J. Cent. South Univ.

(2014) 21: 1077−1084

DOI: 10.1007/s11771-014-2039-8

Effect of some operational variables on

bubble size in a pilot-scale mechanical flotation machine

ZHANG Wei(张炜)1, 2, J.E. Nesset2, J.A. Finch2

1. Mining and Mineral Resources Division, Department of Business Administration,

Chinalco China Copper Corporation Limited, Beijing 100082, China;
2. Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A OC5, Canada
© Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract: This work aims to provide a relationship of how the key operational variables of frother type and impeller speed affect the
size of bubble (D32). The study was performed using pilot-scale equipment (0.8 m3) that is up to two orders of magnitude larger than
equipment used for studies performed to date by others, and incorporated the key process variables of frother type and impeller speed.
The results show that each frother family exhibits a unique CCC95-HLB relationship dependent on n (number of C-atoms in alkyl
group) and m (number of propylene oxide group). Empirical models were developed to predict CCC95 from HLB associated with
other two parameters α and β. The impeller speed-bubble size tests show that D32 is unaffected by increased impeller tip speed across
the range of 4.6 to 9.2 m/s (representing the industrial operating range), although D32 starts to increase below 4.6 m/s. The finding is
valid for both coalescing and non-coalescing conditions. The results suggest that the bubble size and bubble size distribution (BSD)
being created do not change with increasing impeller speed in the quiescent zone of the flotation.

Key words: flotation; bubble size; operational variables; critical coalescence concentration; hydrophile-lipophile balance; impeller
speed

almost never controlled in plants. They offered the

1 Introduction
Froth flotation is a versatile and extremely complex
physico-chemical process that has been widely used in
recovering valuable minerals. During the flotation
process, bubbles play a fundamental role and it is well
documented that the bubble size or bubble size
distribution (BSD) have a direct influence on the
flotation performance [1−3]. The importance of the
bubble size in flotation has been investigated by a
number of researchers in the 1960’s and 1970’s. REAY
and RATCLIFF [4] showed that collection efficiency of
particles by bubbles would strongly depend on the
bubble to particle size ratio. They concluded that, within
practical constraints, there was a powerful incentive to
make bubble size as small as possible. More specifically,
ANFRUNS and KITCHENER [5] demonstrated the
strong dependence of particle collection efficiency on
this ratio, and the need for small, sub-1 mm bubbles in
collecting sub-40 μm particles. In a major review of the
physical factors affecting flotation, JAMESON [6]
concluded that bubble size is an important key which is
opinion that sub-500 μm bubbles would be required to
significantly improve the collection efficiency. Although
the importance of the bubble size was established as
early as 1970’s, these studies and their outcomes might
be inadequate since the effects of many key variables
affecting the flotation process have not been fully
considered. These key variables which govern the
flotation process are classified into two general groups:
“ituational” variables (e.g., water quality, gas/air density,
pulp viscosity, etc.) and “operational” variables (e.g.,
frother type and concentration, gas rate, impeller speed,
etc.). The operational variables comprise of two aspects:
chemical-related and machine-related. In the past, the
role of operational variables has received less attention
[7−8] than situational variables, even though they are a
vital part of the flotation process. The review of literature
has highlighted that there currently exists no generally
accepted relationships and models between bubble size
and operational variables, nor is the extent to which these
relationships can be predicted from phenomenological or
more fundamental understandings of the bubble
formation processes. This research attempts to address

