The improved selectivity of MTP was observed in the flotation of gold from pyrite, and its mechanism was examined by comparison of density functional theory calculations with the results for DTP. The adsorption states of DTP and MTP on the gold, fresh pyrite, and oxidized pyrite surfaces were examined by molecular dynamics simulations and are discussed together with contact angle and flotation experiment results.
3.1. Analysis of Flotation Results
DTP was observed to float gold and pyrite simultaneously [
8]. The flotation difference between gold and pyrite was only around 15 to 35% as a function of pH using DTP [
34]. As for MTP, the remarkable flotation difference of 80% between pyrite and gold was found in the alkaline pH region from pH 6 to pH 9 [
8,
9]; The flotation recovery of pyrite with MTP decreased as a function of pH, a phenomenon also observed in other sulfide mineral flotation systems [
8]. In this regard, MTP was preferentially adsorbed on the gold surface without competition from pyrite [
9] when compared to the case of DTP.
The laboratory flotation comparison was carried out using AERO 3477 and AERO 7249 at the Grasberg mine, as shown in
Table 5. The gold recovery increased from 82.54 to 83.56% at a 95% confidence level with AERO 7249, while the copper recovery was almost the same.
Plant flotation data from the Grasberg mine using AERO 3477 and AERO 7249 are shown in
Table 6. The strong correlation between copper and gold recovery observed was because the majority of gold was associated with chalcopyrite. The gold grade and recovery were increased from 27.80 g/t and 73.73% to 31.17 g/t and 77.81% by using AERO 7249 instead of AERO 3477.
The laboratory and plant flotation results show that gold grade and recovery were improved using AERO 7249 without significantly sacrificing Cu grade and Cu recovery for the Grasberg ore. AERO 7249 was also found to be the best collector in the flotation of gold for the Cadia Hill deposit, Australia [
3]. MTP was reported to provide excellent selective recovery of gold, silver, and platinum group metals in froth flotation processes conducted under alkaline conditions [
35]. To examine the chemical structure impact on the reactivity and flotation selectivity, density functional theory was used to analyze the DTP and MTP collectors, as discussed in the following sections.
3.2. Density Functional Theory Analysis
The chemical reactivity of a collector was determined by the atomic charges of specific atoms, the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO), and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) [
36]. The HOMO orbitals evaluate the chemical reactivity and the electron-donating ability, while the LUMO orbitals represent the electron-accepting capacity and the size of the chelating ring formed during the chemical reaction. A higher HOMO or a lower LUMO indicates a stronger electron-donating or electron-accepting ability, respectively [
24]. The specific atomic charge in the functional group also contributes significantly to the electron-donating capacity of the collector molecule and to the electrostatic interaction at the mineral surfaces.
The MTP group, P(=S)O, is obtained by the replacement of the S atom with the O atom from the DTP group, P(=S)S. The collector reactivity, which was determined by the molecular orbitals and atomic charges, was significantly changed due to the replacement of the donor atom of S in DTP. In the computational chemistry analysis, the electrostatic potential (ESP) charges and molecular orbitals information were derived using semi-empirical [
37] or ab initio methods [
38,
39]. The optimized structures, ESP charges, and molecular orbitals for DTP and MTP are shown in
Figure 2 and
Table 7.
MTP has a weaker electron-donating and accepting ability according to its lower HOMO of −0.1492 and higher LUMO of 0.3285 when compared to DTP as shown in
Table 7. Furthermore, the ESP charge value of 0.85 for –P=S-S in DTP is higher than the case of 0.65 for –P=S-O in MTP, which confirmed that MTP has limited donor ability and as such, a lower reactivity when compared to DTP. However, the reactive atoms’ charge value of 1.39 for =S and -O in MTP is higher than 1.18 for =S and –S in DTP, which means the reactive atoms in MTP have a higher electron density capacity or greater donor ability when compared to DTP. In this regard, MTP shows good collecting power toward gold and excellent selectivity against the pyrite, which agrees with the improved gold recovery for the Grasberg ore [
8]. In a similar analysis reported in the literature, a short-chain amine collector [
40] and a short-chain phosphate collector [
24] with lower collecting ability were also observed to have better selectivity, due to the stronger electron-donating ability of the reactive atoms in the polar functional group. To examine the superior selectivity of MTP over DTP in the flotation of elemental gold from pyrite, molecular dynamics simulations were used to examine the collector adsorption status at the mineral surface, as discussed in the following section.
3.3. Molecular Dynamics Simulations Analysis
The adsorption states of DTP and MTP collectors on Au (111) and pyrite (100) surfaces were examined by molecular dynamics simulations as shown in
Figure 3a–d.
DTP and MTP collectors were adsorbed at the Au (111) surface after 1 ns of molecular dynamics simulation, as shown in
Figure 3a,b. This phenomenon agrees with the experimental results. The molecular dynamics simulation results and experimental sessile drop contact angle results for the gold surface covered with DTP were 75 and 72°, respectively [
41]. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) results indicated that DTP was bonded to the gold electrode surfaces through the two S atoms [
42]. IR reflectance spectra results suggest that MTP is only physisorbed on the gold surface [
9]. As shown in
Figure 3a, DTP was adsorbed on the gold surface by S and H atoms, while MTP primarily depended on H atoms, as shown in
Figure 3b.
