See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320271669

BUBBLE SURFACE AREA FLUX AND PERFORMANCE IN LABORATORY FLOTATION

TESTING

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 113

3 authors:

Cesar Gomez José Mesías

McGill University University of Concepción
98 PUBLICATIONS   1,479 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jaime Alvarez
University of Concepción
9 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Caracterización de dispersión de burbujas en celdas mecánicas de flotación de laboratorio View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaime Alvarez on 08 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

BUBBLE SURFACE AREA FLUX AND PERFORMANCE IN LABORATORY FLOTATION

TESTING

*C.O. Gómez, J. Mesías, and J. Álvarez

Universidad de Concepción
Departamento de Ingeniería Metalúrgica
Edmundo Larenas 285
Concepción, Chile

(*Corresponding author: cesar.gomez@mcgill.ca)

ABSTRACT

Operations routinely run flotation tests in laboratory mechanical cells to determine adjustments to
plant operation based on feed flotation response or the effect of new reagents and dosages. The
metallurgical results of these tests are certainly affected by changes in bubble size, which simultaneously
impact the recoveries of the collection and froth zones. It is known that bubble size depends on the
characteristics and operation of the machine in use, particularly on the gas flow rate delivered to the unit
and the selected frother type and dosage. Although flotation rate constants have been related to bubble
size, bubble surface area flux seems to be a more fitting variable to correlate flotation kinetics and cell
performance, as it integrates bubble size and superficial gas velocity effects. However, although some
evidence has been provided, a categorical relationship between cell recovery and bubble surface area flux
has not been established. Our interest is to demonstrate this relationship to use it as a basis for developing
soft sensors to track on-line collection zone recovery in cells. Flotation tests were designed to produce Cu
concentrates for a range of bubble surface area flux values, obtained through changes in frother
concentration at a constant gas flow rate, and by increasing gas flow rate at the same frother concentration.
The tests were run on samples prepared from an ore batch supplied by a local operation, following strict
grinding and flotation procedures, with a shallow froth to approximate cell recovery to that in the
collection zone. Bubble sizes were determined using the sampling-for-imaging technique developed at
McGill. The results unequivocally showed a consistent positive correlation between cell recovery and
bubble surface area flux, and significant variations in performance when frother addition and gas flow rate
were changed.

KEYWORDS

Lab mechanical cell, performance, bubble surface area flux, frothers, zone recoveries

Page 1 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

INTRODUCTION

Mineral flotation is a separation process to produce concentrates of valuable minerals by selective

attachment of particles to the surface of bubbles. The process is carried out in machines where air is
injected through a mineral pulp to form bubbles, and operated to create two zones: a bottom one (collection
zone) where bubbles are continuously generated under conditions adequate to form bubble-particle
aggregates by collision of the rising bubbles with suspended particles; and a top one (froth zone) where
bubbles and bubble-particle aggregates continue to rise while concentrating and forming a froth layer for
water and entrained particles to drain back to the collection zone, before overflowing as a concentrate
stream. The phenomena occurring in these zones are complex and, in many cases, interactive, as they
simultaneously affect stages of the particle separation sequence occurring in both zones. Although there
have been significant advances in instrumentation to characterize particle and bubble populations, these
have not resulted in knowledge to explain or models to describe phenomena from fundamental principles.
Measurements continue to be limited to the development of empirical models for predicting the effect of
operating variables on performance.

Although bubble size was initially related to flotation rate constants (Ahmed & Jameson, 1985;
Yoon, 1993), bubble surface area flux (Sb) is currently considered the key variable to characterize gas
dispersion in flotation cells, as it integrates bubble size and superficial gas velocity effects (Finch, Xiao,
Hardie, & Gomez, 2000). This parameter, defined as the bubble interfacial area generated and rising
through the cell per unit time and cell cross sectional area, controls bubble-particle collision frequency and
correlates with metallurgical performance. Relationships between Sb and rate constant have been
demonstrated in pilot mechanical cells and columns (Gorain, Franzidis, & Manlapig, 1997; Gorain, Napier-
Munn, Franzidis, & Manlapig, 1998; Hernandez, Gomez, & Finch, 2002).