Foundation item: Project supported by the Collaborative Research and Development Program of NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada) with Industrial Sponsorship from Vale, Teck Cominco, Xstrata Process Support, Agnico-Eagle, Shell Canada, Barrick
Gold, COREM, SGS Lakefield Research and Flottec
Received date: 2012−10−15; Accepted date: 2013−03−25
Corresponding author: ZHANG Wei, PhD; Tel: +86−13521508736; E-mail: zhang_wei@chalco.com.cn
1078
this shortcoming, which has eluded researchers up to
now.
Frothers are heteropolar surfactants, comprising
polar and non-polar groups, which are used to promote
flotation performance through control of hydrodynamic
and froth properties [9−14]. The most commonly used
frothers fall in two main categories: Aliphatic Alcohols
(CnH2n+1OH) and Polyglycols (CnH2n+1(OC3H6)mOH)
[9−10]. The frother functions in some manner must
depend on the frother structure [9], e.g., the relative
strength of the hydrophobic to hydrophilic groups. In
each frother family, the relative strength can be modified
by changing the number of —CH2— groups (represented
by n) in the Alkyl chain in the case of Alcohols and
Polyglycols, and/or number of Propylene Oxide (PO,
represented by m) groups in the case of Polyglycols.
Varying the relative strength of the hydrophobic to
hydrophilic groups in the molecule changes its
hydrophile-lipophile balance, or HLB. The common
calculation of HLB is the Davies method where group
numbers are assigned and summed [15]. There have been
some attempts to link frother functions to HLB [9,
16−19].
Based on other researchers, GORAIN et al [20]
recognized that frother is the single most important
variable affecting bubble size. GORAIN’s work has been
seminal in that it was the first to clearly link chemical
variables such as frother type as an important variable to
bubble size, or more clearly, flotation recovery. As
frother concentration increases, the bubble size
distribution (BSD) narrows and becomes finer. The
Sauter mean size vs. frother concentration (D32−C)
relationship shows an exponential decay to a minimum
(limiting) size (DL) at a concentration characteristic of
the frother. This concentration is referred to as the critical
coalescence concentration (CCC) [16]. Noting the
difficulty in defining the end point of an exponential
function, NESSET et al [18−19] refined the estimation
by fitting a three-parameter model to the D32−C and
determining the CCC95, i.e., the concentration giving
95% size reduction in D32 relative to water alone (D0).
The CCC95 was selected as the bubble size function
parameter. In this work, the frother type-bubble size tests
were conducted on 36 frothers in three different families
and the ambition is to provide fundamental input to the
selection of frother for an optimum bubble size, such as
establishing a correlation between CCC and HLB, which
remains a largely empirical exercise.
Typically, the larger flotation machines have a
power input of 1−2 kW/m3 of cell volume, with 1 kW/m3
being the more typical for Outokumpu, Bateman, Dorr
Oliver and Metso designs. Recent reports from the South
African platinum industry suggest that metallurgical
recovery of small, sub-10 μm PGM particles can be
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084
improved with increased power input in scavenging
applications [21]. This is achieved by increasing the
impeller rotational speed: values of 5−10 kW/m3 have
been reported. Apparently effective, it is a costly way to
improve the recovery of fine particles. Plant operators
often consider the impeller rotational speed of the
flotation machine as an adjustment that can be used to
change the pumping rate of slurry, impact particle
suspension and bubble particle contact, or more
importantly, change bubble size. Recent laboratory
investigations by GRAU and HEISKANEN [1] on 50
and 70 L laboratory flotation machines in air-water,
determined that bubble size was dependent on impeller
tip speed to the power, −0.41 and −0.55 for the 50 L unit,
for an impeller tip speed range of 2 to 5 m/s. However,
similar test on the 70 L unit showed no significant
relationship, which possibly reason for the lack of a
similar dependency. It is important note that the range of
impeller tip speeds in these tests is largely below those
typically used in industrial units, 5 to 7 m/s [21]. The
literatures reveal that the relationship between impeller
speed (or power intensity) and bubble size is incomplete
and has not gained acceptance as evidenced by the
observation. It is therefore deemed as an important
variable in this work.
Based on the above discussion, knowledge of how
key operational variables affect the bubble size is seen as
an essential component of process understanding and
optimization. This work attempts to provide new insights
into the effects of chemical (frother type) and machine
(impeller speed) related operational variables on bubble
size in a mechanically agitated flotation cell. The
proposed testing will make use of a pilot-sized flotation
machine considerably larger than a standard lab unit,
approximately 0.8 to 1 m3 in volume, to limit
dimensional effects associated with smaller laboratory
cells. The ability to have a distinct separation zone above
the mixing zone around the impeller is important for
sampling the bubble size and gas rate exiting the cell
cross-sectional area. Uniformity of bubble distribution
within the larger cell is also expected to be better.
Locating the McGill Bubble Size Analyzer (MBSA)
[2−3, 22] will also be easier in the larger cell. Testing
will initially be conducted in the two-phase water-air
system and will be followed by tests using slurries in the
next stage.
2 Experimental
2.1 Apparatus and methods
The same rig as previously described in Ref. [22]
was used. It consists of a mechanical flotation cell (0.8
m3 in volume) with a McGill Bubble Size Analyzer
(MBSA) (Fig. 1). The flotation cell will be fitted with a
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084 1079
meter and a Jg device adapted for the cell.
The unit was operated with 700 L water at room
temperature (22−24 °C) with air dispersed through the
21 cm diameter at a superficial air rate Jg (volumetric air
rate divided by cell cross-sectional area) of 0.5 cm/s
(both of 0.5 and 1.0 cm/s air rates were applied in
impeller speed-bubble size tests). Bubbles were sampled
20 cm below the water surface, well above the
turbulence of the impeller–stator region. The images
were processed using in-house software to give D32.
Further details are given in Ref. [19].

