PAPER 24

A technique for the direct measurement of bubble size distributions in

industrial flotation cells

J.R.Hernandez-Aguilar
C.O. Gomez
J.A. Finch

McGill University
Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering
M.H. Wong Building
36 10 University Street
Montrkal, Qukbec, Canada
H3A 2B2
PH: (514) 398-4755
Fax: (514) 398-4492
E-mail: finchj@minmet.lan.mcgill.ca

Keywords: flotation, bubble size, bubble size measurement

Proceedings
34" Annual Meeting of the J a n ~ a r y22-24,2002
Canadian Mineral Processors Ottawa, Canada
 A Technique for the Direct Measurement of Bubble Size
Distributions in Industrial Flotation Cells

J. R. Hernandez-Aguilar, C. 0. Gomez and J. A. Finch

McGill University
Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering
MontrCal, Canada.

ABSTRACT

A method of sampling and presenting bubbles for imaging for use in full-size flotation
cells is described. The device (bubble viewer) comprises a tube attached to a sealed glass
viewing chamber. The assembly is first filled with fiother-containing water (to prevent
coalescence) and the tube immersed at the desired location below the froth. For a few
minutes bubbles are collected in the viewer free from slurry and are readily imaged. To
reduce bubble overlap and the problem of defining the plane of view, the viewing
chamber has a sloped side. Bubbles rise, encounter this slope, spread into a single plane
and slide up. This simple expedient virtually eliminates overlap and provides an
unambiguous focus plane - the underside of the sloped glass. The bubble image is
captured and processed to give size data. The bubble viewer has been employed at
several concentrators on different types of flotation cells. Examples of the images are
given. The impact of position in the cell and the effect of changing gas rate on bubble
size are illustrated. This technique provides a sensitive measure of the effects of process
variables on bubble size.

INTRODUCTION

Despite the extensive use of flotation in the mineral processing industry, the methodology
employed for cell design is largely based on empirical rules rather than on first principles.
One of the main reasons for this state of affairs is that the local flow structures
encountered in industrial-scale machines are very complex. These flow structures are
difficult to simulate under the controlled conditions of the laboratory and the difficulty to
solve the mathematical models that treat the randomness of such flows also mean
theoretical treatment is limited. Understanding flotation cell hydrodynamics requires
reliable data, which involves the implementation of measurement techniques capable of
performing both at the laboratory- and the industrial-scale, In addition, it is desirable that
such techniques are amenable to automation to reduce extensive manual intervention in
the data collection process.

Among the various hydrodynamic parameters, bubble size is crucial. It is well known that
bubble size has a profound effect on the process efficiency. Most of the techniques
capable of measuring bubble size reported in the literature have been demonstrated in
laboratory environments only. Techniques able to perform in industrial installations are
limited (Tucker et al., 1994; Chen et al., 2001). Tucker et al. (1994) describe a technique
(the UCT"] bubble size analyzer) based on measuring the length of the equivalent volume
cylinder formed when the bubble is drawn into a capillary of known inside diameter. This
technique has been used in various investigations (Aldrich and Feng, 2000; Deglon et al.,
2000; Steinmuller, 1999; Gorain et al., 1997; Gorain et al., 1995; Everson et al., 1993;
O'Connor et al., 1990). Recently, objections have been raised due to possible biasing
during bubble suctioning (Heiskanen, 2000). The concept described by Chen et al. (200 1)
(known as the bubble viewer) has demonstrated the potential of sizing bubbles in
industrial flotation equipment using an imaging technique. In this technique, based on an
approach first described by Jameson and Allum (1984), rising bubbles are collected from
the slurry into a vertical tube filled with frother-containing water (to prevent coalescence)
and directed to a flat-sided viewing chamber at the top for imaging. Photographs were
taken and the bubbles sized off-line. The concept was demonstrated with slurries in pilot-
scale cells, however, some aspects regarding the sizing and sampling procedures were not
verified. For example, the exact position of the focus plane was ambiguous and the
photographic images collected were necessarily biased because bubbles of different size
move at different velocities. In addition, extensive operator involvement was required as
the bubbles were counted manually.