Bubble surface area flux is estimated from measurements of superficial gas velocity and bubble
size distribution. In lab flotation machines, the superficial gas velocity is available as the gas flow rate
delivered to the cell and its cross sectional area are known, and the Sb calculation requires only an average
bubble size calculated from the size distribution. Several techniques have been proposed to measure
bubble size in flotation cells (O'Connor, Randall, & Goodall, 1989; Gorain et al., 1997; Yianatos, Bergh,
Condori & Aguilera, 2001; Grau & Heiskanen, 2002; Gomez & Finch, 2007). Measurements in laboratory
flotation units have demonstrated to be reliable and accurate (Girgin, Do, Gomez, & Finch, 2006; Alvarez,
Gomez, & Wen, 2014; Gomez, Castillo & Alvarez, 2014).

Flotation tests in laboratory mechanical cells are routinely run to determine adjustments to circuit
operation conditions based on feed flotation response or the effect of new reagents and dosages. The
results of these tests are certainly affected by changes in bubble size, which if unnoticed, are then attributed
to variations of other process variables. Gas flow rate variations and the presence of frothers are known to
affect bubble size. Frother addition has demonstrated to have a significant impact on bubble size in single-
and multi-hole spargers (Cho & Laskowski, 2002), in lab flotation columns (Azgomi, Gomez, & Finch,
2007), and in lab and pilot mechanical cells (Gomez et al., 2014; Nesset, Gomez, & Finch, 2007). In all
cases, there were minor or no effects on bubble size after a concentration introduced as critical coalescence
concentration (CCC) by Cho & Laskowski (2002). The determination of CCC in lab mechanical cells,
accomplished by tracking bubble size in tests run at increasing frother concentrations, was demonstrated in
frother solutions and in mineral pulps (Grandon, Alvarez, & Gomez, 2015), and the recoveries obtained at
the same flotation time showed a linear relationship with the corresponding bubble surface area flux. This
relationship has the potential to be used in the development of soft sensors for cell optimization efforts, as
bubble surface area flux is closely related to gas holdup, a variable that can be measured on-line (Gomez,
Cortes-Lopez & Finch, 2003; O'Keefe, Viega, Fernald, 2007). By using gas holdup as a surrogate
measurement of bubble surface area flux, gas holdup monitoring will indicate immediately whether
operating condition changes or adjustments have a positive effect on cell performance. This
communication reports the results of tests performed to reproduce and demonstrate the recovery-bubble
surface area flux relationship, not only for variations obtained through changes in frother concentration at a
constant gas flow rate, but also by increasing gas flow rates at the same frother concentration.

Page 2 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

PERFORMANCE IN FLOTATION MACHINES

Flotation machines selectively separate particles of valuable minerals by creating and maintaining
a collection and a froth zone. Performance is modeled, for every mineral present, using a collection zone
recovery (Rc), defined as the mass fraction that leaves the collection zone on the surface of bubbles relative
to the total mass entering the zone, and a froth zone recovery (Rf), defined as the mass fraction that
overflows into the concentrate from that entering the froth on the surface of bubbles. The model considers
both zones separately, and recognizes that in the froth zone some particles collected on the surface of
bubbles can detach or be released by bubble coalescing and bursting, returning to the collection zone with
the draining water (drop-back stream). Streams around and between the two zones are illustrated in Figure
1a, and for a total collection zone feed rate (feed plus drop-back streams) of 1 unit of mass per unit time,
recovery definitions and mass balances around each zone allow description of every stream as a
combination of the collection and froth zone recoveries (Figure 1b).

Froth Froth R fR c
Concentrate
zone zone
Bubble - particle Drop-back R c -R f R c
aggregates Rc

Collection F=R f R c +(1-R c ) Collection

Feed
zone zone
1-R c
Tails
(a) (b)

Figure 1 – Modeling of flotation machines: (a) streams considered; and (b), stream values for a total feed
rate to the collection zone of 1 unit of mass per unit time

The cell recovery (Rcell) of the machine, defined as the mass fraction in the concentrate stream
relative to that in the fresh feed to the unit, is equal to:
RfRc
R cell = (1)
R f R c +(1-R c )

In the case of the collection zone, the recovery of valuable mineral is defined by the formation
rate of bubble-particle aggregates, a function of the number of collisions between suspended particles and
rising bubbles that is proportional to the total mass of valuable mineral in the suspended particles and the
bubble surface area not covered by particles. Calculation of the recovery is based on the assumption that
the mass removal rate of valuable mineral from the pulp by collection on the surface of bubbles is a first
order process, i.e., is proportional to the mass of valuable mineral in the particles suspended in the
collection zone:
dM
- =kM (2)
dt
where M is mass of the valuable mineral in the particles suspended in the collection zone, t is flotation
time, and k is a proportionality constant (flotation rate constant). The higher the flotation rate constant is
(faster kinetics), the more valuable mineral is collected on the surface of the bubbles.