Fig. 1 Metso RCSTM 0.8 m3 mechanical cell assembly and
McGill Bubble Size Analyzer (clamped on cell beams)
gas-flow meter and valve on the air intake, a transmitting
torque-meter (strain gauge) for measuring power input
on the rotor drive shaft, automatic level control, variable
speed motor, changeable rotors, and an ability to operate
in either self-aerated or forced air mode. The ability to
alter chemistry (frother type/concentration) and machine
(impeller speed) variables in a test program that
accurately establishes the effect on bubble size
distribution is primary. Bubble size distributions will be
measured using McGill’s bubble viewer technology [22].
Gas rate will be measured by both the installed flow
2.2 Reagents
The surfactants from the three frother families are
identified in Table 1 which shows the range in n and m
and corresponding range in HLB (note, Polypropylene
Glycol Ethyl Ethers (i.e., n=2) and Monopropylene
Glycol (m=1) are not available). All were reagent grade
from Aldrich-Sigma (98%−99.9% purity). Several
commercial frothers were included and are listed in
Table 2.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Reliability
Figure 2 shows Sauter mean bubble size (D32) as a
function of concentration (C) for three repeats for the
commercial frother DowFroth 250 (DF250). Replicate
tests (i.e., starting from solution preparation) were
conducted by two different operators (inter-operator)

Table 1 Frother families and range of surfactants (n, m and HLB) used in this work
Frother family Chemical structure n m HLB
alkyl group
 
Aliphatic alcohols C n H 2 n1 OH
 3−8 — 5−7.5
hydroxyl group
Propylene oxide group
 
Polypropylene glycols (PPG) H(OC 3 H 6 ) m OH
 0 3−17 7.4−9.3
hydroxyl group
Propylene oxide group
 
Polypropylene glycol alkyl C n H 2 n 1 (OC3H 6 ) OH
  m  1, 3, 4 1−7 6.5−8.3
ethers (PPGAE) hydroxyl group
alky lg roup

