Minerals Engineering 24 (2011) 1335–1339

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

A relationship between the bubble–particle attachment time

and the mineralogy of a copper–sulphide ore
Boris Albijanic a,b, Eiman Amini b, Elaine Wightman b, Orhan Ozdemir a,1, Anh V. Nguyen a,
Dee J. Bradshaw b,⇑
a
School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
b
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4068, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Flotation performance depends on bubble–particle attachment which is controlled by the particle surface
Available online 20 July 2011 properties which include the particle composition and the surface liberation of valuable minerals. This
paper discusses the contribution of liberation of valuable minerals to bubble–particle attachment time
Keywords: measurements, under constant chemical conditions. The bubble–particle attachment time measurements
Bubble–particle attachment time were performed using a sized fraction from concentrates obtained at different times and tails by flotation
Mineral liberation analysis of a copper–gold sulphide ore (Northparkes Mine, Australia) in a mechanically agitated batch flotation
Froth flotation
cell. All products and tails were analyzed using quantitative mineral liberation analysis. The results
showed that there was a relationship between the time of the concentrate collected, the Cu grade of
the sample and the bubble–particle attachment time, and that the measurements were most sensitive
to the amount of unliberated material. The fast floating material was higher grade, with a lower attach-
ment time indicating that the measured bubble–particle attachment time could be used to characterize
flotation performance of an ore.
Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Flotation is a physicochemical process that utilises the surface
properties between valuable and non-valuable materials to achieve
the beneficiation. In this process, particles collide with bubbles,
and if the particle is sufficiently hydrophobic, there is the thinning
and the rupture of wetting films between a bubble and a particle,
and the expansion and relaxation of the gas–liquid solid contact
lines, resulting in bubble–particle attachment. The bubble–particle
aggregates, transported to the froth zone, are collected in the con-
centrate launder. Therefore, bubble–particle attachment is a criti-
cal step for successful flotation.
Bubble–particle attachment is influenced by numerous factors
including surface chemistry and the physical properties of particles
and bubbles (Leja, 1982; Nguyen and Schulze, 2004). To provide in-
sights into the factors affecting bubble–particle attachment, con-
tact angle measurement has been traditionally used. However, it
has been proven that these measurements cannot always be used
to predict the flotation response of pure minerals obtained using
H-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3365 5832; fax: +61 7 3365 5999.
E-mail address: d.bradshaw@uq.edu.au (D.J. Bradshaw).
1
Present address: Department of Mining Engineering, Istanbul University, Istanbul
34320, Turkey.
alimond tube (Ye and Miller, 1988; Ye et al., 1989; Yoon and Yor-
dan, 1991; Su et al., 2006). An alternative measure for predicting
the susceptibility of a mineral to float is bubble–particle attach-
ment time which represents the time required for attachment of
particles to an air bubble when they are in close proximity (Ye
and Miller, 1988; Ye et al., 1989; Yoon and Yordan, 1991; Albijanic
et al., 2010).
Glembockij (1953) developed a device to determine
bubble–particle attachment time. This device has been widely em-
ployed by researchers (Ye and Miller, 1988; Ye et al., 1989; Yoon
and Yordan, 1991; Gu et al., 2003) who have obtained a strong cor-
relation between bubble–particle attachment time and flotation
performance, e.g., the highest flotation occurs at the shortest
attachment time. The Glembotsky attachment timer device uses
a captive bubble placed in contact with a bed of mineral particles
for a series of controlled times, from which the attachment time
is determined at a pre-selected percentage (e.g., 50%) of particle
attachment. The researchers proved that bubble–particle attach-
ment time of pure minerals, obtained with the Glembotsky
technique, depends on the particle density, size and shape, solution
chemistry (pH, ionic strength, concentration of surfactants), bubble
size and pulp temperature. A comprehensive review of these inves-
tigations is given elsewhere in detail (Albijanic et al., 2010). The
most important findings of the available studies can be summa-
rised as follows:

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2011.06.005
1336 B. Albijanic et al. / Minerals Engineering 24 (2011) 1335–1339

(i) The measured attachment time is sensitive to show correla- Table 1

tions with particle composition because particles with Mineral deportment of flotation feed, products and tails.

