Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 625–628

This article is also available online at:

www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng
Technical note

Boundary conditions for gas rate and bubble size

at the pulp–froth interface in flotation equipment
J.B. Yianatos *, F. Henrı́quez
Department of Chemical Engineering, Santa Marı́a University, P.O. Box 110-V, Valparaı́so, Chile

Received 12 October 2006; accepted 14 December 2006

Available online 5 February 2007

Abstract

This paper describes the effective boundary conditions for the gas dispersion parameters of bubble size, superficial gas velocity and
bubble surface area flux, in mechanical and column flotation cells. Using a number of previously derived correlations, with appropriate
simplifying assumptions, and experimental data reported from plant practices, the boundary conditions were identified. Thus, it was
shown that these constraints typically allow for a mean bubble diameter range of db = 1–1.5 mm and superficial gas rate of Jg =
1–2 cm/s, in order to maximize the bubble surface area flux, Sb = 50–100 s1. Under these conditions there is no carrying capacity
limitation, while keeping a distinctive pulp–froth interface.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Froth flotation; Flotation bubbles; Flotation machines; Carrying capacity

1. Introduction the loss of the interface, sometimes called ‘‘flooding’’ con-

Despite the use of different equipment designs and oper-
ating conditions, there are two key conditions, which must
be considered in all flotation equipments, in order to be a
commercially effective separator. One is the formation of
a distinctive pulp–froth interface and the second is the pro-
vision of the bubble surface area flux for mineral carrying
capacity at the pulp–froth interface level. Otherwise, the
loss of interface or the maximum carrying capacity will
limit the mineral separation.
1.1. Loss of interface
At moderate mean bubble sizes (i.e., mean bubble diam-
eter lower than 1–1.5 mm) a critical relationship exists
between the superficial gas and the liquid rates, Jg and
JL, and the mean bubble diameter db, which determines
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +56 32 654478.
E-mail address: juan.yianatos@usm.cl (J.B. Yianatos).
dition. This boundary condition has been derived from first
principles for the air–water system (Pal and Masliyah,
1990; Xu et al., 1991; Langberg and Jameson, 1992).
The other critical constraint appears at mean bubble
diameter larger than 1–1.5 mm, while operating at higher
superficial gas rates (Jg = 2.5–3 cm/s), when larger bubbles
are generated producing a break-through of large bubbles
across the pulp–froth interface, also called ‘‘boiling’’ condi-
tion (Dahlke et al., 2005). This condition generates a gen-
eral disturbance at the interface level, also increasing the
mineral entrainment and bubble coalescence throughout
the froth.
Mean bubble diameter of less than 0.5–0.8 mm are rarely
present at the interface level in industrial cells unless a very
low superficial air rate was provided (less than 1 cm/s),
which also limits the carrying capacity. It has been observed
that small bubbles can be either lost into the tailings flow or
captured by coalescence with larger ones, near the pulp–
froth interface. Thus, a commercial operation typically
shows a mean bubble diameter around 1 mm, or larger, at
the pulp–froth interface level.

0892-6875/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2006.12.006
626 J.B. Yianatos, F. Henrı́quez / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 625–628

