What does it mean to “correctly compare two reagents”
A direct comparison of JinChan and NaCN is based on a single prepared sample or comparable portions, documented size, known pulp density, controlled pH, specified concentration of each reagent, identically defined assay points, and comparable solution and residue analytics.
Comparison of the results of different enterprises and different ores can only be indicative: this is not a direct comparative test.
The result of the reagent cannot be separated from the ore and test conditions.Step-by-step structure of comparative testwork
The manufacturer calls JinChan a replacement for NaCN - what does this mean?
Guangxi Senhe positions JinChan as a reagent used as a substitute for sodium cyanide. The Instructions for use also indicate that NaCN consumption can be taken into account for the initial dosage assessment, but it is also recommended to conduct a beneficiation test and determine the optimal conditions for a particular ore.
The official instructions do not specify the conversion factor for NaCN in JinChan.
The first robust direct comparison — two ores studied by Yılmaz & Sayın
Yılmaz and Sayın conducted comparative leaching tests on samples from Çukuralan and Kaymaz. JinChan and NaCN were studied on both ores, different concentrations, solid/liquid ratios, kinetics, extraction and consumption of reagents.
One research design - two different ores
Yılmaz & Sayın, Journal of Polytechnic, 2024Çukuralan - direct comparison of the mode chosen by the authors
| Indicator | JinChan | NaCN |
|---|---|---|
| concentration | 300 mg/L | 300 mg/L |
| Solid/liquid | 40% | 40% |
| Au recovery | 90,89% | 91,98% |
| consumption | 0,72 kg/t | 0,31 kg/t |
The data refer to the Çukuralan sample studied and the conditions chosen by the authors. They are not universal JinChan/NaCN consumption or recovery benchmarks.
Kaymaz - same concentration, different ore
| Indicator | JinChan | NaCN |
|---|---|---|
| concentration | 300 mg/L | 300 mg/L |
| Solid/liquid | 40% | 40% |
| Au recovery | 81,55% | 82,86% |
| consumption | 1,27 kg/t | 0,95 kg/t |
Results refer only to the Kaymaz sample tested.
On the second ore, both reagents showed different recovery and consumption values, despite the same specified concentration of 300 mg/L. Therefore, it is impossible to create one conversion factor between reagents.
What the Yılmaz & Sayın study actually shows
Shows
- JinChan and NaCN can be directly compared on the same ore;
- on the two studied ores, Au recovery was close in the modes chosen by the authors;
- actual consumption varied;
- the result depended on the ore;
- changing the concentration did not have the same effect in all tests.
Doesn't show
- universal equivalence or 1:1 ratio;
- identical kinetics and consumption for all ores;
- universal advantage of one reagent;
- current process cost in Kazakhstan;
- industrial result on another ore.
Extraction and consumption are two different criteria
Similar Au recovery does not mean the same reagent consumption, kinetics, cost or process control. Conversely, lower consumption does not in itself prove a better technological result.
Kinetics: one cannot draw a universal conclusion from one work
Yılmaz & Sayın studied how gold recovery changed over time. JinChan and NaCN behaved differently under some conditions, but the duration and kinetic pattern of one test cannot be transferred to another ore.
Kinetics should be compared on a specific ore and under comparable conditions.
Fresh work Hydrometallurgy 2026
Deng, Schwehr, Yang and Oraby compared cyanide, JinChan and GlyCat™ on several different gold-bearing materials, including Au–Cu raw materials. Metal extraction, kinetics and behavior of systems under different conditions were studied.
The main methodological value of the work for this review is a comparison on different ores, which once again shows the dependence of the result on the properties of the raw material. GlyCat™ results do not transfer to JinChan.
Deng et al., Hydrometallurgy, 2026Kazakhstan example - Akzhal
In the work of Karimova et al. Akzhal's original ore was first processed by flotation. The resulting concentrate was subjected to oxidative roasting, then water leaching, and only after this preparation was used in the comparative JinChan/NaCN test.
88,5% relates to Akzhal's pretreated roasted concentrate rather than direct leaching of the original ore.
Why 88,5% vs. 88,5% doesn't mean "reagents are the same"
The same final recovery in one test does not mean complete technological identity of the systems. For a more complete comparison, kinetics, actual reagent consumption, concentration stability, behavior of co-constituents, subsequent sorption, solution management and economics may be relevant.
This does not mean that the indicators listed are necessarily different: they must be measured in a specific program.
Why can't you compare two foreign tables?
