{"id":6842,"date":"2026-08-19T14:08:34","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T06:08:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/?p=6842"},"modified":"2026-08-19T14:08:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T06:08:34","slug":"56-tons-hmgold-carbon-ghana-cip-mesh-size-upgrade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/56-tons-hmgold-carbon-ghana-cip-mesh-size-upgrade\/","title":{"rendered":"56 Tons HMGOLD\u2122 Carbon to Ghana: CIP Mesh Size Upgrade"},"content":{"rendered":"

A gold mine in Ghana's Ashanti region had been running 6\u00d712 mesh activated carbon in their CIP circuit for three years. Gold recovery was acceptable \u2014 94.5% \u2014 but they were losing carbon at the interstage screens faster than they could account for. Screen blinding, carbon passing through slots, and frequent screen replacements were eating into their operating budget.<\/p>\n

They switched to 8\u00d716 mesh HMGOLD\u2122 7000 in Q1 2026. Fifty-six tons. This is what changed and why the mesh size decision matters more than most operators realize.<\/p>\n

\"Close-up<\/p>\n

CIP vs CIL: Why Mesh Size Requirements Differ<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Parametro<\/th>\nCIL (Carbon-in-Leach)<\/th>\nCIP (Carbon-in-Pulp)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbon residence<\/td>\nIn leach tanks with agitation<\/td>\nIn adsorption tanks, counter-current flow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Slurry abrasion<\/td>\nHigh (grinding media present)<\/td>\nModerate (no grinding media)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Screen slot size<\/td>\n0.8\u20131.0 mm typical<\/td>\n0.6\u20130.8 mm typical<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Standard carbon size<\/td>\n6\u00d712 mesh<\/td>\n6\u00d712 or 8\u00d716 mesh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbon transfer<\/td>\nPumped between leach tanks<\/td>\nPumped counter-current to slurry flow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Key carbon requirement<\/td>\nMaximum hardness (resist grinding)<\/td>\nGood kinetics + screen compatibility<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The core difference:<\/strong> CIL tanks contain both leaching reagent and grinding media \u2014 carbon takes a beating, so you want the biggest, hardest particles possible (6\u00d712). CIP tanks separate leaching from adsorption \u2014 there's no grinding media, so you can use smaller carbon particles without catastrophic attrition.<\/p>\n

Why smaller matters in CIP:<\/strong> Smaller carbon particles have more surface area per unit mass. More surface area = faster gold adsorption kinetics = higher gold loading per cycle = fewer carbon transfers needed.<\/p>\n

The Problem with 6\u00d712 in This CIP Circuit<\/h2>\n

This Ghana mine's CIP circuit used 0.7 mm interstage screens. On paper, 6\u00d712 mesh (smallest particle = 1.7 mm) should have no trouble staying behind those screens. In reality:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Issue<\/th>\nWhat happened<\/th>\nRoot cause<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Screen blinding<\/td>\nScreens clogged<\/p>\n

every 72\u201396 hours<\/td>\n

Oversized carbon trapped<\/p>\n

fine ore particles against<\/p>\n

the screen surface<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Carbon passing<\/td>\n0.3% carbon loss<\/p>\n

per transfer stage<\/td>\n

Breakage of larger<\/p>\n

6\u00d712 particles<\/p>\n

created sub-1.7mm<\/p>\n

fragments that<\/p>\n

passed through slots<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Slow kinetics<\/td>\nRequired 5 adsorption stages to<\/p>\n

reach 94.5% recovery<\/td>\n

Large particles = lower<\/p>\n

surface-to-volume<\/p>\n

ratio = slower gold uptake<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Screen replacement<\/td>\nEvery 6 weeks<\/td>\nPressure differential<\/p>\n

from blinding stressed<\/p>\n

screen panels<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The mine was spending $18,000\/month on screen maintenance alone \u2014 plus the hidden cost of gold lost with passing carbon.<\/p>\n