different composition may have different states of hydro- Mineral Feed Con-1 Con-2 Con-3 Tails
phobicity (Ye et al., 1989; Peng, 1996). mineral mineral mineral mineral mineral
(ii) There is an optimum collector dosage, pH and ionic strength weight weight weight weight weight
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
at which the attachment time is the shortest and flotation
recovery is the highest (Yoon and Yordan, 1991; Gu et al., Chalcopyrite 1.1 15.81 12.19 7.98 0.04
Bornite 1.61 23.02 18.04 12.36 0.09
2003). Quartz 14.68 8.04 9.74 11.64 12.72
(iii) The attachment time increases with increasing particle or Plagioclase 31.76 15.20 19.30 22.41 35.50
bubble size since it needs longer time for the displacement Orthoclase 12.04 15.01 18.50 19.93 21.36
of the wetting film on the surface of larger particles or bub- Amphibole 2.22 0.37 0.43 0.65 0.89
Chlorite 3.08 0.96 0.86 0.87 1.14
bles (Ye et al., 1989; Yoon and Yordan, 1991).
Muscovite 11.37 1.78 1.12 2.26 2.03
(iv) The attachment time decreases considerably with increasing Biotite 5.55 3.00 3.27 3.38 4.49
temperature (Lazarov et al., 1994). Garnet 1.58 1.71 1.72 2.24 2.39
(v) The attachment time for spherical particles is higher than Hornblende 1.93 3.10 3.88 5.23 11.51
that for sharp-edged particles because the sharp edges facil- Calcite 1.46 0.20 0.12 0.28 0.18
Siderite 1.92 1.25 1.40 1.44 1.41
itate the thinning of wetting film (Dippenaar, 1982).
Ankerite 4.7 2.21 2.20 2.44 2.33
(vi) All these studies have been conducted using pure minerals. Other 5 8.34 7.23 6.89 3.92

Although important mechanisms and phenomena have been

established using pure minerals, the real value lies in ascertaining
whether it is possible to use this technique to understand the fac-
tors contributing of flotation real ores. It is also very important to
note that bubble–particle attachment times determined for real
ore particles could be used to characterize ore floatability and in
flotation circuit characterisation and optimization. However, the
literature does not provide data for bubble–particle attachment
time of real ore particles being governed by the particle composi-
tion and liberation of valuable minerals. For that reason, the main
objective of this work is to investigate the contribution of the lib-
eration of valuable copper minerals, at fixed chemical conditions,
on bubble–particle attachment time measurements, and thus de-
velop the relationship between bubble–particle attachment time
and the mineralogy of a copper–sulphide ore. Apart from the de-
gree of the liberation of valuable minerals, other factors like solu-
tion chemistry, bubble and particle size, and pulp temperature also
affect ore floatability and thus the flotation process but these fac-
tors are kept constant in this study. The factors will have to be con-
sidered in order to develop a general relationship between
attachment time and flotation performance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The low grade copper–gold sulphide ore (1% Cu) used in this
study was obtained from Northparkes Mine, New South Wales,
Australia. A summary of the modal mineralogy of the most impor-
tant minerals found in flotation feed, flotation products (concen-
trates collected after 0.5 min (Con-1), 4 min (Con-2) and 10 min
(Con-3)) and tails obtained by mineral liberation analysis is given
in Table 1. All flotation chemicals were used as supplied.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Flotation
The particle size distribution of the feed was reduced to P80 of
90 lm by wet milling at 60% solids in a laboratory rod mill. The
ground sample was transferred to a 5 L bottom driven batch flota-
tion cell, and the required amount of tap water was added to the
system (25% solid ratio). The measured pH of flotation pulp
was in the range between 8.2 and 8.8. Brisbane tap water was used
in the flotation experiments.
The impeller speed was set at 800 rpm. 10 g/t of the sodium iso-
butyl xanthate (SIBX) collector (Senmin Pty Ltd., South Africa) and
30 g/t of the Aerofloat 208 promoter (Cytec, USA) were added to
this system. After 3 min of conditioning, 14 ppm of the Interfroth
6880 frother (Chemical & Mining Services Pty Ltd., Australia) was
also added, and the suspension was mixed for 2 min. Finally,
15 L/min of air was introduced through diffusers placed at the bot-
tom of the flotation cell, and the flotation took place. An automatic
scraper was used to collect the froth into two launders every 8 s.
The concentrates were collected after 0.5 min, 4 min and 10 min.
Then, the concentrates and tails were wet screened to obtain the
sample (106  53 lm fraction) for the bubble–particle attachment
time experiments.
2.2.2. Bubble–particle attachment time measurements
The bubble–particle attachment time measurements were per-
formed with the Attachment Timer (University of Alberta, Canada)
(Gu et al., 2003). First, the sample with a supernatant solution was
transferred to a small cell under the bubble holder. The measured
pH of solution was 8.8. A bubble of about 1.5 mm in diameter was
generated using a microsyringe, and then the distance between the
bubble and the particle bed was adjusted using the three-dimen-
sional micro-translation stage. Next, the bubble was kept in con-
tact with the bed of particles for the controlled contact time
from 10 ms to 3000 ms. Then the attachment of particles to the
bubble was visually observed through the lens and CCD camera
linked to a monitor. Ten measurements were performed at differ-
ent areas of the particle bed and the observations were recorded.
And, the contact time at which attachment efficiency represents
100% is chosen as an attachment time.
2.2.3. Mineralogy
The modal mineralogy and liberation of the sized samples of
(106  53 lm) concentrates and tails was obtained with a Mineral
Liberation Analyser (MLA). The analysis using the MLA is given
elsewhere in details (Gu, 2003; Fandrich et al., 2007).
The model proposed by Leigh et al. (1993) was used to calculate
standard deviation of liberation:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
12 1
rðyÞ ¼ 1:12ðy  y Þ þ ð1Þ
N0 N1
where y is the liberation at composition C; N0 is number of particles
with composition lower than C and N1 is number of particles with
composition higher than C. The number of particles for one 2D areal
section was between 10,538 and 10,582. The standard deviation
 B. Albijanic et al. / Minerals Engineering 24 (2011) 1335–1339 1337

