzanti, E. Macklin,
M. and Marriner, N. (2015). From source to sink:
exploring the quaternary history of the Nile. Quat Sci
Rev 130:3–8,
[3]. Caldeira, D. Uagoda, R. Nogueira, A. Garnier, J.
Sawakuchi, A. and Hussain, Y. (2021). Late
Quaternary episodes of clastic sediment deposition in
the Tarimba Cave, Central Brazil. Quaternary
International, 580; (10) 22-37.
[4]. Mudd, G. and Jowitt, S. (2016). Rare earth
elements from heavy mineral sands: assessing the
potential of a forgotten resource. Applied Earth
Science, DOI: 10.1080/03717453.2016.1194955.
[5]. Rahman, A. Pownceby, M. Tardio, J. Sparrow, G.
Haque, N. and Hasan, F. (2021). Distribution,
separation and characterization of valuable heavy
minerals from the Brahmaputra River Basin, Kurigram
District, Bangladesh. Minerals 11 (7): 786.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ min11070786.
[6]. Fawzy, M. Abu El Ghar, M. Gaafar, I. El shafey,
A. Diab, M. and Hussein, A. (2022a). Diit Quaternary
stream sediments, southern coast of the Red Sea,
Egypt: potential source of ilmenite, magnetite, zircon
and other economic heavy minerals. Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration, published online January
2022.
[7]. Gosen, B. Bleiwas, D. Bedinger, G. Ellefsen, K.
and Shah, A. (2016). Coastal deposits of heavy mineral
sands: Global significance and US resources. Min.
Eng. 68: 36–43.
[8]. Moscoso-Pinto, F. and Kim, H. (2021).
Concentration and recovery of valuable heavy minerals
from dredged fine aggregate waste. Minerals 11(1): 49.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ min11010049.
[9]. Sampaio, J. Luz, A. Alcantera, R. and Araújo, L.
(2001). Minerais Pesados Millennium. Usinas de
Beneficiamento de Minérios no Brasil; Sampaio, J.A.,
Luz, A.B., Lins, F.F., Eds.; Center for Mineral
Technology: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p. 233.
[10]. Best, J. and Brayshaw, A. (1985). Flow
separation-a physical process for the concentration of
heavy minerals within alluvial channels. J. geol. Soc.
London, 142; 747-755.
[11]. Sibon, M. Jamil, H. Umor, M. and Hassan, W.
(2013). Heavy Mineral Distribution in Stream
Sediment of Tapah Area, Perak, Malaysia. AIP
Conference Proceedings 1571, 411;
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4858692.
[12]. Jordens, A. Cheng, Y. and Waters, K. (2013). A
review of the beneficiation of rare earth element
bearing minerals. Miner. Eng., 41, 97–114. [CrossRef]
[13] Rahman, M. Pownceby, M. Haque, N. Bruckard,
W. and Zaman, M. (2016). Valuable heavy minerals
from Brahmaputra River sands if Northern Bangladesh.
Appl. Earth Sci., 125, 174–188. [CrossRef]
[14]. Jordens, A. Sheridan, R. Rowson, N. and Waters,
K. (2014). Processing a rare earth mineral deposit
using gravity and magnetic separation. Miner. Eng., 38,
9–18. [CrossRef]
[15]. Jordens, A. Marion, C. Langlois, R.
Grammatikopoulos, T. Sheridan, R. Teng, C. Demers,
H. Gauvin, R. Rowson, N. and Waters, K. (2016).
Beneficiation of the Nechalacho rare earth deposit. Part
2: Characterisation of products from gravity and
magnetic separation. Miner. Eng., 99, 96–110.
[CrossRef]
[16]. Schnellrath, J. Monte, M. Veras, A. Júnior, H.
and Figueiredo, C. (2001). Minerais Pesados INB.
Usinas de Beneficiamento de Minérios no Brasil;
Sampaio, J.A., Luz, A.B., Lins, F.F., Eds.; Center for
Mineral Technology: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p. 189.
[17]. Rosental, S. Terras Raras, and Rohas E. (2005).
Minerais Industriais Usos e Especificações; Luz, A.B.,
Lins, F.F., Eds.; Center for Mineral Technology: Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, p. 727.
[18]. Laxmi, T. Srikant, S. Rao, D. and Rao, R. (2013).
Beneficiation studies on recovery and in-depth
characterization of il menite from red sediments of
badlands topography of Ganjam District, Odisha, India.
Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 23; 725–731.
[19]. Fawzy, M. Abu El Ghar, M. Gaafar, I. El shafey,
A. Diab, M. and Hussein, A. (2022). Recovery of
valuable heavy minerals via gravity and magnetic
separation operations from Diit Quaternary stream
sediments, southern coast of the Red Sea, Egypt. The

Diab et al. Journal of Mining & Environment, Published online
international conference on chemical and
environmental engineering, accepted and under
publication.