Table 2 Commercial frothers used in this work

Frother Family Commercial frother type Supplier n m Relative molecular mass HLB
Aliphatic alcohols FX120-01 Flottec 6 — 102 6.05
Polypropylene glycol (PPG) F150 Flottec 0 7 425 8.625
DowFroth 250 Dow Chemical 1 4 264 7.83
DowFroth 1012 Dow Chemical 1 6.7 398 7.48
Polypropylene glycol alkyl
FX160-01 Flottec 1 3.8 251 7.86
ether (PPGAE)
FX160-05 Flottec 3 2.5 207 7.11
F160 Flottec 4 2.5 217 6.63
1080
Fig. 2 Reliability: inter-operator and intra-operator replicated
experiments at same conditions for DF250
at three different times (intra-operator). The D32−C
curves were consistent and the 95% confidence interval
on the calculated CCC95 was 0.6×10−6 or 0.0024
mmol/L, which is too small to indicate on subsequent
plots. The results (Fig. 2) show high precision.
3.2 Effect of frother type and concentration (CCC95
vs. HLB)
In many flotation systems, frothers have the key
function of controlling bubble size. Consequently,
understanding and predicting their action are of interest
to modellers and plant operators alike. The approach here
was to explore a structure-function relationship. To
quantify structure, HLB was used as it encompasses the
hydrophilic-hydrophobic (amphipathic) character that
controls adsorption at the air-water interface, which
arguably is the basis for frother action. The function,
bubble size reduction, was quantified through the CCC
concept derived from the plot of Sauter mean diameter
(D32) versus concentration (C). D32 was calculated from
bubble size distribution using a sampling-for-imaging
technique and was validated in Fig. 2. The trend in Fig. 2
was seen for all frothers, illustrated in Fig. 3 for three
Fig. 3 Effect of frother addition on D32 for 3 frother types
(CCC95 is noted by the vertical dashed line)
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084
surfactants. The estimation of CCC95 from the
three-parameter model fit to the D32 vs. C data proved
the reliability based on replicated tests (Fig. 2).
Efforts along this structure-function approach by
LASKOWSKI [16] and NESSET et al [18−19] laid a
foundation. The pursuit revealed a family-based
CCC-HLB pattern, confirming the possibility entertained
by PUGH [9]. Figure 4(a) shows the CCC95-HLB
relationship for the Aliphatic Alcohols. Starting with
Propanol there is a sharp decrease in CCC95 as HLB
decreases (i.e., n increases), which levels off above 6
carbons (n=6 or C-6). Previous studies on inhibition of
bubble coalescence by Alcohols reveal a similar trend.
The concentration required decreases with increasing n
to approach a limiting value for n>6 [23−24]. For n<6,
there is an increasing isomer effect, i.e., effect of position
of the OH group, which is illustrated by comparing
Hexanol and Pentanol in Fig. 4(b). For practical purposes,
however, since such short chain Alcohols are not
employed as frothers, the isomer effect is later ignored.
The commercial frother FX120-01 is seen to fit the trend
(Fig. 4(a)).
Figure 5 shows the relationship of CCC95 vs. HLB
for the two Polyglycol families, in this case, as a function
Fig. 4 CCC95 versus HLB for aliphatic alcohols and their
isomers (1-alcohol, 2-alcohol and 3-alcohol) (a) and effect of
—OH group position on CCC95 for pentanol and hexanol
isomers (b)
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084 1081
also possible to deduce CCC95 knowing n and m, from
HLB via Eqs. (2) and (3). This approach represents a
significant step towards a structure-based prediction of
the impact of frother on bubble size in flotation machines
which was illustrated for the commercial frothers.
At present, the prediction relates directly to
mechanical flotation cells but the trends are likely
applicable to all machines. Future work may see a
relationship between CCC and machine type enabling the
present results to be generalized.

3.3 Effect of impeller speed (power intensity)

Fig. 5 CCC95 versus HLB for polyglycols as function of m
and n
of m for a given n. There is a pattern: CCC95 decreases
with increasing m in a series of parallel or self-similar
plots which trend to lower HLB with increasing n.
Although the PPGAEs and PPGs are usually considered
as separate families, the pattern suggests that they can be
treated as one. The commercial frothers are shown to fit
the pattern.
The trends in Figs. 4(a) and 5 show consistent
patterns that can be fitted to the following exponential
equation:
CCC95    exp(   HLB)
where α and β are constants that depend on the family
(i.e., n and m). Table 2 gives the values for the
polyglycols and 1-alcohols.
For polyglycols, α and β can be linked to n as
  4.74 1017  exp(3.497  n)  1.956 1019 
exp(0.001452  n)
6.985  n  4.814