The flotation rate constant incorporates the characteristics of the major actors in flotation: bubble
and particle populations. Gas is dispersed into bubbles to generate interfacial area, which is quantified
through the bubble surface area flux (Sb), a variable that integrates bubble size and superficial gas velocity
effects. The ore is ground into particles to liberate (surface expose) the mineral of interest; the fraction of
the particle external area covered by this mineral and its hydrophobic character (natural or induced) are

Page 3 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

valued through a parameter denominated floatability (P). The flotation rate constant integrates these two
parameters to account for bubble and particle characteristics:

k = PS b (3)

and the mass balance equation to calculate recovery in the collection zone (Equation 2) becomes:
dM
- =PS b M (4)
dt
Integration of Equation 4 to calculate the collection zone recovery requires consideration of the
conditions existing in the flotation machine (a lab mechanical cell in this case), as they define Sb variations
in time and space, and the characteristics of the particle population that dictate particle floatability values.
Gas dispersion into small bubbles produces large interfacial areas per unit time that are between one and
two orders of magnitude as big as the cross sectional area of the cell. The consequence of this large
interfacial area, which rises continuously through the cell, is that the fraction of bubble surface covered
with particles is negligible and the free bubble interfacial area can be considered constant and equal to the
bubble surface area flux generated by gas dispersion.

The effect of the particle population characteristics on floatability is more difficult to take into
account as, for the same collector addition, it is affected by particle size and the fraction of valuable
mineral exposed on the particle surface. In the case of same size particles of a pure mineral (100%
liberated), P is constant, and integration of Equation 4 results in the well-known first order expressions to
calculate valuable mineral remaining in the cell:
M
=exp(-PS b t) (5)
M0
where M0 is the initial mass of valuable mineral in the cell. The collection zone recovery, if all valuable
mineral can be floated, is calculated from:
M
R c =1- =1-exp(-PS b t) (6)
M0
In the case of ore samples, where several minerals are present, the use of a single floatability value
is not realistic as grinding produces a population of multi-mineral particles with a wide range of
floatabilities as a consequence of particle size and liberation distributions. The use of a floatability
distribution is in these cases necessary; one of such approaches, for example, was proposed by Klimpel
(1980), which considered a rectangular floatability distribution with a maximum value (Pm). Application
of this concept in Equation 4 results in the following expressions to describe flotation kinetics in the
collection zone:
M 1
= exp(-P mS b t) (7)
M 0 P mS b t

and to calculate collection zone recovery:

M 1
R c =1-  1- 1-exp  -P mS b t  (8)
M0 P mS b t 

This equation predicts that higher recoveries in the collection zone are obtained as the value of the
parameter PmSbt increases. A relationship between collection zone recovery and Sb is expected for samples
prepared from an ore batch as particles have the same maximum floatability (Pm), and for constant flotation
times, recovery in the collection zone turns out to be only a function of Sb (illustrated in Figure 2 for
samples assumed to have a maximum floatability of 0.0005). Demonstration of this relationship is difficult
as practical limitations for collection of proper samples prevent direct measurement of collection zone
recovery. Collection zone and cell recoveries are equal when froth recovery is 100% (see Equation 1), a

Page 4 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

condition difficult to reach as bubble-particle aggregates break while rising through the froth, which
release captured particles that drain back to the collection zone. However, as flotation tests in lab
mechanical cells are run with shallow froths, recovery in the froth is close to (and considered as) 100%;
therefore, mechanical cell lab testing offers a good alternative for demonstrating a relationship between
collection zone recovery and Sb, as collection zone and cell recoveries (the latter calculated from the results
of feed, tails, and concentrate analyses) have the same values.

120
COLL. ZONE RECOVERY, %

100

80

60

5 min
40
10 min
20 min
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

Figure 2 – Collection zone recovery vs. Sb at different flotation times (Pm=0.0005)

Bubble Surface Area Flux Determination

Recovery calculations from Equations 6 and 8 require Sb values, which can be obtained from
bubble sizes calculated from measurement of the bubble size distribution generated in the cell. The
calculation is based on the diameters measured, using in our case a sampling-for-imaging technique
(Gomez and Finch, 2007). The total external area and volume of the sampled bubbles collected close to
the top of the collection zone, Asample and Vsample, respectively, are calculated from the diameters measured
for each individual bubble:
A sample =  πd i2   (9)