1.2. Maximum carrying capacity delivered in order to build a distinctive interface before
entering the ‘‘flooding’’ zone with loss of interface.
The maximum carrying capacity, required for mineral A wide review of industrial flotation data reported in the
transport on the bubble surface, determines the minimum literature showed that the typical range of mean bubble
bubble surface area flux for each operation. Thus, there diameter observed in mechanical cells and columns was
exists a close compromise between the mean bubble size db = 1–1.5 mm, while the superficial gas rate was Jg = 1–
and the superficial gas rate, in order to generate the bubble 1.6 cm/s in mechanical cells and Jg = 1.5–2.2 cm/s in pneu-
surface area flux to accomplish the mass transport require- matic columns (Burguess, 1997; Vera et al., 1999; Yianatos
ment across the interface. et al., 1999, 2001; Power and Franzidis, 2000; Deglon et al.,
Xu et al. (1987) discussed the effect of gas rate and bub- 2000; Chen et al., 2001; Schwarz and Alexander, 2006;
ble size on the carrying capacity at the pulp–froth interface Finch et al., 2006; Nesset et al., 2006).
level, for flotation columns. They found that the maximum Grau and Heiskanen (2003) using a laboratory flotation
bubble surface area flux decreased on decreasing the cell (50 L), operating in batch with gas–liquid, found a nar-
bubble size in order to maintain a distinctive interface. row interval of bubble surface area flux (Sb = 27–36 s1)
Carrying capacity relationships have been more recently with a rather low upper limit. Also, they noticed that mean
reviewed by Patwardhan and Honaker (2000), King bubble surface area flux calculated from average values, at
(2001) and Gallegos-Acevedo et al. (2006). Also, Pérez poor air dispersion, appears to overestimate the bubble
et al. (2002) observed the overloading problem in flotation surface area flux. Grau et al. (2005) measured the critical
columns, which also illustrates the limited carrying capac- coalescence concentration of frothers versus bubble size,
ity at pulp–solids content larger than 25% of solids (w/w). using standard flotation frothers in aqueous solutions,
The previous conditions (loss of interface and maximum and they found a minimum Sauter bubble diameter in the
carrying capacity) are valid for any industrial flotation range of 1–2 mm, which is similar to that observed in
operation, both in mechanical cells and pneumatic cells industrial flotation cells. Recently, an empirical approach
or columns, and are independent of the bubble generation has been developed to determine the operating range of flo-
and dispersion mechanism. tation cells from gas holdup versus gas rate measurement
(Dahlke et al., 2005). The study was developed in industrial
flotation mechanical cells equal to or smaller than 50 m3,
2. Boundary conditions at the pulp–froth interface where a maximum superficial gas rate of Jg = 2.5 cm/s
was observed. This result was in good agreement with the-
Fig. 1 shows the theoretical boundaries of superficial gas oretical predictions on the limits of superficial gas rate,
rate versus bubble size for industrial flotation operation considering a normal range of mean bubble diameter
(Yianatos, 2003). The corresponding range of bubble sur- around 1–2 mm.
face area flux Sb is also shown in dashed lines. For a high gas rate, Jg > 2.5 cm/s, the mean bubble size
From Fig. 1, it can be seen that for mean bubble diam- increases, the gas holdup becomes unstable and the flow
eter smaller than 1.5 mm, the upper boundary corresponds regime is characterized by larger bubbles rising rapidly
to the maximum theoretical gas flowrate which can be which creates a significant disturbance at the pulp–froth
interface. This boundary condition represents the upper
limit sometimes indicated by ‘‘boiling’’ (break-through of
4.0 large bubbles across the interface). For example, in an
Sb = 160 s·¹
Interface disturbance
industrial flotation column a high superficial air rate
3.5
(Boiling) (Jg = 3 cm/s) was measured (Yianatos et al., 1999). Under
3.0
this condition, it was observed that the mineral grade axial
Superficial gas rate, cm/s

Interface loss profiles increased continuously across the pulp–froth inter-

(Flooding)
2.5 face, showing that the interface was not clearly distin-
guished because of the disturbance created by the high
2.0 air rate.
For superficial gas rates smaller than 2.5 cm/s, the lower
1.5
boundary corresponds to the minimum bubble surface area
Sb = 30 s·¹
flux, Sb = 35–45 s1, observed in mechanical cells (Power
1.0
Carrying capacity and Franzidis, 2000; Deglon et al., 2000; Gorain et al.,
0.5 1997). Below this minimum the system becomes con-
strained either by carrying capacity limitation (larger db)
0.0 at the pulp–froth interface level or by a limited froth
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 removal, at a low gas flowrate.
Mean bubble diameter, mm Fig. 2 shows the bubble surface area flux Sb, versus
Fig. 1. Zone of distinctive pulp–froth interface and non-limited carrying mean bubble diameter at different superficial gas rates,
capacity. Jg = 0.5–4 cm/s. Here the superficial liquid rate lines

