Comparing Gold Values - Acme Labs, Bureau Veritas

Bureau Veritas Minerals
Comparing Gold Values
Determined by Fire Asssay and Aqua Regia
MINERALS
Comparing
Gold Values
Determined by Fire Assay and Aqua Regia
The complexity of gold bearing systems means that geochemistry must often do more than determine how
much gold is in a rock. Fire assay remains the benchmark technique for quantifying gold, but minor and trace
element data are often used to vector within a mineralised system with Aqua Regia as the leach of choice.
Aqua Regia is very good at dissolving gold, and as a consequence geochemists and geologist are often faced
with reconciling two gold numbers for each sample, and sometimes they do not match. This article examines
how the distribution of gold in geological samples can affect the representivity of a sub sample and the
challenges this creates for data integration.
1 n It can sometimes be difficult to compare data from different analytical techniques, especially when they utilize very
different sample weights. Fire assay is always done on a large subsample to ensure it is representative and to mitigate
against the common situation where gold occurs as relatively large particles. Comparatively, aqua regia digestion for
trace and pathfinder metals (including gold) is usually determined on much smaller subsamples to reduce costs, and
because most elements have a relatively homogeneous distribution within a sample.
Au ppm: Aqua Regia Digestion
Figure u
2 n Figure 1 shows data for a set of samples that
were analyzed for Au using both a 50g fire assay
2.5
charge, and a 0.5g subsample leached with Aqua
2
Regia. The results show relatively good agreement
1.5
between the two methods. It suggests that a
1
substantial amount of the Au is present as fine
0.5
particles, and that a sufficient number of particles
0
are captured by the small test portion used for the
00.5 1 1.5 22.5
Aqua Regia leach to produce a representative result
Au ppm: 50g Fire Assay
(compared to the 50 g Fire assay). There is a small
*Au_PPM
Linear (Au_PPM)
positive bias towards the 50 g fire assay. This could
be attributed to the fire assay method being a total digestion, whereas, Aqua Regia is a partial digest. There may be
a few very fine particles of Au being entirely encapsulated by refractory minerals (i.e. quartz) that are not available to
leaching.
3 n Agreement between small sample weight aqua regia and large sample weight fire assay is not always the case.
The data in figure 2 is from a suite of samples that was subsequently determined to contain coarse gold by follow up
metallics fire assay. It shows a bias in Aqua Regia results that becomes increasingly pronounced at higher grades.
www.bureauveritas.com/um
Compared to figure 1, however, figure 2 demonstrates that for some samples, the Aqua Regia results are inconsistently
higher than the fire assay. The difference is not systematic.
Au Assay Comparison -­‐ All v
Assays greater than Figure
0.2ppm
2.5
2.5
4 n Figure 2 illustrates that at low Au grade, there
is good agreement between FA and Aqua Regia
suggesting that there is a relatively consistent
y = 1.2053x
R² = 0.8737
component of fine gold particles distributed. As the
Au ppm: Aqua regia
Au ppm: Aqua Regia
22
grade increases, there is an ever higher probability
1.5
1.5
that larger particles of Au are sampled, and is the
underlying cause for the observed bias. The coarse
11
grains appear to be less abundant (suggested as
most of the data agree well). However, when one (or
0.5
0.5
a few) of the grains are captured in a test portion they
effect the results of the two tests in very different ways.
00
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
00.5
1
1.5
22.5
Take, for example, a single grain of native Au that is
Au ppm: 50g Fire Assay
Au ppm: 50g
Fire(Au_PPM)
Assay
Au_PPM
Linear *Au_PPM
Linear (Au_PPM)
captured in each of the analytical methods (aqua
regia at 0.5 g and fire assay at 50 g). One grain in a
50g sample will have much less of an effect on the reported concentration than would one in a 0.5g sample. In fact, that
nugget would have an effect 100 times larger on the smaller sample. Aqua regia is very effective at dissolving native gold.