The objective of the present communication is to describe a technique based on the

bubble viewer concept and demonstrate its use in industrial flotation cells. To reduce
bubble overlap and the problem of defining the focus plane, the viewing chamber was
provided with a sloped side. Bubbles rise, encounter this slope, spread into a single plane
and slide up. This simple expedient virtually eliminates overlap and provides an
unambiguous plane of focus - the underside of the sloped glass. To reduce manual
intervention, images are captured and automatically processed to give bubble size data at
a rate of ca. 10,000 bubbles per hour. Images and the derived bubble size data are
illustrated on two types of flotation cell.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE: THE BUBBLE VIEWER

Sizing procedure

Sizing involves photographing the bubbles while they slide up the sloped glass wall as
depicted in Figure 1. Pictures are taken using backlight illumination to ensure well-
focused and high contrast images. Such lighting produces a dark bubble image on a
bright background. In an air-water system, a bright spot appears in the center of the
bubbles. This is because incoherent rays near the center of the bubble are transmitted
with marginal attenuation and rays hitting near the periphery of the bubble are completely
reflected, as discussed in detail by Davis (1955). In an air-slurry system, the bright spot is
not always visible because solid particles on the surface of the bubble obstruct the light
transmitted. Figure 2 shows typical images captured by a digital CCD camera: they are as
clear in the air-slurry as in the air-water system. Calibration is necessary to calculate the
size of the bubbles. This implies determining the pixel size. Prior to bubble sizing, pixel
size determination is made by acquiring an image with a 0.1 cm division transparent ruler
placed in the focus plane. Then a certain number of pixels is counted and assigned a

[ 11UCT, University of Cape Town

length from the ruler. To measure the size of each bubble, a simple threshold is applied in
order to discriminate between bubbles and background. The area that the bubble occupies
is measured and bubble size is obtained by calculating its equivalent circle diameter (the
diameter of the circle that would have the same area as the bubble). This routine is
automatically performed for a number of images and the information is accumulated in a
database for analysis. Figure 3 shows a photograph of the bubble viewer.
Gas-liquid
Glass window interface
(focus plane)
' Chamber

/ Light
b
b

CCD b
Digital
Camera

Incoherent
Bubbles from backlighting
the dispersion
Figure 1. Schematic of the bubble viewer

Figure 2. Typical images captured. Left: air-water, right: air-slurry.

 Figure 3. Photograph of the bubble viewer.

Sampling procedure

In the version used here, a tube with a 1.27 cm inner diameter is attached to the bottom of
the viewing chamber. The chamber is filled with frother-containing water and the tube is
immersed in the dispersion. A ball valve, which is located on the tube, is opened allowing
the water to fill the tube. Once the sampling tube is filled, bubbles from the dispersion
rise through the tube into the viewing chamber for imaging.

It is essential that the collected bubbles are representative of the location of the probe in
the dispersion. Two aspects regarding the meaning of “collecting a representative
sample” are worth considering at this stage.

Volume vs. flux-based

From a volumetric standpoint, collecting a representative sample implies quantifying the

probability size distribution of the bubbles in a defined 3-D space regardless of the nature
of the motion prevailing in such a volume. From a flux viewpoint (see Figure 4),
sampling correctly implies the accurate determination of the frequency size distribution
of the bubbles crossing a characteristic area (or plane). The later appears the more
relevant in flotation (Finch et al., 1999).
 To the
chamber

I ~ t I Tubediameter

0
0
* / Sampling tube
0
0
0

Volume element

I
in the dispersion
0
0
o 0
0
o 0
0

o
0
O
0
0
O
sampling plane

Air flow rate into the volume

element (QG)

Figure 4. Conceptualization of the sampling process.