was lower than 0.04 in the case of concentrates. However, in the Table 2
case of tails, the maximal standard deviation was 0.28. Attachment time of flotation products measured at 100%
attachment.

Products Attachment time (ms)

3. Results and discussion
Con-1 25
Con-2 55
3.1. Flotation
Con-3 8500
Tails 17,000
The results of the flotation experiments are shown in Fig. 1. As
seen in Fig. 1, over 70% of the copper recovery was in the first min-
ute showing that there was a significant amount of fast floating
material. After 4 min, the rate of recovery was slower and the in- Con-3 and tails were determined by extrapolating curve attach-
crease in copper recovery was much less. ment efficiency vs. the contact time. The attachment efficiency
vs. contact time curve for Con-3 was more scattered than that for
Con-1 and Con-2. This was ascribed to the lower weight percentage
3.2. Bubble–particle attachment time measurements
of valuable liberated particles in Con-3 which was confirmed by
the MLA which is described in the next section.
The bubble–particle attachment time measurements were con-
It is noted that there is a critical contact time above which
ducted for the 106  53 lm size fraction obtained from the flota-
attachment efficiency increases rapidly with increasing contact
tion concentrates collected after 30 s (Con-1), 4 min (Con-2) and
time. The reason for this behaviour is as follows: above the critical
10 min (Con-3), and for the tails. Fig. 2 shows the results for the
contact time there is more time for drainage of wetting film be-
attachment efficiency. In this study, the attachment time was de-
tween a bubble and a particle, improving the bubble–particle
fined as the contact time at 100% attachment efficiency (expressed
attaching force. The stable bubble–particle aggregate is formed,
as a number of successful attachments in 10 observations). Table 2
when the bubble–particle attaching force is higher than the bub-
shows the results for the attachment time. The attachment time for
ble–particle detaching force. However, the experimental determi-
nation of these forces as a function of contact time is beyond the
100 scope of this study.