5 n To further illustrate, error envelopes have been added to Figure 2 showing the expected error for a 0.5 g analysis
versus a 50 g analysis for Au. The dashed blue line marks the bottom limit on the negative error and is to be expected
due to fine gold present, which is consistently sampled in both test portion weights. The black line is the positive
corollary of the blue line and is the expected positive error (if error is random and has an even distribution about the
mean). From the figure, we observe that there are many more points above the positive error envelope than below the
negative error envelope. The positive bias is much larger due to the impact that a single large nugget of Au has on a
0.5 g analysis (there is really no upper limit or “ceiling” on this). The concept has been drawn stylistically (not to scale)
using the black error bars. They show not only that the expected error is larger for the low sample weight test, but that
the expected positive error is larger than the expected negative error.
6 n In conclusion, the comparison of data from different analytical techniques needs to be performed carefully,
particularly for gold. Depending on the mineral species in which an element resides, each test will be variably effective
at extraction - in many cases the results may not be exactly the same. We can use the differences, along with our
understanding of the sample mineralogy, to gain additional insight into the geological systems.
Bureau Veritas provide leading testing and inspection services for the global commodities industry
Metallurgical Division
RICHMOND
Tel: +1 604 272 8110
Fax: +1 604 272 0851
TIMMINS
Tel: +1 705 360 5232
Fax: +1 705 360 5503
WHITEHORSE
Tel: +1 867 393 4725
Fax: +1 867 393 4775
CENTRAL AMERICA
EUROPE
GUATEMALA
GUATEMALA CITY
Tel: +502 24774 795
+502 24794 362
TURKEY
ANKARA
Tel: +90 312 866 3466/3539
Fax: +90 312 866 1008
AUSTRALIA
PERTH
Tel: +61 8 6218 5700
Fax: +61 8 6218 5702
NICARAGUA
MANAGUA CITY
Tel: +505 22522 135
+505 22522 118
POLAND
KRAKOW
Tel: +48 601 306 201
KALGOORLIE
Tel: +61 8 9021 7155
Fax: +61 8 9021 4268
AFRICA
ADELAIDE
Tel: +61 8 8416 5200
Fax: +61 8 8234 0355
CARIBBEAN
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
MAIMON
Tel: +809 551 2011
SOUTH AMERICA
USA
ELKO
Tel: +1 775 777 1438
CHILE
SANTIAGO
Tel: +56 2 3502100
RENO-SPARKS
Tel: +1 775 359 6311
ARGENTINA
MAIPU, MENDOZA
Tel: +54 261 524 0456/7
JUNEAU
Tel: +1 907 750 1734
MEXICO
HERMOSILLO
Tel/Fax: +52 662 2603057
+52 662 118 01 49
CABORCA
Tel/Fax: +52 637 372 65 21
DURANGO
Tel/Fax: +52 618 810 39 74
PERITO MORENO
Tel: +54 11 663 26402
GUYANA
GEORGETOWN
Tel: +592 270 4393
Fax: +592 270 4349
SOUTH AFRICA
RUSTENBURG
Tel: +27 1456 53913
NAMIBIA
SWAKOPMUND
Tel: +264 6441 9442
MALI
BAMAKO
Tel: +223 76 42 99 14
PACIFIC
© Copyright Bureau Veritas Minerals - v1 - 08/2016
NORTH AMERICA
CANADA
Main Office
VANCOUVER
Tel: +1 604 253 3158
Fax: +1 604 253 1716
WHYALLA
Tel: +61 8 8647 6500
Fax: +61 8 8647 6530
MOUNT ISA
Tel: +61 7 4743 8484
Fax: +61 7 4743 9439
IVORY COAST
ABIDJAN
Tel: +225 2353 5323
SENEGAL
KEDOUGOU
Tel: +225 2353 5323
PERU
LIMA
Tel: +51 1 467 2045
Fax: +51 1 467 5132
For more information contact:
bvmininfo@ca.bureauveritas.com | www.bureauveritas.com/um
MINERALS