1.455  n
The large database permitted development of
empirical models, which well describe the results in
Eq. (1) and Table 2 for polyglycols and 1-alcohols. It is
Of particular interest to the industry is the extent to
which bubble size can be manipulated by either chemical
means (e.g., frother change) or machine means (e.g.,
higher power intensity via rotor design or a change in
impeller rotational speed). Therefore, one goal of this
work is to investigate the effectiveness of machine means
such as increasing impeller speed in order to reduce the
bubble size.
There have been two opportunities to date to
examine the effect of increased power intensity on
bubble size. Figure 6 shows the Jg−D32 comparison
between the Lac des Iles 130 m3 Outokumpu tank cells
having 1 kW/m3, and 75 L Denver pilot cells having
approximately 3 kW/m3 of input power. The chemistry of
(1) both systems was identical so the majority of the
difference is likely due to the difference in power
intensity. An opportunity also presens itself at the South
African Impala plant where new Metso 30 m3 RCS tank
cells have just been installed on a tailings re-treatment
duty using oversized (70 m3) mechanisms. A good
comparison on similar feed with upstream Bateman
(2) 50 m3 tank cells and no additional frother added is
therefore possible during downtime of half the plant.
Figure 7 shows the comparison of bubble size versus gas
(3)
rate for the Metso unit at 3 kW/m3 versus the Bateman
cell at 1 kW/m3. In both Figs. 6 and 7, there is a clear
reduction in bubble size, seemingly due to the higher
power intensity (impeller speed). Some assumptions