V sample =  πd 3i /6  (10)

The Sb corresponds to the total external area per unit time and cell cross sectional area generated
in the dispersion of the gas flow rate (Qg) delivered to the unit; it is calculated from the total external area
of the sampled bubbles (Asample) times the ratio between the gas flow rate and the total volume of the
sampled bubbles (Vsample), as indicated in the following equation:

Sb=
  2
 πd i Qg
(11)
A cell  3
 πd i /6 
This equation is valid for gas flow rates and bubble diameters corrected in both cases to the same
conditions (i.e., those existing at the bubble collection point). As Jg=Qg/Acell and the Sauter mean diameter
D32 is equal to Ʃdi3/ Ʃdi2, Sb is calculated as:
6J g
Sb = (12)
D 32

Page 5 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

This equation indicates that high gas flow rates and conditions leading to smaller bubble sizes, will result
in higher Sb values, and increases in collection zone recovery should be expected. If the increase in Sb can
be achieved without reducing the froth zone recovery, then the recovery of the machine will increase.
Values of Sb measured in industrial units close to the top of the collection zone, are in the range 10 to 90 s-
1
, with most cases between 20 and 60 s-1 (a value of 50 s-1, for example, means that the external surface
area of the bubbles generated every second is 50 times the cross sectional area of the cell).

EQUIPMENT AND TEST PROGRAM DETAILS

Flotation tests were run in a forced-air mechanical flotation cell described elsewhere (Gomez et
al., 2013; Alvarez, Gomez & Wen, 2014; Gomez, Castillo & Alvarez, 2014). The unit is provided with:
automated rotating paddles to remove concentrate, electronics for continuous tracking and storage of
operating variable signals, automatic impeller speed control, and an internal compressor for delivery of oil-
free air, which was manually controlled. Two types of impellers can be mounted (Denver and Agitair)
with several sizes of the corresponding cells available. In this work, tests were run in a 2.7 L Agitair cell,
231 cm2 of cross sectional area, at impeller speeds of 1440 rpm, and using the fastest paddling rate (180°
rotation in 2 s) once every 8 s.

The tests were run on one-kg flotation samples prepared from ore provided by one of Codelco's
operations (El Teniente Division). The ore, with a 2-inch passing size, was crushed in three consecutive
stages using a jaw, a cone and a roll crusher; the product stream from the roll crusher was in close circuit
with a 10-mesh screen (2 mm). Sixty four one-kg samples were prepared by consecutive splitting using a
sample divider riffle; each sample was ground before flotation in a 5.4 L Marcy mill, using a steel ball
charge. Collector (38 g/ton), diesel (15 g/ton), 0.35 g of calcium oxide, and the volume of the selected
frother solution to have a 65% pulp density, were added in every test. A grinding time of 13.5 minutes,
predetermined to have a product with 80% passing 150 µm, was utilized. The corresponding volume of
frother solution to have a 30% pulp density was added to the grinding product in the flotation cell, and the
pH was adjusted to 9.5 with calcium oxide, if necessary. An experimental program (Table 1), to run
flotation tests at different bubble surface area fluxes obtained either by increasing frother concentrations at
the same gas flow rate, or by using several gas flow rates at a constant frother concentration, was designed.

Table 1 – Tests conditions and bubble size measurement results

Test Frother concentration (ppm) Gas flow rate (L/min) Flotation time (min) Bubble size D32 (mm)
1 2 5 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.70
2 2 8 3, 6, 12 ,20 1.38
3 2 10 3, 6, 12 ,20 1.43
4 2 12 3, 6, 12 ,20 1.45
5 5 5 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.52
6 5 8 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.84
7 5 10 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.94
8 5 12 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.98
9 10 5 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.40
10 10 8 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.52
11 10 10 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.54
12 10 12 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.65
13 15 5 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.41
14 15 8 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.47
15 15 10 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.53
16 30 5 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.41
17 30 8 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.45
18 60 5 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.41
19 60 8 3, 6, 12 ,20 0.48

Page 6 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

Concentrates were collected in every test at 3, 6, 12, and 20 minutes, and weights and Cu analyses
were utilized to calculate recovery. The frother used was a blend of MIBC, F-810 and F-1202, all provided
by Mathiesen, at 55, 40 and 5% by weight, respectively. Frother solutions were prepared by dilution of a
100-ppm (mg/kg) stock solution made by dissolving 2.3 g of the blend in 23 kg of water. This stock
solution, which was maintained in a dark container under gentle agitation, was used to prepare the 10 L of
the solution required for preparation of the flotation pulp and for filling the bubble size measurement
device.