3.3. Results of MLA

Cumulative Cu recovery (%)

80
The MLA results for the flotation products (Con-1, Con-2 and
Slow floating minerals (>4 min) Con-3) and the tails are presented in Fig. 3. As seen in Fig. 3, the
60 majority of the valuable minerals in the flotation concentrates
are bornite and chalcopyrite which indicates that the copper min-
erals were recovered successfully. The weight percentage of the
40
valuable minerals in flotation products also decreased from 22%
bornite and 18% chalcopyrite (Con-1) to 11% bornite and 9% chalco-
Fast floating minerals (0-1 min) pyrite (Con-3). The tails is mainly composed of non-sulphide min-
20
erals such as silicates and oxides.
Table 2 shows that the bubble–particle attachment time for the
0 concentrates increases during the flotation. The reason for this is
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 the decrease of the weight percentage of valuable liberated miner-
Flotation time (min) als during flotation as demonstrated in Figs. 3–5. For example, the
attachment time for Con-1 (15% bornite and 8% chalcopyrite were
Fig. 1. Cumulative Cu recovery as a function of flotation time.
liberated) was two times lower than that for Con-2 (11% bornite
and 6% chalcopyrite were liberated). Interestingly, while the
weight percentage of valuable liberated minerals in Con-2 was
100 two times higher than that in Con-3, the attachment time of
Con-1
Con-2 was almost 150 times lower than that of Con-3. The attach-
Con-2
ment time for the tails is considerable higher, which is around 17 s.
80
Attachment efficiency (%)

The predominant sulphide minerals are bornite, chalcopyrite

and pyrite and the amount of these minerals in the 106  53 lm
fraction of the concentrates and tails is shown in Fig. 4. The
60 decreasing amount of sulphides in the concentrates collected at la-
ter times and the very low concentration of sulphides is clearly
Con-3
seen.
40 In addition, the particle liberation data for bornite and chalco-
Tails pyrite were grouped into four classes: liberated (100% liberated
of the mineral of interest), highly liberated (100–75% of the min-
20 Con-1
eral of interest), middlings (75–25% of the mineral of interest)
Con-2
Con-3 and poorly liberated particles (<25% of the mineral of interest) as
Tails shown in Fig. 5. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the weight percentage
0 of bornite and chalcopyrite decreased with increasing flotation
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
time for all liberation classes. The results also indicate that the lib-
Contact time (ms)
erated particles were recovered in all products better than the mid-
Fig. 2. Attachment efficiency for the concentrates and tails as a function of contact dlings and poorly liberated particles. The amount of liberation
time. (Dashed line represents extrapolated part of curve.) decreases as the concentrate number increases and it is interesting
1338 B. Albijanic et al. / Minerals Engineering 24 (2011) 1335–1339

Fig. 3. 2D-images of concentrates and tails indicating representative particles ( bornite, chalcopyrite, other sulphides, silicates, oxides, other minerals).

100
Bornite (a) Bornite Liberation
100
Chalcopyrite
80
Mineral weight (%)

Pyrite 80
Mineral grade (%)

60
60

40
40
20

0
20 Con-1 Con-2 Con-3 Tails
Poorly Liberated Highly Liberated
0
Middlings 100% Liberated
Con-1 Con-2 Con-3 Tails

Fig. 4. MLA results for sulphide mineral grade of 106  53 lm fraction in (b) Chalcopyrite Liberation
concentrates and tails. 100
Mineral weight (%)

80
to note that there is fully liberated bornite in the tailings, but not
chalcopyrite.
60

40
3.4. Correlation between bubble–particle attachment time
measurements and MLA results
20