Why 8\u00d716 Mesh Solved It<\/h2>\n

8\u00d716 mesh carbon particles range from 1.0 to 2.4 mm. That's smaller than 6\u00d712 (1.7\u20133.4 mm) but still well above the 0.7 mm screen slot size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Metric<\/th>\nBefore (6\u00d712)<\/th>\nAfter (8\u00d716 HMGOLD\u2122 7000)<\/th>\nChange<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Recupero dell'oro<\/a><\/td>\n94.5%<\/td>\n96.8%<\/td>\n+2.3 points<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Adsorption stages needed<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n4 (same tanks,<\/p>\n

one taken offline for maintenance)<\/td>\n

-1 stage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbon loss<\/p>\n

per cycle<\/td>\n

0.3%<\/td>\n0.15%<\/td>\n-50%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Screen cleaning frequency<\/td>\nEvery 72\u201396<\/p>\n

hours<\/td>\n

Every 168+ hours<\/td>\n-55% fewer cleanings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Screen<\/p>\n

replacement<\/p>\n

interval<\/td>\n

6 weeks<\/td>\n14 weeks<\/td>\n+133% longer life<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbon loading<\/p>\n

(g Au\/kg C)<\/td>\n

3,200<\/td>\n4,100<\/td>\n+28%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Screen<\/p>\n

maintenance<\/p>\n

cost<\/td>\n

$18,000\/month<\/td>\n$7,500\/month<\/td>\n-58%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The math on 2.3% recovery improvement:<\/strong> On a mine producing 3,000 oz\/month, 2.3% additional recovery = ~69 oz\/month \u00d7 $2,300\/oz = $158,700\/month in additional gold revenue. Against a carbon cost of roughly $85,000 for 56 tons. Payback: under 20 days.<\/p>\n

Specification: HMGOLD\u2122 7000 (8\u00d716 Mesh)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Parametro<\/th>\nValue<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Dimensione della maglia<\/td>\n8\u00d716 (US standard)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Particle size range<\/td>\n1.0\u20132.4 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Numero di iodio<\/td>\n\u22651100 mg\/g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hardness (ball-pan)<\/td>\n\u226598%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Attrition (Wenman test)<\/td>\n\u22642%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Contenuto di ceneri<\/td>\n<3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Umidit\u00e0<\/td>\n\u22645%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Densit\u00e0 di massa<\/td>\n0.48\u20130.52 g\/cm\u00b3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gold adsorption rate (K value)<\/td>\n\u22653.2 mg Au\/g C\/hr<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Equilibrium loading<\/td>\n\u226530 mg Au\/g C<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Raw material<\/td>\n100% coconut shell<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

HMGOLD\u2122 series full specifications \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n

When to Use 6\u00d712 vs 8\u00d716: Decision Framework<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Your situation<\/th>\nRecommended mesh<\/th>\nReason<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
CIL circuit (carbon in leach<\/p>\n

tanks with<\/p>\n

ball mill discharge)<\/td>\n

6\u00d712<\/td>\nMaximum particle size =<\/p>\n

maximum survival in<\/p>\n

abrasive environment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

CIP circuit with<\/p>\n

\u22650.8 mm<\/p>\n

screen slots<\/td>\n

8\u00d716<\/td>\nBetter kinetics, less<\/p>\n

screen blinding,<\/p>\n

acceptable attrition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

CIP circuit with<\/p>\n

0.5\u20130.6 mm<\/p>\n

screen slots<\/td>\n

6\u00d712<\/td>\nSafety margin \u2014 8\u00d716<\/p>\n

fines might pass through<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

CIC columns<\/p>\n

(carbon in column)<\/td>\n

6\u00d712 or 5\u00d710<\/td>\nColumn flow dynamics<\/p>\n

need larger particles for<\/p>\n

permeability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Heap leach<\/p>\n

with carbon columns<\/td>\n

6\u00d712<\/td>\nDirty solution = need<\/p>\n

robustness over kinetics<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Rule of thumb:<\/strong> If your screen slot size is \u22650.7 mm and you're running CIP (not CIL), test 8\u00d716 mesh. The kinetics improvement alone typically justifies the switch. If you're running CIL with SAG\/ball mill discharge in the same tanks, stay with 6\u00d712 \u2014 the abrasion environment is too harsh for smaller particles.<\/p>\n