Taking JinChan recovery from one deposit, NaCN recovery from another and comparing the percentages is methodologically incorrect. Ores and conditions vary, and direct comparative test requires comparable starting material.
JinChan 90% on Ore A and NaCN 92% on Ore B are not a direct comparison of reagents.
Is it possible to use the old NaCN mode as a starting point?
The official instructions from Guangxi Senhe write that the initial JinChan dosage may be guided by sodium cyanide dosage, after which it recommends a beneficiation test.
If an enterprise has already worked with NaCN, its historical performance is a useful baseline for setting up a JinChan benchmark. It is not an automatically ready JinChan mode.
How to set up a correct comparison test JinChan vs NaCN
Correct comparison
Test A — JinChan
- concentration;
- pH;
- size;
- pulp density;
- time;
- actual consumption.
Test B — NaCN
- concentration;
- pH;
- size;
- pulp density;
- time;
- actual consumption.
- Au in solution
- Au remaining
- kinetics
- reagent consumption
The same pH should not be automatically assigned if the comparative study program involves optimization of each reagent.
Two different types of comparison test
A. Same specified conditions
The goal is to see how the reagents behave under the same external parameters as possible.
B. Optimized mode for each reagent
The goal is to compare the best experimentally proven modes of each reagent on the same ore.
“Same conditions” and “optimal conditions for each reagent” are not the same comparison.
What to compare besides recovery
Technological result
- Au recovery;
- Au in the remainder;
- kinetics.
Reagent
- specified concentration;
- actual concentration;
- total expense.
Process
- pH;
- time;
- pulp density;
- ore preparation.
With an extended program
- related components;
- sorption;
- material balance;
- reproducibility.
The composition of indicators is selected according to the task; this is not a necessarily universal list for every study.
Cost - why old prices cannot be used as a current argument
Yılmaz & Sayın included an economic comparison based on February 2022 prices. Their result applied to the ores studied, those reference prices and the reported reagent consumptions.
The economic comparison must be carried out again for a specific project with current prices, actual consumption, logistics and costs of the entire technological scheme.
Safety and toxicity - not to be confused with metallurgical comparison
This article compares primarily metallurgical testwork. Hazards, toxicology, storage, effluent handling, classification and regulatory issues require separate assessment.
Hazards, toxicology, storage and handling issues must be assessed separately against official documentation and applicable requirements.
What can you say to the client?
Correctly
- There are direct published comparisons of JinChan and NaCN;
- Similar Au recovery values were obtained for individual ores;
- reagent consumption and kinetics may vary;
- the result depends on the ore;
- Need comparative testwork of specific material.
Incorrect
- assert the universal advantage of one reagent;
- promise complete identity of systems;
- assign replacements strictly 1:1;
- guarantee equal recovery or reagent consumption;
- promise to repeat the result of someone else's factory.
Practical conclusion
Published studies show that JinChan is capable of achieving gold recoveries close to NaCN on selected materials tested. At the same time, these same works show differences in the consumption, kinetics and reaction of various ores. Therefore, the correct question for a specific enterprise is not “Is JinChan better or worse than cyanide in general?”, but “how do JinChan and NaCN compare on our ore in a controlled testwork?”
COMPARATIVE TESTWORK
Compare JinChan and NaCN on Your Ore
A comparative program can be designed around one representative sample to assess recovery, kinetics and actual reagent consumption.
Sources
- Main quantitative sourceYılmaz H., Sayın Z.E. Effect of Sodium Cyanide and Jin Chan Chemicals on Gold Gain from Ore. Journal of Polytechnic, 2024, 27(4), 1387–1397.Only published comparative data on Çukuralan and Kaymaz and the date of the authors’ price base were used.
- Modern independent comparisonDeng Z., Schwehr B.J., Yang A., Oraby E.A. A comparative study of cyanide, Jinchan, and GlyCat™ for gold ore leaching. Hydrometallurgy, 244 (2026), 106799.Only a validated comparative study design using multiple materials was used; numbers from snippets and GlyCat™ results were not transferred to JinChan.
- Kazakhstan example - AkzhalKarimova L.M., Oleinikova T.O., Mansurov B.E., Saganbek S. Oxidizing roasting and cyanidation for the processing of refractory gold concentrates.88,5% used only in the context of pretreated roasted concentrate.
- Official manufacturer's instructionsGuangxi Senhe High Technology Co., Ltd. JIN CHAN Metallic Ore Dressing Agent — Instructions for useOnly positioning of substitute for sodium cyanide, reference for NaCN consumption and recommendation of beneficiation test were used.