A digital camera (Nikon model D5100), fitted with a macro lens (Nikon 60-mm) to have high
magnifications (4,928 × 3,264 pixels) and resolutions (between 170 and 180 pixels/mm) was used for
imaging; image collection rates of one every second were used for avoiding to have some of the same
bubbles in consecutive pictures. Images were processed using the program Image J, which calculated area
and pixel value statistics for every object (group of neighboring pixels darker than a threshold) in the
image. Sizes of the accepted bubbles, those with a diameter of the equivalent area circle larger than
150 µm (maximum particle size), and circularities larger than 0.85, were used to calculate the average
Sauter mean diameter D32 (same distribution volume and interfacial area). Bubble sizes at every frother
concentration and gas flow rate combination were determined in separate tests where no concentrate was
collected (Table 1).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experimental program was designed to run tests on samples prepared from the same ore to
have a single maximum floatability. The results were plotted to include cell recovery vs. Sb values
obtained, with the same flotation time, in two series of figures: tests where Sb variations were obtained by
running at a constant gas flow rate with increasing frother concentrations (Figure 3), and tests run with
different gas flow rates at a constant frother concentration (Figure 4). Results of tests run with a gas flow
rate of 5 L/min (Jg=0.36 cm/s) were not included as in many cases there was not enough air to form a
steady froth layer to produce a continuous flow of concentrate.

For tests run with increasing frother concentrations, Sb changed between 20 and 80 s-1, as a
consequence of bubble size reductions. The results showed strong relationships between recovery and Sb
for constant flotation times at every gas flow rate, as shown in Figures 3a, 3b and 3c, for gas flow rates of
8, 10, and 12 L/min, respectively. At every gas flow rate, as expected, recoveries at the same Sb were
higher for longer flotation times. In the case of tests run with increasing gas flow rates at one frother
concentration, Sb changed in a narrower range (between 50 and 80 s-1). The results showed, as in the
previous case, relationships between recovery and Sb for constant flotation times at every frother
concentration, as shown in Figures 4a, 4b and 4c, for concentrations of 10, 15, and 30 ppm, respectively.
As expected, recoveries at the same Sb were higher for longer flotation times. Changes in gas flow rate had
a larger Sb effect than changes in frother concentration. The dispersion of the results around the lines
indicates that efforts to control a constant shallow froth during the tests were not always successful.

These results unequivocally demonstrated that there is a relationship between cell recovery and Sb
in tests run on an ore with the same flotation time. Although the results of this work were obtained in a lab
mechanical cell, with conditions very different from those in existing in industrial units, where a mineral
pulp is continuously fed and floated in a cell operated at steady gas flow rates and deep froth depths, the
phenomena involved in the formation and separation of bubble-particle aggregates are the same, and a
relationship between collection zone recoveries vs. Sb is also expected. In lab flotation testing, this
relationship was established because of shallow froth operation resulted in constant 100% froth recoveries,
which allowed estimation of collection zone recoveries (equal to cell recovery). However, it is possible to
demonstrate that for tests with constant froth recovery (and not necessarily 100%), a cell recovery
dependence on Sb is anticipated. In industrial practice, operators are continuously adjusting manipulated
variables to control disturbances which affect performance, and tracking Sb or a surrogate variable (gas
holdup) provides an immediate response to establish whether operating decisions are creating conditions to
maintain or increase collection zone recovery.

Page 7 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

100
(a)

Cu RECOVERY % 95

90

85

80 6 min
12 min
20 min
75
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

100
(b)

95
Cu RECOVERY %

90

85

80 6 min
12 min
20 min
75
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

100
(c)

95
Cu RECOVERY %

90

85

80 6 min
12 min
20 min
75
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

Figure 3 – Recovery as a function of bubble surface area flux variations obtained through changes in
frother concentration at the same gas flow rate: (a) 8 L/min, (b) 10 L/min, and (c), 12 L/min

Page 8 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

100
3 min
6 min
80 12 min
Cu RECOVERY % 20 min

60

40

20
(a)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

100
3 min
6 min
80 12 min
Cu RECOVERY %

20 min

60

40

20
(b)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

100
3 min
6 min
80 12 min
Cu RECOVERY %

20 min

60

40

20
(c)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sb, 1/s

Figure 4 – Recovery as a function of bubble surface area flux variations obtained through changes in gas
flow rate at the same frother concentration: (a) 10 ppm, (b) 15 ppm, and (c) 30 ppm