This becomes an issue for bubbles of a range in size as they move at different velocities.
Figure 5 depicts an idealized situation with large and small bubbles to illustrate the
difference between bubble size distribution defined from a volumetric and a flux
perspective. If one large and one small bubble enter the sampling tube every second then
at steady state one large and one small bubble will leave the top of the tube every second.
In the example shown in Figure 5 , the frequency distribution obtained from a flux
perspective is F(db1) = 1/2 and F(db2) = 1/2, where suffixes 1 and 2 correspond to the
small and the large bubble, respectively. From a volumetric standpoint the frequency
distribution is f(db1) = 2/3 and f(&$ = 1/3. The bubble viewer gives the volume
distribution; it would be desirable to be able to transform this to flux-based distribution.
10 d s ub2 = 20 d s
/
0

0 0

l3
0
2 0
-0
- 0
0

0
0

0
0
0-
0- 1; 0
-Inlet
plane

Volumetric Flux
prespective prespective

Figure 5. Idealized sampling tube with large and small bubbles

(ub is the bubble velocity).

Biasing against small bubbles

It should be noted that since the tube is connected to a sealed chamber, a downward
~ is induced. This downward
liquid flow in the tube (JL' 12]) with a value equal to J G [31
flow could affect the collection process if very small bubbles are present. In an extreme
condition, a small bubble with Ub less than JLT will not enter the tube. We expect this
situation in practice to be rare since bubbles usually found in flotation are beyond this
limit. For instance, JL' is expected to be less than 3 cmh, equivalent to the rise velocity of
a 0.03 cm diameter bubble compared to bubbles in flotation which typically range up

[2] JLTis the superficial liquid velocity in the sampling tube defined as JLT= QL/AT, where QL is the liquid
flow rate and AT is the cross-sectional area of the tube.
[3] JGTis the superficial gas velocity in the sampling tube defined as JGT= QG/AT, where QGis the air flow
rate and AT is the cross-sectional area of the tube.
from 0.05cm. We are designing modifications to the technique should this prove to be an
issue in some cases.

RESULTS

Images

The bubble viewer was demonstrated in plant-scale flotation machines. Figure 6 shows a
sequence of typical images captured by a CCD video camera in a Denver-100 cell (100
R3 capacity) located in a cleaner bank of a Zn flotation stage. The bubbles are clearly
visible along with, apparently, their particle load. This load appears to contribute to a
slightly irregular shape (but bubbles > 0.2 cm tend to be non-spherical anyway). Some
small bubbles appear to fully covered (the bright spot is missing). The sequence seems to
capture the motion of a bubble with an identified particle (considered an aggregate of
particles as individually we expect them to be too small to be revealed). Although not
designed for showing the nature of the captured particle load there is reason to suppose
this could be accomplished in future. Figure 7 shows the bubble size distribution derived
from this exercise based on a total of 5000 bubbles. The number average (arithmetic
mean) is given.

Effect of position in a cell on bubble size

Figure 8 shows the effect of location in the Denver-100 cell on bubble size distribution.
Smaller bubbles were near the wall, larger bubbles close to the impeller and the largest
ones half way between the center and the wall. This differs slightly from the results
obtained by Gorain et al. (1995), who found the largest bubbles close to the impeller
region.

Effect of gas rate on bubble size

The variation of arithmetic mean bubble size with air flow rate in a 50m3Don-Oliver cell
(in the scavenger bank of a circuit processing a Cu/Ni ore) is depicted in Figure 9. It can
be seen that bubble size increases as air flow rate increases.

CONCLUSIONS

The bubble viewer technique described is shown to be a straightforward way of obtaining

bubble size information in industrial-scale flotation cells. Clear images are obtained and
bubbles can be counted at a rate up to 10,000 bubbleshour. The data obtained need to be
verified against independent measurements, which will be the topic of a future
communication.
Ip
rl
Air bubble
4
t e
OS€X.U*
a 1/30 sec
I

m v
0
0
n 4

b
Q Ik

e 0

0 5/30sec

Figure 6. Sequence of typical images in an air-slurry system.