The bubble particle attachment time measurements were corre-

0
lated with Cu grade (calculated using the MLA results), as shown in Con-1 Con-2 Con-3 Tails
Fig. 6. Although the results indicate that there is correlation be-
Poorly Liberated Highly Liberated
tween the Cu grade in products and the bubble–particle attach-
ment time, the type of relationship between Cu grade and Middlings 100% Liberated
bubble–particle attachment time is not clear until more experi-
ments are performed. It should be noted that it was very difficult Fig. 5. The distribution of liberation classes of bornite and chalcopyrite in
to perform more experiments than conducted in this work as the 106  53 lm fractions of concentrates and tails as 100% liberated, highly liberated,
amount of collected fraction for bubble–particle attachment time middling and poorly liberated particles.
measurements was less than 1 g.
The relationship between bubble–particle attachment time and and tails). Such a relationship also proved that the bubble–particle
Cu grade confirms that the bubble–particle attachment time can be attachment mechanism play an important role for the recovery of
used as a tool to estimate Cu grade in ore samples (concentrates Cu minerals found in Northparkes ore since the less the amount of
 B. Albijanic et al. / Minerals Engineering 24 (2011) 1335–1339
25
Con-1
Con-2
20
Con-3
Tails
Cu grade (%)
15
10
5
0 Albijanic, B., Ozdemir, O., Nguyen, A.V., Bradshaw, D., 2010. A review of induction
0 0.1 1 10 100
Attachment time (s)
Fig. 6. The correlation between the bubble–particle attachment and Cu grade.
Cu minerals in concentrates the higher the bubble–particle attach-
ment time. Indeed, the relationship between the bubble–particle
attachment time and the grade of valuable metal may exist for
other flotation systems, because the majority of valuable minerals
are recovered by bubble–particle attachment mechanism.
4. Conclusions
The bubble–particle attachment time and the MLA method were
used to study the contribution of liberation of valuable minerals to
bubble–particle attachment time. In this study, a copper–gold sul-
phide ore (Northparkes Mine, Australia) was employed. The bub-
ble–particle attachment time measurements performed for the
concentrates and tails indicated that the bubble–particle attach-
ment time measurement is dependent on particle composition and
is a reliable method to discriminate between the concentrates col-
lected during the flotation. The bubble–particle attachment time
was reduced when there was a higher weight percentage and liber-
ation of valuable minerals in the flotation products. The decrease in
Cu grade of concentrate resulted in increasing the value of bubble–
particle attachment time. The analysis of the bubble attachment
time and the MLA results showed that there is a relationship
1339
between the bubble–particle attachment time and Cu grade. How-
ever, further investigations are needed to consider the effect of other
factors (solution chemistry, bubble and particle size and pulp tem-
perature) which were kept constant in this study.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the AMIRA International P9O Project and
the member companies is gratefully acknowledged.
References
and attachment times of wetting thin films between air bubbles and particles
and its relevance in the separation of particles by flotation. Advances in Colloid
and Interface Science 159 (1), 1–21.
Dippenaar, A., 1982. The destabilization of froth by solids. I. The mechanism of film
rupture. International Journal of Mineral Processing 9 (1), 1–14.
Fandrich, R., Gu, Y., Burrows, D., Moeller, K., 2007. Modern SEM-based mineral
liberation analysis. International Journal of Mineral Processing 84 (1–4), 310–
320.
Glembockij, V.A., 1953. The time of attachment of air bubbles to mineral particles in
flotation and its measurement. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR (OTN) 11, 1524–
1531.
Gu, Y., 2003. Automated scanning electron microscope based mineral liberation
analysis. Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering 2,
33–41.
Gu, G., Xu, Z., Nandakumar, K., Masliyah, J., 2003. Effects of physical environment on
induction time of air–bitumen attachment. International Journal of Mineral
Processing 69 (1–4), 235–250.
Lazarov, D., Alexandrova, L., Nishkov, I., 1994. Effect of temperature on the kinetics
of froth flotation. Minerals Engineering 7 (4), 503–509.
Leigh, G.M., Sutherland, D.N., Gottlieb, P., 1993. Confidence-limits for liberation
measurements. Minerals Engineering 6 (2), 155–161.
Leja, J., 1982. Surface Chemistry of Froth Flotation. Plenum Press, New York, p. 758.
Nguyen, A.V., Schulze, H.J., 2004. Colloidal Science of Flotation. Marcel Dekker, New
York, p. 840.
Peng, F.F., 1996. Surface energy and induction time of fine coals treated with various
levels of dispersed collector and their correlation to flotation responses. Energy
& Fuels 10 (6), 1202–1207.
Su, L., Xu, Z., Masliyah, J., 2006. Role of oily bubbles in enhancing bitumen flotation.
Minerals Engineering 19 (6–8), 641–650.
Ye, Y., Miller, J.D., 1988. Bubble/particle contact time in the analysis of coal flotation.
Coal Preparation (Gordon & Breach) 5 (3–4), 147–166.
Ye, Y., Khandrika, S.M., Miller, J.D., 1989. Induction-time measurements at a particle
bed. International Journal of Mineral Processing 25 (3–4), 221–240.
Yoon, R.-H., Yordan, J.L., 1991. Induction time measurements for the quartz–amine
flotation system. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 141 (2), 374–383.