English
Español
عربى
Français
Русский
Tiếng Việt
Preliminary Suggestions
| Typical indicators / objective observations | Likely direct causes | Low-cost actions to try first | When you should introduce / re-select PAM | Why PAM is recommended here |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overflow turbidity high; water reuse limited | Fine slimes stabilized; grade mismatch; inconsistent make-down | Stabilize solution prep; verify dilution and mixing; control feed solids | When reuse water quality becomes a limiting KPI | Proper PAM captures fine slimes into settleable aggregates, improving overflow clarity |
| High consumption but weak improvement | Wrong MW/charge window; high shear; variable feed composition | Run controlled step tests; reduce shear exposure; standardize feed sampling | When trial-and-error cost is too high and stability is needed | Grade matching reduces dosage and improves stability across variability |
| Underflow too dilute; filtration bottleneck | Insufficient floc strength; feedwell dispersion issues | Optimize dosing point; improve feedwell dilution discipline | When thickening capacity limits filtration and throughput | Stronger flocs enable higher underflow density while maintaining clarity |
Applicability boundary: Applicable for fine-slime thickening and clarification. If turbidity is caused by oil contamination or chemical dispersants, first address contamination and reagent interactions before final polymer selection.
Selection guidance: how to choose the right PAM for this circuit
Molecular weight (MW): bridging power vs. shear sensitivity
Higher MW typically improves bridging and aggregation, accelerating settling and improving clarification. However, high-MW flocs can be more shear-sensitive. If flocs form but break near the feedwell, pumps, or valves, MW and dosing point must be adjusted together.
Charge density (ionicity): matching particle surface chemistry
Charge density determines how strongly PAM interacts with fines and colloids. Too low may underperform; too high (or overdosing) may create fragile flocs or re-stabilize particles. The correct window depends on mineralogy, reagent regime, and water chemistry.
APAM / NPAM / CPAM: selecting the ionic type for the job
For many mining clarification and thickening applications, anionic or nonionic PAM is commonly evaluated first. Cationic grades may be relevant in specific streams where surface charge and contaminants require a different interaction profile.
Emulsion vs powder: choosing by site constraints
Powder grades can be cost-effective for stable operations with controlled solution preparation. Emulsion grades are often preferred when rapid dissolution, faster response, and more automated dosing are needed.
Initial recommendation
Starting point: Begin with an anionic/nonionic PAM screening aimed at maximum fine capture at the lowest stable dose. Validate both overflow clarity and underflow density under realistic shear.
Contact us for a precise grade recommendation
A precise recommendation requires your real operating data. Please submit the form and include the items below (you may provide ranges/estimates if exact values are not available). We also welcome complex or rare cases.
- Slime characteristics (fines %, ash content if available): Determines how aggressive the capture requirement is.
- Overflow turbidity and reuse targets: Defines what ‘good’ looks like for recycle water.
- Feed solids and temperature range: Affects mixing, viscosity, and floc formation behavior.
- Current make-down procedure: Solution quality often dominates performance variability.
- Dosing point and dilution ratio: Controls dispersion and floc growth, especially for slimes.
- Problem repeat probability: Supports a robust selection window across feed changes.
What you will receive: recommended PAM type/form, 2–3 candidate grade windows, an initial dosing range for a controlled trial, and step-by-step jar test / plant trial guidance.