 0.5 ~ I

0.4

)r
0
0.3
c
2u
! \

p!
LL 0.2 A

-
0.1
4 Am-age
(arithmetic mean)

7 , , , , ,%: e 5

0.0 0.5 1 .o 1.5 2.0 2.5

Bubble Size (mm)

Figure 7. Bubble size distribution collected from the Denver-100 cell

0.5
I Close to the center
0.4 - Awrage
0.3 1 (Arithmetic mean)

0.2 -

0.5 1 - 1I Awrage
Hatf way

0.4 - (Arithmetic mean)

0.3
0.2

0.1

0.0

0.5
0.4

0.3
0.2

,A'
0.1

0.0 -I
I I , , , I " " '

0 1 2 3 4

Bubble Size (mm)

Figure 8. Effect of position on bubble size in the Denver-100 cell.

1.1

1.o

0.9
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Air flow rate (SCFM)

Figure 9. Effect of gas flow rate on the arithmetic mean bubble size
in a 50 m3 Dorr-Oliver cell.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for the research was initially under the Industry Chair in Mineral Processing co-
funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
Inco, Falconbridge, Cominco and Noranda and since January 2001 under an NSERC
Collaborative Research and Development grant co-sponsored by the Australian Mineral
Industry Research Association (AMIRA) representing Noranda, Inco, Cominco,
Cleveland Clifts and Phelps Dodge. The authors also appreciate the financial contribution
fiom the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) and the Direccion
General de Relaciones Intemacionales of the Mexican Government.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, C. and Feng, D. “Effect of fiothers on bubble size distributions in flotation pulp
phases and surface fioths.” Minerals Engineering, 13(lo), 2000: 1049-1057.

Chen, F., Gomez, C.O., and Finch, J.A. “Technical note: bubble size measurement in
flotation machines.” Minerals Engineering, 14(4), 200 1: 427-432.

Davis G.E. “Scattering of light by an air bubble in water.” Journal of the Optical Society
ofAmerica, 45(7), 1955: 572-581.

Deglon, D A., Egya-Mensah, D., and Franzidis, J P. “Review of hydrodynamics and gas
dispersion in flotation cells on South Afkican Platinum concentrators.” Minerals
Engineering, 13(3), 2000: 235-244.

Everson, R.C., Eyre, D., O’Connor, C.T., and Tucker, J.P. “Measurement and analysis of
small bubble size distributions.” Chemical Engineering Science, 48( 19), 1993: 3399-
3403.

Finch, J.A., Gomez, C.O., Hardie, C., Leichtle, G., Filippone, R., and Leroux, D.
“Bubble Surface Area Flux: A Parameter to Characterize Flotation Cells.” In Proc. of
the 31st Annual Operator’s Conference of the Canadian Mineral Processors, compiled
by R. May, 1999,: 200-209.

Gorain B.K., Franzidis J.P., and Manlapig E.V. “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.” MineraZs Engineering, 10(4), 1997: 367-
379.

Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.P., and Manlapig, E.V. “Studies on impeller type, impeller
speed and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell - part 1: effect of bubble size
distribution.” Minerals Engineering, 8(6), 1995: 615-635.
Heiskanen K. “On the relationships between flotation rate and bubble surface area flux.”
Minerals Engineering, 13(2), 2000: 141- 149.

Jameson, G.J. and Allum, P. “A survey of bubble sizes in industrial flotation cells.”
Report to AMAIRA Ltd (Australian Mineral Industries Research Association Limited),
1984.

O’Connor, C T., Randall, E W., and Goodall, C M. “Measurement of the effects of

physical and chemical variables on bubble size.” International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 28(1-2), 1990: 139-149.

Steinmuller, A. “Hydrodynamics of a cocurrent-downwards bubble column with gas

entrainment by a liquid jet.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1999.

Tucker, J. P. Deglon, D. A. Franzidis, J. P. Harris, M C., and O’Connor, C T.

“Evaluation of a direct method of bubble size distribution measurement in a laboratory
batch flotation cell.” MineraIs Engineering, 7(5-6), 1994: 667-680.