Hematite and quartz microflotation using millet starch as depressant

Silva, André Carlos; Sousa, Débora Nascimento; Silva, Elenice Maria Schons

doi:10.1590/0370-44672020740090

André Carlos Silva ³E-mails: 3 ancarsil@ufg.br

Universidade Federal de Catalão - UFCAT, Laboratório de Modelamento e Pesquisa em Processamento Mineral (LaMPPMin), Faculdade de Engenharia, Catalão - Goiás - Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9760-0728

Débora Nascimento Sousa ⁴ 4 debora.nascimento@ifgoiano.edu.br

Instituto Federal Goiano - IFGoiano, Departamento Mineração, Catalão - Goiás - Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6639-6608

Elenice Maria Schons Silva ⁵ 5 eschons@ufg.br

Universidade Federal de Catalão - UFCAT, Laboratório de Modelamento e Pesquisa em Processamento Mineral (LaMPPMin), Faculdade de Engenharia, Catalão - Goiás - Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1360-6450

E-mails: 3 ancarsil@ufg.br

4 debora.nascimento@ifgoiano.edu.br

5 eschons@ufg.br

Botanical sources	Cornstarch	Millet starch	Sorghum starch
Amylose (AM) (%)	38.73 ± 0.8	20.80 ± 0.30	25.46 ± 0.8 [^a [a] Silva et al., 2019a; ]
AM molecular weight	105 to 3×106 [^b [b] BeMiller, 2018; ]	1.6×106 [^c [c] Madhusudhan and Tharanathan, 1996; ]	1.1×107 [^d [d] Matalanis et al., 2009. ]
Amylopectin (AP) (%)	48.81 ± 0.95	67.10 ± 0.62	61.77 ± 0.86
AP molecular weight	107 to 2×109 [^b [b] BeMiller, 2018; ]	1.3×107 [^c [c] Madhusudhan and Tharanathan, 1996; ]	3.0×108 [^d [d] Matalanis et al., 2009. ]
AM/AP	1/1.26 ± 0.1	1/3.23 ± 0.1	1/2.43 ± 0.8
Lipids (%)	0.80 ± 0.10	0.12 ± 0.05	0.49 ± 0.1 [^a [a] Silva et al., 2019a; ]
Proteins (%)	0.87 ± 0.05	1.00 ± 0.05	0.85 ± 0.05 [^a [a] Silva et al., 2019a; ]
Ashes (%)	0.51 ± 0.11	0.10 ± 0.03	0.12 ± 0.1 [^a [a] Silva et al., 2019a; ]
Solubility index (%)	2.35 ± 0.42	1.96 ± 0.27	1.43 ± 0.2 [^a [a] Silva et al., 2019a; ]
Swelling power (g/g)	7.93 ± 0.25	8.93 ± 0.47	9.88 ± 0.2 [^a [a] Silva et al., 2019a; ]
Starch pH	5.29 ± 0.19	6.52 ± 0.08	6.54 ± 0.06
Density (g/cm³)	1.46 ± 0.03	1.39 ± 0.04	1.48 ± 0.04

Model	Sequential p-value	Lack of Fit p-value	Adjusted R²	Predicted R²	Conclusions
Linear	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.4568	0.4342
2FI	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.5763	0.5422
Quadratic	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.6700	0.6379
Cubic	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.7779	0.7447	Suggested
Quartic	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.8668	0.8325	Aliased

Source	Sum of squares	Degrees of freedom	Mean square	F-value	p-value
Model	39344.62	21	1873.55	30.85	< 0.0001
A-pH	1675.04	1	1675.04	27.59	< 0.0001
B-Depressant dosage	6852.19	1	6852.19	112.85	< 0.0001
C-Starch type	14421.70	2	7210.85	118.75	< 0.0001
AC	1718.73	2	859.36	14.15	< 0.0001
BC	4537.51	2	2268.75	37.36	< 0.0001
A²	2859.78	1	2859.78	47.10	< 0.0001
B²	1673.97	1	1673.97	27.57	< 0.0001
ABC	1405.76	2	702.88	11.58	< 0.0001
A²C	1950.10	2	975.05	16.06	< 0.0001
B²C	1112.22	2	556.11	9.16	0.0002
A³	608.03	1	608.03	10.01	0.0019
B³	316.32	1	316.32	5.21	0.0238
Residual	9594.05	158	60.72
Lack of Fit	8616.74	38	226.76	27.84	< 0.0001
Pure Error	977.31	120	8.14
Cor. Total	48938.67	179

Model	Sequential p-value	Lack of Fit p-value	Adjusted R²	Predicted R²	Conclusions
Linear	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.3151	0.2915
2FI	0.7297	< 0.0001	0.3064	0.2612
Quadratic	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.6626	0.6421
Cubic	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.9345	0.9297	Suggested
Quartic	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.9876	0.9856	Aliased

Source	Sum of squares	Degrees of freedom	Mean square	F-value	p-value
Model	1.523E+05	21	7254.38	122.59	< 0.0001
A-pH	76.81	1	76.81	1.30	0.2563
B-Depressant dosage	47721.68	1	47721.68	806.46	< 0.0001
C-Starch type	5622.75	2	2811.37	47.51	< 0.0001
AB	668.14	1	668.14	11.29	0.0010
AC	700.80	2	350.40	5.92	0.0033
BC	388.91	2	194.46	3.29	0.0400
A²	341.99	1	341.99	5.78	0.0174
B²	54970.31	1	54970.31	928.95	< 0.0001
ABC	367.93	2	183.97	3.11	0.0474
AB²	31.82	1	31.82	0.5376	0.4645
B²C	819.39	2	409.69	6.92	0.0013
A³	393.63	1	393.63	6.65	0.0108
B³	40220.53	1	40220.53	679.69	< 0.0001
Residual	9349.56	158	59.17
Lack of Fit	8737.72	38	229.94	45.10	< 0.0001
Pure Error	611.85	120	5.10
Cor. Total	1.617E+05	179

[1] E-mails: 3 ancarsil@ufg.br