300
Jg =4.0 cm/s
250 JL =0 cm/s
Bubble s urfac e area flux , Sb, s -¹
3 .0 0.5
200
2.0
1.5
1 .0
150
0.5
100
50
0 Dahlke, R., Gomez, C., Finch, J.A., 2005. Operating range of a flotation
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Mean bubble diameter, mm
Fig. 2. Bubble surface area flux versus bubble diameter showing the
limiting boundaries for superficial gas and liquid rates.
(JL = 0–1 cm/s), calculated for the condition of ideal coun-
tercurrent flow between pulp and bubbles, as described
by Xu et al. (1991), represent the upper boundary by
the loss of interface. Also, the superficial liquid rate
ðJ L ¼ 0–1 cm=sÞ shown in dashed lines, represents the
upper boundary for the loss of interface, assuming a more
realistic condition where liquid circulation occurs at the
rear of bubbles (Yianatos et al., 1986). The last condition
shows that liquid circulation (i.e. 40% of the bubble vol-
ume) decreases the maximum attainable Sb significantly.
Thus, it can be seen that a maximum bubble surface area
flux, Sb of less than 100–150 s1, would be expected for a
mean bubble diameter range of db = 0.8–1.2 mm, while
Sb decreases by increasing the superficial liquid rate.
3. Conclusions
In considering theoretical approach and flotation experi-
ences from the micro-scale to industrial large size cells and
columns, it was found that for typical superficial gas rates
of Jg = 1–2 cm/s, the optimal range for mean bubble diam-
eter size at the pulp–froth interface level is db = 1–1.5 mm,
in order to maximize the bubble surface area flux Sb = 50–
100 s1. Otherwise, the following constraints limit the flota-
tion process:
Decreasing the mean bubble diameter, db < 0.5–1.0 mm,
• loss of pulp–froth interface (flooding),
• lower bubble surface area flux,
• lower mineral carrying capacity.
Increasing the mean bubble diameter, db > 1.5–2 mm,
• lower bubble surface area flux,
• lower mineral carrying capacity,
• greater disturbance at the interface level (boiling),
• larger mineral entrainment into the froth.
J.B. Yianatos, F. Henrı́quez / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 625–628 627
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Conicyt, Project Fondecyt
1040100, and Santa Marı́a University, Project No.
1.0 270522, for providing funding for process modelling and
control research.
JL* =0 cm/s
0.5
1.0
References
Burguess, F.L., 1997. OK100 tank cell operation at Pasmisko-Broken Hill.
Minerals Engineering 10 (7), 723–741.
Chen, F., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2001. Bubble size measurement in
flotation machines. Minerals Engineering 14 (4), 427–432.
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 cell determined from gas holdup versus gas rate. Minerals Engineering
18, 977–980.
Deglon, D.A., Egya-Mensah, D., Franzidis, J.P., 2000. Review of
hydrodynamics and gas dispersion in flotation cells on South African
platinum concentrators. Minerals Engineering 13 (3), 235–244.
Finch, J.A., Gelinas, S., Moyo, P., 2006. Frother-related research at
McGill University. Minerals Engineering 19, 726–733.
Gallegos-Acevedo, P.M., Pérez-Garibay, R., Uribe-Salas, A., 2006.
Maximum bubble loads: experimental measurements versus analytical
estimation. Minerals Engineering 19, 12–18.
Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.P., Manlapig, E.V., 1997. Studies on impeller
type, impeller speed and air flowrate in an industrial scale flotation cell.
Part 4: Effect of bubble surface area flux on flotation performance.
Minerals Engineering 10 (4), 367–379.
Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2003. Gas dispersion measurements in a
flotation cell. Minerals Engineering 16, 1081–1089.
Grau, R.A., Laskowski, J.S., Heiskanen, K., 2005. Effect of frothers
on bubble size. International Journal of Mineral Processing 76, 225–
233.
King, R.P., 2001. Modeling and Simulation of Mineral Processing
Systems. Department of Metallurgical Engineering University of
Utah. Butterworth Heinemann, USA.
Langberg, D.E., Jameson, G.J., 1992. The coexistence of the froth and
liquid phases in a flotation column. Chemical Engineering Science 47,
4345–4355.
Nesset, J.E., Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Acuna, C., Gomez, C.O., Finch,
J.A., 2006. Some gas dispersion characteristics of mechanical flotation
machines. Minerals Engineering 19, 807–815.
Pal, R., Masliyah, J., 1990. Flow characteristics of a flotation column.
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 29 (2), 97–103.
Patwardhan, A., Honaker, R.Q., 2000. Development of a carrying-
capacity model for column froth flotation. International Journal of
Mineral Processing 59, 275–293.
Pérez, R., Gallegos, P.M., Uribe, A., Nava, F., 2002. Effect of collection
zone height and operating variables on recovery of overload flotation
columns. Minerals Engineering 15 (5), 325–331.
Power, A, Franzidis, J.P., 2000. The characterization of hydrody-
namic conditions in industrial flotation cells. In: Proceedings of the
AusIMM 7th Mill Operators Conference, Kalgoorlie, WA, pp. 243–
255.
Schwarz, S., Alexander, D., 2006. Gas dispersion measurements in
industrial flotation cells. Minerals Engineering 19, 554–560.
Vera, M.A., Franzidis, J.-P., Manlapig, E.V., 1999. The JKMRC high
bubble surface area flux flotation cell. Minerals Engineering 12 (5),
477–484.
Xu, M., Finch, J.A., Uribe-Salas, A., 1991. Maximum gas and bubble
surface rates in flotation columns. International Journal of Mineral
Processing 32, 233–250.
Xu, M., Finch, J.A., Yianatos, J.B., 1987. Carrying capacity in flotation
columns – gas rates and bubble size effects. In: Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Conference of Metallurgists of CIMM, August, Winnipeg,
Canada.
628 J.B. Yianatos, F. Henrı́quez / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 625–628

Yianatos, J.B., 2003. Design, modeling and control of flotation equip-
ment. In: Lorenzen, Bradshaw, D.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXII
International Mineral Processing Congress. Cape Town, South Africa,
pp. 59–68.
Yianatos, J.B., Finch, J.A., Laplante, A.R., 1986. Apparent hindered
settling in a gas–liquid–solid countercurrent column. International
Journal of Mineral Processing 18, 155–165.
Yianatos, J., Bergh, L., López, R., Molinet, P., Jiménez, P., 1999.
Characterization of an industrial flotation column at División Andina,
Codelco. Minerals Engineering 12 (5), 565–569.
Yianatos, J.B., Bergh, L.G., Cortés, G.A., 2001. Hydrodynamic and
metallurgical characterization of industrial flotation banks for control
purposes. Minerals Engineering 14 (9), 1033–1046.