[20]. Raslan, M. and Fawzy, M. (2018). Mineralogy
and physical upgrading of fergusonite-Y and Hf-zircon
in the mineralized pegmatite of Abu Dob granite,
Central Eastern Desert, Egypt. Tabbin Inst.
Metallurgical Stud. (TIMS Bulletin), 107; 52–65.
[21]. Raslan, M. Kharbish, S. Fawzy, M. El Dabe, M.
and Fathy, M. (2021). Gravity and Magnetic
Separation of Polymetallic Pegmatite from Wadi El
Sheih Granite, Central Eastern Desert, Egypt. Journal
of Mining Science. 57: (2): 316–326.
[22]. Fawzy, M. Mahdy, N. and Mabrouk, S. (2020).
Mineralogical characterization and physical upgrading
of radioactive and rare metal minerals from Wadi Al-
Baroud granitic pegmatite at the Central Eastern Desert
of Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci., 13; 413.
[23]. Kim, K. and Jeong, S. (2019). Separation of
Monazite from Placer Deposit by Magnetic Separation.
Minerals, 9, 149. [CrossRef]
[24]. Rejith, R.G. and Sundararajan, M. (2018).
Combined magnetic, electrostatic, and gravity
separation techniques for recovering strategic heavy
minerals from beach sands. Mar. Georesources.
Geotechnol., 35, 959–965. [CrossRef]
[25]. Routray, S. and Rao, R. (2011). Beneficiation and
Characterization of Detrital Zircons from Beach Sand
and Red Sediments in India. J. Miner. Mater. Charact.
Eng., 10; 1409–1428.
[26]. Routray, S. Laxmi, T. and Rao, R. (2013).
Alternate Approaches to Recover Zinc Mineral Sand
from Beach Alluvial Placer Deposits and Bandlands
Topography for Industrial Applications. Int. J. Mater.
Mech. Eng. 3 (2): 80–90.
[27]. Zhai, J. Chen, P. Wang, H. Hu, Y. and Sun, W.
(2017). Floatability improvement of Ilmenite Using
Attrition-Scrubbing as a Pretreatment method.
Minerals, 7, 13. [CrossRef]
[28]. Tranvik, E. Becker, M. Palsson, B. Franzidis, J.
and Bradshaw, D. (2017). Towards cleaner production–
Using floatation to recover monazite from a heavy
mineral sands zircon waste stream. Miner. Eng., 101;
30–39.
[29]. Fawzy, M. (2018). Surface characterization and
froth flotation of Fergusonite using a combination of
anionic and nonionic collectors. Physicochem. Probl.
Mineral Process. 54 (3): 677–87.
[30]. Fawzy, M. (2021). Flotation separation of dravite
from phlogopite using a combination of
anionic/nonionic surfactants. Physicochem. Probl.
Miner. Process. 57 (4): 87-95.
[31]. EGSMA (1999). Egyptian Geological Survey
and Mining; Geologic Map of the Jabal Ilbah,
Quadrangle, Egypt, scale 1:250 0000. Geol Surv Cairo,
Egypt.
[32]. EGSMA (2002). Egyptian Geological Survey and
Mining; Geologic Map of the Marsa Shaab,
Quadrangle, Egypt, scale 1:250 0000. Geol Surv Cairo,
Egypt.
[33]. Sakr, S. El-Afandy, A. Abu Halawa, A. and
Awad, M. (2011). Heavy mineral diagnosis of Ras
Baghdady black beach sand: accumulations and
significance. Al-Azhar Bull Sci. 22 (2):81–108.
[34]. Abdel-Karim, A. and Barakat, M. (2017).
Separation, upgrading, and mineralogy of placer
magnetite in the black sands, northern coast of Egypt.
Arab J Geosci 10 (14): 298.
[35]. Rydberg, J. (2014). Wavelength dispersive X-ray
fluorescence spectroscopy as a fast, non-destructive
and cost-effective analytical method for determining
the geochemical composition of small loose-powder
sediment samples. J. Paleolimnol 52:265–276.