Table 2 Constants in Eq. (1) for range of n and m and goodness-of-fit (precision) statistics
Precision
Family n m α β 2
Data points, N R R2Adjusted SSE RMSE
−10
1-alcohol 3−8 0 1.52×10 3.207 6 0.9815 0.9769 0.002136 0.02311
−17
Polypropylene glycol 0 2−17 4.76×10 3.951 6 0.9615 0.942 0.006069 0.04498
Polypropylene glycol
1 1−7 1.61×10−18 4.855 6 0.9745 0.9682 0.004049 0.03181
methyl ether
Polypropylene glycol
3 1−3 3.15×10−19 5.624 4 0.9937 0.9905 0.0001581 0.008891
propyl ether
Polypropylene glycol
4 1−3 9.58×10−20 6.125 4 0.9972 0.9957 3.027×10−5 0.003891
butyl ether
1082
Fig. 6 Jg−D32 relationship for Outokumpu 130 m3 cells
(1 kW/m3) and Denver 75 L pilot cells (3 kW/m3) at Lac des
Iles [18]
Fig. 7 Jg−D32 relationship for Bateman 50 m3 cells (1 kW/m3)
and Metso RCS 30 m3 cells fitted with 70 m3 mechanisms
(3 kW/m3) at Impala [18]
have been made in these comparisons [17], and clearly,
the conclusions would be strengthened by a more
controlled set of laboratory experiments measuring
power intensity at the shaft for various combinations of
impeller speed and size.
However, the above assumption cannot be
conformed by the impeller speed-bubble size tests in
pilot-scale Metso flotation cell. On the Metso unit,
impeller rotational speed is controlled via the frequency
setting (Hz) of the motor’s silicon controlled rectifier
(SCR). The specific power is determined by dividing net
power by 0.7 m3 of water in the cell. To calculate the
impeller tip speed from the motor speed, one needs the
ratio of motor sheave (0.125 m in diameter) to
mechanism sheave (0.356 m in diameter) and the
impeller diameter (0.21), as shown in Eq. (4). The range
of the SCR frequency on the unit is 30 to 80 Hz,
providing a range of impeller rotation speed from 313 to
834, equivalent to tip speed variation from 3.44 to 9.17
m/s. This range extends well-beyond the typical industry
range of 5 to 7 m/s [21]. The testing was done at 0, 2.5, 5
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084
and 10×10−5 DF250 at Jg levels of 0.5 and 1 cm/s. These
concentrations represent CCCx levels of 0, 52%, 77%
and 95%. The range was selected so as to maintain
reasonable sensitivity to bubble size change (i.e.,
avoiding very high levels of frother addition). The
purpose of this test was to explore the effect of impeller
speed on bubble size by using different concentrations
DF250 frothers.
vM  d MS 
vIT     π  dI (4)
60  DMS 
where vIT is the impeller speed, vM is the motor speed,
dMS is the motor sheave diameter, DMS is the mechanism
sheave diameter, dI is the impeller diameter.
The curves which are shown in Fig. 8 are D32 versus
impeller tip speed (i.e., power intensity) for Jg =0.5 and
1 cm/s and different frother concentrations. First, as
stated in Ref. [8], the bubble size decrease markedly
followed by increasing of the frother concentration or
decreasing of superficial gas velocity (Jg). Second, it is
evident that the conditions in the impeller region are
highly turbulent, and bubble size and BSD are unaffected
by significant changes in impeller speed (and resulting
power intensity) within the full operating region of 4.6 to
9.2 m/s. Below this, as the cell approaches its lower
operating limit, bubble size begins to increase. However,
for practical considerations, the bubble size remains
effectively constant with increasing impeller tip speed.
This suggests that the system is dominated by
coalescence issues and that there is no “breakage” of
bubbles occurring. It also means that in plants where
speeding up mechanisms (South Africa-Pt fines recovery)
has proved beneficial, the effects must be due to
particle-collection efficiency related to increase pumping
rates and kinetic energy and not bubble size or increased
bubble surface area flux (Sb).
The results may seem at odds with the researches by
GRAU and HEISKANEN [1] who have claimed that
Fig. 8 Effect of impeller tip speed on bubble size (D32) for
0.8 m3 metso pilot flotation cell [18]
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084
increased power intensity through increasing impeller
speed results in decreased bubble size. Since the
relatively smaller volume cell and no baffles were
applied in their experiments, the turbulent and quiescent
zones were not distinctly separated and the
measurements could include a portion of the bubble
population not exiting the pulp zone. In the turbulent
region, the bubble population is distinctly different and
finer compared to the quiescent region [17−18]. It is
because increasing the impeller speed increases the local
fluid velocity (i.e., the pumping rate through the impeller)
tending to trap a higher proportion of smaller bubbles in
the streamlines. This explanation offered helps sort out
why GRAU and HEISKANEN [1] found impeller
speed-bubble size dependence while we did not.
Subsequent communication with the manufacturer,
Outotec, found that they now regard that there is no
significant effect of impeller speed on D32 across the
operating range [25]. The emphasis was that the bubble
size in the quiescent zone does not change, while it does
in the turbulent region.
4 Conclusions
1) In order to explore the relationship between
frother type and concentration to bubble size, a
structure-function approach to characterize frothers is
established using hydrophile-lipophile balance (HLB) to
represent chemical structure and critical coalescence
concentration (CCC95) to represent the bubble size
reduction function. The result is a series of self-similar
CCC95-HLB trends dependent on n (number of C-atoms
in alkyl group) and m (number of Propylene Oxide
group). Commercial frothers of known family are shown