Page 9 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

CONCLUSIONS

The results presented in this work demonstrated a strong correlation between bubble surface area
flux and cell recovery, for samples from the same ore batch floated in a lab mechanical cell for the same
flotation time. Bubble surface area flux variations were obtained by changes in frother concentration at the
same gas flow rate, and by increases in gas flow rate at a constant frother concentration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors want to recognize funding from CORFO Chile through the Sustainable Minerals
Institute – International Centre of Excellence – Chile, Project 13CEI2-2184413CI2-21844.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, N., & Jameson, G. (1985). The effect of bubble size on the rate of flotation of fine particles.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 14, 195–215.

Alvarez, J., Gomez, C.O., & Wen, L. (2014). Gas dispersion characterization of a laboratory mechanical
flotation cell. Proceedings of XXVII International Mineral Processing Congress IMPC 2014,
IMPC 2014 Organization, Santiago, Chile, Volume 1, Chapter 5, Paper 188.

Azgomi, F., Gomez, C.O., & Finch, J.A. (2007). Correspondence of gas holdup and bubble size in
presence of different frothers. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 83, 1–11.

Cho, Y.S., & Laskowski, J.S. (2002). Effect of flotation frothers on bubble size and foam stability.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 64, 69–80.

Finch, J.A., Xiao, J., Hardie, C., & Gomez, C.O. (2000). Gas dispersion properties: Bubble surface area
flux and gas holdup. Minerals Engineering, 13(4), 365–372.

Girgin, E.H., Do S., Gomez C.O., & Finch J.A. (2006). Bubble size as a function of impeller speed in a
self-aeration laboratory flotation cell. Minerals Engineering, 19, 201–203.

Gomez, C.O., Cortes-Lopez, F., & Finch, J.A. (2003). Industrial testing of a gas holdup sensor fro flotation
systems. Minerals Engineering, 16, 493–501.

Gomez, C.O., & Finch J.A. (2007). Gas dispersion measurements in flotation cells. International Journal
of Mineral Processing, 84, 51–58.

Gomez, C.O., Castillo, P., & Alvarez, J. (2014). A frother characterization technique using a lab
mechanical flotation cell. Proceedings of XXVII International Mineral Processing Congress
IMPC 2014, IMPC 2014 Organization, Santiago, Chile, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Paper 71.

Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J-P., & Manlapig, E.V. (1997). Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air
flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 4: Effect of bubble surface area flux on flotation
performance. Minerals Engineering, 10(4), 367–379.

Gorain, B. K., Napier-Munn, T. J., Franzidis, J-P., & Manlapig, E. V. (1998). Studies on impeller type,
impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 5: Validation of the k-Sb
relationship and effect of froth depth. Minerals Engineering, 11(7), 615–626.

Grandon, F., Alvarez, J., & Gomez, C.O. (2015). Frother dosage in laboratory flotation testing.
Proceedings 11th International Mineral Processing Conference, Gecamin Digital Publications

Grau, R.A., & Heiskanen, K. (2002). Visual technique for measuring bubble size in flotation machines.
Minerals Engineering, 15, 507-513.

Page 10 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
 IMPC 2016: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress Proceedings - ISBN: 978-1-926872-29-2

Hernandez, H., Gomez, C.O., & Finch, J.A. (2003). Gas dispersion and de-inking in a flotation column.
Minerals Engineering, 16, 739–744.

Nesset, J.E., Finch, J.A., & Gomez, C.O. (2007). Operating variables affecting the bubble size in forced-air
mechanical flotation machines. Ninth Mill Operators' Conference 2007, The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, Victoria, Australia, 55–65.

O´Connor, C.T., Randall, E.W., & Goodall, C.M. (1990). Measurement of the effect of physical and
chemical variables on bubble size. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 28, 139–149.

O’Keefe, C., Viega, J., & Fernald, M. (2007) Application of passive sonar technology to mineral
processing and oil sands application. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Mineral Processors, CIM, Montreal, Canada, 429–457.

Yianatos, J.B., Bergh, L.G., Condori, P. & Aguilera, J. (2001). Hydrodynamic and metallurgical
characterization of industrial flotation banks for control purposes. Minerals Engineering, 14(9),
1033–1046.

Yoon, R-H. (1993). Microbubble flotation. Minerals Engineering, 6(6), 619–630.

Page 11 of 11
Published by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
View publication stats