\"Huamei<\/p>\n

Shipment Details<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Item<\/th>\nDetail<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Prodotto<\/td>\nHMGOLD\u2122 7000 (8\u00d716 mesh)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quantit\u00e0<\/td>\n56 tons<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Destinazione<\/td>\nAshanti Region, Ghana<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Porto<\/td>\nTema<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lead time<\/td>\n35 days (order to port arrival)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Applicazione<\/td>\nCIP gold recovery<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Previous carbon<\/td>\n6\u00d712 mesh (competitor brand)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

FAQ<\/h2>\n

Is 8\u00d716 mesh carbon weaker than 6\u00d712?<\/h3>\n

Not inherently. Hardness is a property of the carbon material itself, not the particle size. HMGOLD\u2122 7000 in 8\u00d716 mesh has the same \u226599% ball-pan hardness as the 6\u00d712 version \u2014 same raw material, same activation process, just screened to a different size fraction. What changes is abrasion behavior: smaller particles have more surface area exposed to mechanical forces per unit mass, so they experience slightly higher proportional wear in highly abrasive environments (CIL). In CIP conditions (moderate agitation, no grinding media), 8\u00d716 attrition is negligible.<\/p>\n

How do I test whether 8\u00d716 will work in my circuit?<\/h3>\n

Run a parallel basket test: load 5\u201310 kg of 8\u00d716 mesh carbon in a screen basket within one of your existing CIP tanks. After 7 days, measure carbon loss (dry weight before vs after), gold loading, and check for screen passing. Compare against your current 6\u00d712 performance. If carbon loss is <0.5% per cycle and gold loading is higher, scale up. Most mines see results within the first cycle (5\u20137 days).<\/p>\n

Does switching mesh size require changing my screens?<\/h3>\n

Usually no. If you're going from 6\u00d712 to 8\u00d716, your existing screens (designed for 6\u00d712) have slot sizes that will retain 8\u00d716 particles with even more margin. The smallest 8\u00d716 particle (1.0 mm) is still larger than typical CIP screen slots (0.6\u20130.8 mm). You might actually find screen blinding decreases because the smaller carbon particles create a less aggressive bridging pattern against the screen face.<\/p>\n

What about carbon-in-column (CIC) \u2014 can I use 8\u00d716 there?<\/h3>\n

Not recommended. CIC columns need good permeability for pregnant solution to flow through the carbon bed. Smaller particles create higher pressure drop and increase channeling risk. For CIC, stick with 6\u00d712 or even 5\u00d710 mesh for optimal flow characteristics. The exception: very small-scale CIC with low flow rates, where the
\nhtmlpressure drop from 8\u00d716 is manageable.<\/p>\n

What's the price difference between 6\u00d712 and 8\u00d716?<\/h3>\n

Minimal \u2014 typically 3\u20135% higher for 8\u00d716 because the yield of that size fraction from raw activated carbon is slightly lower than 6\u00d712. On HMGOLD\u2122 7000, the difference is approximately $30\u201350\/ton. Negligible compared to the operational savings from better kinetics, less screen maintenance, and higher gold recovery.<\/p>\n

Need HMGOLD\u2122 8\u00d716 mesh samples for CIP testing? Free 2kg sample, COA included. WhatsApp: +86 181-3792-7803<\/a> | Request quote \u2192<\/a><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

56 tons of 8\u00d716 mesh HMGOLD\u2122 7000 coconut shell carbon shipped to a Ghana CIP gold mine. Explains why CIP circuits benefit from smaller mesh (8\u00d716) vs standard CIL size (6\u00d712) \u2014 faster kinetics, less screen blinding, higher gold loading. Includes before\/after performance data, decision framework for mesh size selection, and specification table.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6845,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"56 Tons HMGOLD\u2122 Carbon to Ghana: CIP Mesh Size Upgrade","_seopress_titles_desc":"56 tons of 8\u00d716 mesh coconut shell carbon shipped to Ghana for CIP gold recovery. Why this mine switched from 6\u00d712 and the performance results.","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,18],"tags":[141,95,144,82,143,142],"class_list":["post-6842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","category-case-studies","tag-8x16-mesh-carbon","tag-activated-carbon-mesh-size","tag-carbon-in-pulp","tag-cip-gold-recovery","tag-coconut-shell-carbon-ghana","tag-hmgold"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6842\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6845"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}