to fit the relationships. Empirical models are developed
for the polyglycols and 1-alcohols showing that CCC95
could be predicted knowing HLB, i.e., knowing frother
structure.
2) Impeller speed over the range from 4.6 to 9.2 m/s,
covering the normal operating range, has no effect on D32.
This conclusion applies across the spectrum of
coalescing (0% frother) to non-coalescing (approaching
the CCC) conditions. It reveals that increasing the
impeller speed in the typical operating range only affects
the particle-collection efficiency, not for bubble size. The
discrepancy is explained by noting that some studies
have been conducted on small-volume cells or with
bubble size measured in the highly turbulent region close
to the impeller. The Metso RCSTM cell used in this work
is of a design, and hence afforded D32 measurement, with
distinct separation of turbulent and quiescent zones.
1083
References
[1] GRAU R A, HEISKANEN K. Bubble size distribution in laboratory
scale flotation cells [J]. Minerals Engineering, 2005, 18: 1164−1172.
[2] ZHANG Wei, NESSET J E, Finch J A. Water recovery and bubble
surface area flux in flotation [J]. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly,
2010, 49(4): 353−362.
[3] KRACHT W, FINCH J A. Bubble break-up and the role of frother
and salt [J]. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 2009,
92(3/4): 153−161.
[4] REAY D, RATCLIFF G A. Removal of fine particles from water by
dispersed air flotation: Effects of bubble size and particle size on
collection efficiency [J]. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
1975, 53(10): 178−185.
[5] ANFRUNS J P, KITCHENER J A. Flotation machines [M]. New
York: SME of AIME, 1976: 625−637.
[6] JAMESON G J. New directions in flotation machine design [J].
Minerals Engineering, 2010, 23(11/12/13): 835−841.
[7] HARBORT G, SCHWARZ S. Characterisation measurements in
industrial flotation cells [C]// Flotation Plant Optimisation: A
Metallurgical Guide to Identifying and Solving Problems in Flotation
Plants. Carlton, Australia: AusIMM Publications, 2010: 95−106.
[8] NESSET J E, FINCH J A, GOMEZ C O. Operating variables
affecting the bubble size in forced-air mechanical flotation machines
[C]// Proceedings of Ninth Mill Operators’ Conference. Fremantle,
Australia: 2007: 19−21.
[9] PUGH R J. The physics and chemistry of frothers [C]// Eds.
Fuerstenau, M C, Jameson, G. and Yoon, R H, Froth Flotation: A
Century of Innovation. New York: SME Publications, 2007:
259−281.
[10] ZHANG Wei, ZHOU X, FINCH J A. Determining independent
control of dual-frother systems–gas holdup, bubble size and water
overflow rate [J]. Minerals Engineering, 2012, 39: 106−116.
[11] ZHANG Wei, ZHU S, FINCH J A. Frother partitioning in
dual-frother systems: Development of analytical technique [J].
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 2013, 119(75/76/77/78/
79/80/81/82): 75−82.
[12] CAPPUCCITTI F, FINCH J A. Development of new frothers through
hydrodynamic characterization [J]. Minerals Engineering, 2008,
21(12/13/14): 944−948.
[13] CAPPUCCITTI F, NESSET J E, FINCH J A. Frother and collector
effects on flotation cell hydrodynamics and their implication on
circuit performance [C]// Proceedings of the 48th Annual Conference
of Metallurgists of CIM, Advances in Mineral Processing Science
and Technology (Section). Sudbury, Canada: MetSoc CIM, 2009:
169−180.
[14] HU Yue-hua, MENG Xiang-li, SUN Wei. A novel quantificational
assessment method of frothers effect on bubble characteristics [J].
Journal of Central South University of Technology, 2011, 18:
1910−1916.
[15] DAVIES J T, RIDEAL E K. Interfacial phenomena [M]. New York:
Academic Press, 1961: 46−47.
[16] LASKOWSKI J S. Fundamental properties of flotation frothers [C]//
Proceeding of the 22nd International Mineral Processing Congress
(IMPC). Cape Town, South Africa, 2003: 788−797.
[17] NESSET J E. Modeling the Sauther mean bubble diameter in
mechanical, forced-air flotation machines [D]. Montreal, Canada:
McGill University, 2011.
[18] NESSET J E, ZHANG Wei, FINCH J A. A benchmarking tool for
assessing flotation cell performance [C]// Proceedings of 44th Annual
Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors (CIM). Ottawa, Canada,
2012: 183−209.
1084
[19] ZHANG Wei, NESSET J E, RAO S R, FINCH J A. Characterizing
frothers through critical coalescence concentration (CCC95)-
hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) [J]. Minerals, 2012, 2(3):
208−227.
[20] GORAIN B K, FRANZIDIS J P, MANLAPIG E V. The empirical
prediction of bubble surface area flux in mechanical flotation cells [J].
Minerals Engineering, 1999, 12(3): 309−322.
[21] DEGLON D A, EGYA-MENSAH D, FRANZIDIS J P. Review of
hydrodynamics and gas dispersion in flotation cells on South African
platinum concentrators [J]. Minerals Engineering, 2000, 13(3):
235−244.
[22] ZHANG Wei, KOLAHDOOZAN M, NESSET J E, FINCH J A. Use
of frother with sampling-for-imaging bubble Sizing Technique [J].
Minerals Engineering, 2009, 22(5): 513−515.
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 1077−1084
[23] KEITEL G, ONKEN U. Inhibition of bubble coalescence by solutes
in air/water dispersions [J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 1982,
37(11): 1635−1638.
[24] DROGARIS G, WEILAND P. Coalescence behaviour of gas bubbles
in aqueous solutions of n-alcohols and fatty acids [J]. Chemical
Engineering Science, 1983, 38(9): 1501−1506.
[25] GRONSTRAND S, NIITTI T. Flotation enters its second century
with higher intensity and bigger capacity [C]// Proceedings of
Mineral Processing Conference. Luleå, Sweden: Mineral Teknik,
2007: 1−13.
(Edited by HE Yun-bin)