د
ﯾ
بﺎ
ﻫ و
نارﺎﮑﻤ
ﯽﻤﻠﻋ ﻪﯾﺮﺸﻧ
-
ﻂﯿﺤﻣ و نﺪﻌﻣ ﯽﺸﻫوﮋﭘ
ﺖﺴﯾز
ﻦﯾﻼﻧآ پﺎﭼ
ﺴﻧﺎﺘﭘﯿﻞ شور ﺎﺑ رﺎﯿﻋ ﺶﯾاﺰﻓايﺎﻫ ﻓﯿﺰﯾﮑﯽ اﺮﺑي ﻧﺪﻌﻣ داﻮﻣﯽ ﮕﻨﺳﯿﻦ ﻪﻘﻄﻨﻣ زا شزرا ﺎﺑSermataiﺮﺼﻣ ،
د ﺪﻤﺤﻣﯾبﺎ
1
ﻟاﻮﺑا ﺪﻤﺤﻣ ،رﺎﻐ
2
ﻫاﺮﺑا ،ﯿﻢ ﻏ ﺪﻤﺤﻣرﺎﻔ
1
ﺤﻟاﺪﺒﻋ ،ﯽ ﻌﻓﺎﺸﻟا ﺪﻤﺤﻣﯽ
1
ﺴﺣ ﻪﮔاو ﺪﻤﺣا ،ﯿﻦ
2
ﻓ ﺪﻤﺤﻣ ﺎﻧﻮﻣ وﻀﯿﯽ
1*
1 - ﻪﺘﺴﻫ داﻮﻣ نﺎﻣزﺎﺳاي، قوﺪﻨﺻ530 دﺎﻌﻣي، ﺮﺼﻣ ،هﺮﻫﺎﻗ
2 - ﻣز هوﺮﮔﯿﻦ ﺳﺎﻨﺷﯽ، ﻓ هﺎﮕﺸﻧاد ،مﻮﻠﻋ هﺪﮑﺸﻧادﯿ،مﻮ ﻓﯿ،مﻮ ﺮﺼﻣ
لﺎﺳرا13/12/2021 شﺮﯾﺬﭘ ،31/01/2022
ﻣ هﺪﻨﺴﯾﻮﻧ * :تﺎﺒﺗﺎﮑﻣ لﻮﺌﺴmm1_fawzy@yahoo.com
:هﺪﯿﮑﭼ
ا ردﯾﻦ ﺴﻧﺎﺘﭘ ﻪﺑ ﺎﻣ رﺎﮐﯿﻞ روآﺮــﻓ زا هدﺎﻔﺘﺳاي ﻧﺪــﻌﻣ داﻮــﻣﯽ اﺮــﺑي اﺰــﻓاﯾﺶ ﻋــﯿرﺎ ﻧﺪــﻌﻣ داﻮــﻣﯽ ﮕﻨــﺳﯿﻦ )VHMs( ﺮﺟ زاﯾنﺎﺎــﻫي ﺑﻮــﺳرﯽ ﺎــﺗرﺎﻬﭼﯽﯾ داو ﻖﻃﺎــﻨﻣ ردي
اﺮﺤﺻ)ﯽﯾﺎﺗﺎﻣﺮﺳ (دور ﺐﺼﻣ) ﺎﺘﻟد و (ي ﺑﻮﻨﺟ ﻞﺣاﻮﺳ رد ﻊﻗاوﯽ ردﯾﺎي ــﻣ ﺮﺼﻣ ،خﺮﺳﯽ زادﺮــﭘﯾﻢﻗد كرد .ــﯿﻖ وﯾــﮔﮋﯽﺎــﻫي ــﺷﯿﻤﯿﺎﯽﯾ ﻧﺎــﮐ وﯽــﺳﺎﻨﺷﯽ ﻪــﻧﻮﻤﻧﺎﻫي درﻮــﻣ
ﭘ ،ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣﯿﺶ ﻧﯿزﺎي اﺮﺑي ﻓ شزادﺮﭘ ﻪﻌﺳﻮﺗ و بﺎﺨﺘﻧاﯿﺰﯾﮑﯽ ﻟﻮﺗ رﻮﻈﻨﻣ ﻪﺑ هدﺎﻔﺘﺳا درﻮﻣﯿﺪ ﻋ ﺎﺑ هﺮﺘﻧﺎﺴﻨﮐﯿرﺎ اﺮــﺑ .ﺖﺳا ﻻﺎﺑي اــﯾﻦ ﺰﺠﺗ ،رﻮــﻈﻨﻣــﯾﻪ ﻠﺤﺗ وــﯿﻞ زﻮﺗــﯾﻊ هزاﺪــﻧا