Oxidation of pyrite occurs in these flotation systems and a more hydrophilic surface is created [
29]. To evaluate the impact of surface oxidation on pyrite, the adsorption of DTP and MTP was examined both on pure pyrite and oxidized pyrite surfaces. The adsorption of MTP and DTP on pure and oxidized pyrite surfaces, as shown in
Figure 3c–f, was mainly by Fe-S bonding, which is the same as the density functional theory calculation result [
43]. However, the majority of DTP and MTP collectors were adsorbed on the pure pyrite surface, which contradicts the fact that MTP has superior recovery in the flotation of gold from pyrite. In contrast, the adsorption phenomenon was different on the oxidized pyrite, as shown in
Figure 3e,f. All the DTP collector was still adsorbed on the oxidized pyrite surface while only about 40% of the MTP collector was adsorbed on the oxidized pyrite surface. In this regard, the oxidation of the pyrite surface explains the selective flotation of gold from pyrite using MTP. Normally the collector with greater stability with minerals has relatively weak selectivity in the flotation. For example, if collector type A has greater stability with the minerals than collector type B, then collector type A has weaker selectivity than collector B in the flotation of valuable minerals from gangue minerals. As shown in
Figure 3a,c,e, DTP exhibited strong adsorption affinity and adsorbed on almost all the surfaces of gold, pyrite, and oxidized pyrite, which explains the limited selectivity of DTP in the flotation of gold from pyrite.
As shown in
Figure 4a,b, both DTP and MTP excluded water from the gold and pyrite surfaces, since the relative number densities of the water in the cases of the DTP and MTP solutions were significantly lower than for pure water at the gold, pyrite and oxidized pyrite surfaces. The relative number densities of water in the presence of DTP and MTP were almost the same on both the gold and pyrite surfaces, which is in accord with the collector adsorption phenomenon on the gold and pyrite surfaces as shown in
Figure 3a–d. As for the oxidized pyrite surface in
Figure 4c, the relative number densities of water decreased in the presence of DTP and MTP, as expected. However, DTP had an even lower relative number density of water when compared to MTP, starting at 36 angstroms from the mineral surface, which indicated DTP excluded more water from the oxidized pyrite surface and thus had stronger adsorption and greater hydrophobicity on the oxidized pyrite surface. In this regard, DTP adsorbed not only on gold but also on the pyrite and oxidized pyrite surface, thereby limiting the selective flotation of gold from pyrite. In contrast, MTP excluded a lesser amount of water from the oxidized surface and thereby caused lower hydrophobicity on the oxidized pyrite surface. In the meantime, MTP completely adsorbed on the gold surface and thus superior selectivity was observed in the flotation of gold from pyrite using MTP.
The relative number density of atoms from DTP and MTP along the normal to the gold, pure pyrite, and oxidized pyrite surfaces are presented in
Figure 5. The peaks of the S atom and H atom from DTP were closer to the gold surface when compared to other atoms as shown in
Figure 5a, which agreed with the S atom bonding at the gold surface by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy [
42]. As for the adsorption of MTP at the gold surface, H and C atoms were the closest atoms, which confirmed that the main adsorption mechanism between MTP and the gold surface was physisorption. The closest atoms to the pure pyrite and oxidized pyrite surfaces were S atoms, as shown in
Figure 5c–f. The relative number density of atoms from DTP and MTP were almost the same on the pure pyrite surface, while the relative number density of MTP atoms was less than half of the relative number density of DTP on the oxidized pyrite surface. This observation confirmed that MTP has a lower adsorption affinity on the oxidized pyrite surface when compared to the case of DTP. In this regard, MTP has superior selectivity when compared to DTP in the flotation of gold from pyrite.
Mean square displacement and diffusion coefficients (D) were used to examine the movement of the collector as a function of time in each system. Since DTP and MTP have almost the same chemical structure, the mean square displacement and diffusion coefficients (D) can be indicators for the adsorbed collector at mineral surfaces. Lower mean square displacement and diffusion coefficient (D) values represent a stable/immobile collector at the mineral surface, and accordingly, strong adsorption [
44]. A lower mean square displacement of DTP was observed when compared to MTP, as shown in
Figure 6, which showed that DTP had a stronger adsorption affinity at almost all of the selected mineral surfaces. A difference in mean square displacement between DTP and MTP was observed for the gold surface. MTP had a higher diffusion coefficient of 17.80 × 10
−5 cm
2/s when compared to 3.95 × 10
−5 cm
2/s for DTP, providing further indication of the lower adsorption affinity of MTP on the gold surface. The biggest difference in mean square displacement between DTP and MTP was observed on the oxidized pyrite surface compared to the pure pyrite surface, as shown in
Figure 6b,c. At the pure pyrite surface, MTP and DTP had diffusion coefficients of 4.62 × 10
−6 cm
2/s and 2.54 × 10
−6 cm
2/s, respectively. As for the oxidized pyrite surface, MTP and DTP had diffusion coefficients of 32.65 × 10
−6 cm
2/s and 0.33 × 10
−6 cm
2/s, respectively. The significant difference in mean square displacement between MTP and DTP agreed with the corresponding adsorption states at the oxidized pyrite surface, and showed that little MTP collector was adsorbed at the oxidized pyrite surface, thereby resulting in high selectivity in the flotation of gold from pyrite.