Testing LaboratoryPT SUCOFINDO
METALLURGICAL PERFORMANCE TEST
Comparative CIL
Metallurgical Test Results
SGH® vs Sodium Cyanide in Gold Recovery
PT SUCOFINDO conducted a controlled metallurgical test using a gold ore sample and SGH® reagent provided by PT Dimar Reka Industri. The objective was to compare the gold recovery obtained using SGH® and sodium cyanide at equivalent reagent dosages.
Controlled laboratory test
Carbon in Leach
Test MethodCarbon in Leach
Leaching Duration48 hours
Head Grade5.02 ppm Au
TEST METHODOLOGY & CONDITIONS
How the Comparative Test Was Conducted
The comparative program applied controlled sample preparation, reagent dosage, leaching time, pH conditions, and analytical procedures to evaluate gold distribution and recovery.
Controlled workflow
Five-Stage CIL Test Process
Select a stage to review its role in the comparative test.
Stage 01 / 05
Sample preparation
Ore Sample Preparation
The ore sample was dried at 105°C, homogenized, and split into representative samples.
Controlled conditions
Comparative Test Parameters
Both reagents were evaluated using the same feed preparation, dosage levels, and leaching duration, with their designated operating pH.
| Parameter | NaCN | SGH® |
|---|---|---|
| Ore feed | 1,100 g | 1,100 g |
| Particle size | 200 mesh P80 | 200 mesh P80 |
| Pulp density | 40% solids | 40% solids |
| Reagent dosage | 1,000 & 2,000 gpt | 1,000 & 2,000 gpt |
| Operating pH | 10.5–11.0 | 11.5–12.0 |
| Leaching duration | 48 hours | 48 hours |
| Head assay | 5.02 ppm Au | 5.02 ppm Au |
The pH ranges shown above are the designated laboratory conditions reported for each reagent.
Analytical procedures
Gold Assay Methods
Separate process streams were analyzed to determine gold content, distribution, and calculated recovery.
Sample stream
Head Assay
Fire assay followed by AAS
Sample stream
Leach Residue
Fire assay followed by AAS
Sample stream
Pregnant Leach Solution
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS)
Sample stream
Activated Carbon
Fire assay followed by AAS
Measured Au ContentGold Distribution & Recovery
INTERACTIVE TEST RESULTS
Gold Recovery and Residue Comparison
Select a reagent dosage to compare measured gold recovery, residual gold, and solution gold under the reported laboratory conditions.
Primary comparison
Gold Recovery
Recovery (%)
Leach residue
Residual Gold
Au (ppm)
NaCN
1.46 ppm
SGH®
1.66 ppm
Pregnant leach solution
Solution Gold
Au (ppm)
NaCN0.02 ppm
SGH®0.01 ppm
Complete dataset
Reported Comparative Results
| Reagent | Dosage | Recovery | Residual Au | Solution Au |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NaCN | 1,000 gpt | 72.95% | 1.46 ppm | 0.02 ppm |
| SGH® | 1,000 gpt | 69.65% | 1.66 ppm | 0.01 ppm |
| NaCN | 2,000 gpt | 75.64% | 1.28 ppm | 0.01 ppm |
| SGH® | 2,000 gpt | 71.74% | 1.56 ppm | 0.01 ppm |
Test context: Results shown are measurements reported for the specific ore sample and controlled CIL laboratory conditions described in the metallurgical test report.
TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION & ANALYTICAL METHODS
Understanding the Test Results
A measured interpretation of the reported recovery data, analytical procedures, and principal findings under the tested conditions.
01 Technical interpretation
Recovery Performance Under Controlled CIL Conditions
Under the laboratory conditions applied to this specific ore sample, both reagents produced relatively comparable gold recovery results. SGH® achieved recoveries of 69.65% at 1,000 gpt and 71.74% at 2,000 gpt.
At equivalent dosage levels, the measured difference between SGH® and sodium cyanide ranged from 3.30 to 3.90 percentage points. Increasing the SGH® dosage from 1,000 to 2,000 gpt improved measured recovery by 2.09 percentage points.
Interpretation boundary
These observations describe the specific ore sample and laboratory parameters reported in the comparative test. Metallurgical response may vary with ore characteristics and operating conditions.
02 Reported observations
Key Findings
Summary of the principal measurements and process observations reported under the tested conditions.
Tested Ore Head Grade
Measured by fire assay followed by AAS.
Highest Measured NaCN Recovery
Recorded at a dosage of 2,000 gpt.
Highest Measured SGH® Recovery
Recorded at a dosage of 2,000 gpt.
Smallest Recovery Difference
Measured at the 1,000 gpt dosage level.
Dosage Response
Higher dosage improved measured recovery for both reagents.
Gold Distribution
Activated carbon contained most of the recovered gold after the CIL test.
03 Laboratory procedures
Analytical Methods
Gold content was measured across the main CIL sample streams to support distribution and recovery calculations.
| Sample Stream | Parameter | Analytical Procedure |
|---|---|---|
| 01Head assay | Au | Fire assay followed by AAS |
| 02Leach residue | Au | Fire assay followed by AAS |
| 03Pregnant leach solution | Au | AAS |
| 04Activated carbon | Au | Fire assay followed by AAS |
AuGold
AASAtomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Fire AssayGold determination preparation method
Site-specific evaluation
Representative Ore Testing
TEST SCOPE, DISCLAIMER & NEXT STEP
Evaluate SGH® for Your Ore Characteristics
Metallurgical performance varies between ore bodies. Mineralogy, particle size, head grade, pH, reagent dosage, oxygen availability, leaching time, carbon activity, and the presence of interfering minerals may influence the final recovery.
For this reason, laboratory or pilot-scale testing using representative ore samples is recommended before determining full-scale operating parameters.
Begin a technical evaluationRequest a Site-Specific Metallurgical Test Responsible interpretation
Scope of the Reported Results
The following boundaries help ensure the metallurgical data is interpreted in its proper technical context.
Sample-Specific Results
The results apply to the ore sample and laboratory test conditions described in the report.
CIL Recovery Evaluation
The test evaluates measured gold recovery within a controlled Carbon-in-Leach process.
Environmental and Safety Claims Are Outside This Report
This metallurgical test does not evaluate toxicity, TCLP characteristics, worker safety, or environmental impacts. Those subjects require separate supporting test data and documentation.
No Commercial Recovery Guarantee
Laboratory-scale results do not automatically guarantee equivalent recovery in full-scale commercial operations.
Site-Specific Optimization
Process parameters should be adjusted to the mineralogy and operating characteristics of each site.
Continue the technical discussion