ﺎﻣزآ ،ﻪﻧادﯾﺶﺎﻫي زﺎﺳاﺪﺟي ﺎﻣﯾﻊ ﮕﻨﺳﯿﻦ ﻨﭽﻤﻫ وﯿﻦ ﻟﺎﻧآﯿﺰ XRF وSEM ﻣ مﺎﺠﻧاﯽدﻮﺷﺘﻨﮕﻣ .ﯿ،ﺖ اﯾﻨﻤﻠــﯿ،ﺖ ز ،ﺖــﻧرﺎﮔﯾ،نﻮــﮐﺮ ﺗورــﯿ،ﻞ ﺗﺎﭘآــﯿ،ﺖ ﭘ ،ﻦﻔــﺳاﯿزﻮﻟوﺮــﯾ،ﺖ
ﺘﺴﻠﺳﯿﻦ ﺳ وﯿﻠﯿتﺎﮑﺎﻫي ﮕﻨﺳ ﺰﺒﺳﯿﻦ ﻧﺎﮐ زاﯽﺎﻫي ﮕﻨﺳﯿﻦ ﺖﺒﺛ شزرا ﺎﺑﻪﻧﻮﻤﻧ رد هﺪﺷﺎﻫي ــﺑ ﺎــﻬﻧآ راﺪــﻘﻣ ﺎــﻣا .ﺪﻨﺘــﺴﻫ ﻪﻌﻟﺎﻄﻣ درﻮﻣﯿﻦ اﺮﺤــﺻ ﻖﻃﺎــﻨﻣﯽﯾ ﺎــﺘﻟد وي دور
ﺎﻣزآ .ﺖﺳا توﺎﻔﺘﻣﯾتﺎﺸ ﺮﻃ زا ءﺎﻘﺗراﯾﻖ ﯾﮏ ﻣﯿﺰ ﻨﻐﻣ هﺪﻨﻨﮐاﺪﺟ ﺎﺑ هاﺮﻤﻫﻃﺎﯿﺴﯽ ﺎﭘ تﺪﺷ ﺎﺑﯿﯾﻦ ﻋ ﺎــﺑ هﺮﺘﻧﺎــﺴﻨﮐ ندروآ ﺖــﺳد ﻪﺑ رﻮﻈﻨﻣ ﻪﺑ ﻻﺎﺑ تﺪﺷ ﺎﺑ وــﯿرﺎ داﻮــﻣ زا ﻻﺎــﺑ
ﻧﺪﻌﻣﯽ ﮕﻨﺳﯿﻦ ﻣ مﺎﺠﻧاﯽدﻮﺷ اﺮﺷ لﺎﻤﻋا زا ﺲﭘ وﯾﻂ زﺎﺳاﺪﺟي ﻬﺑﯿ،ﻪــﻨ ﻧﺎــﮐﯽ ﮕﻨــﺳ ﻞــﮐﯿﻦ )THM( زا ﺶﺠﻨــﺳ32/8 % ﻪــﺑ04/046 ٪ اﺮــﺑي Wadi Sermatai
اﺰﻓاﯾﺶ ﯾ،ﺖﻓﺎ ﻟﺎﺣ ردﯽ اﺮﺑ ﻪﮐي Delta Sermatai از 37/8 % ﻪــﺑ13/50 ٪ ﺗﺮﺗ ﻪــﺑــﯿﺐ ــﻣﺮﺟ دﺮــﮑﻠﻤﻋ ﺎــﺑﯽ ﻪــﺑ89/8 ٪ و59/9 ٪ اﺰــﻓاﯾﺶ ﯾﺖــﻓﺎدﺎــﻘﻣ .ﯾﺮ زﺎﺑــﯾﺑﺎﯽ
THM اﺮﺑي Wadi Sermatai ﻪﺑ84/66 % اﺮﺑ وي Delta Sermatai ﻪﺑ23/67 % ﻣﯽ ﺎــﺘﻧ زا ﺲﭘ .ﺪﺳرﯾﺞ ﻟﺎــﻧآﯿﺰ ــﺷﯿﻤﯿﺎﯽﯾ ــﻣ ﺖــﺑﺎﺛ ،ﺎــﻫ هﺮﺘﻧﺎــﺴﻨﮐﯽدﻮــﺷ ﻪــﮐ
ﺎﺗﺎﻣﺮﺳ ﻪﻘﻄﻨﻣي هﻮﻘﻟﺎﺑ ﻊﺒﻨﻣ ناﻮﻨﻋ ﻪﺑﺧﺮﺑﯽ دﺎﺼﺘﻗا ﺮﺻﺎﻨﻋ زاي ﺪﻨﻧﺎﻣFe، Ti ،Zn، Zr ،Cr ،V وSr ﻣ ﻪﺘﻓﺮﮔ ﺮﻈﻧ ردﯽدﻮﺷ..
:يﺪﯿﻠﮐ تﺎﻤﻠﮐ ﺎﺗﺎﻣﺮﺳي، ﺑﻮﻨﺟ ﻞﺣاﻮﺳﯽ ردﯾﺎي ﻧﺪﻌﻣ داﻮﻣ ،خﺮﺳﯽ ﮕﻨﺳﯿﻦ ﺖﻈﻠﻏ ،شزرا ﺎﺑﯽﻠﻘﺛزﺎﺳاﺪﺟ ،ي ﻃﺎﻨﻐﻣﯿﺴﯽ