Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 513–515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Technical Note

Use of frother with sampling-for-imaging bubble sizing technique

W. Zhang, M. Kolahdoozan 1, J.E. Nesset, J.A. Finch*
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 2B2

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

Article history: Measurement of bubble size in industrial flotation cells is now often accomplished using the sampling-
Received 8 August 2008 for-imaging technique. Operation calls for frother in the viewing chamber. In this communication the
Accepted 6 November 2008 impact of frother concentration in the chamber is examined. A concentration in excess of the system
Available online 23 December 2008
CCC (critical coalescence concentration) is recommended for field work.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Flotation frothers
Flotation bubbles
Flotation machines

1. Introduction 2. Apparatus and methods

Sampling-for-imaging techniques are becoming widely used
for sizing bubbles in industrial flotation systems. They employ
a sampling tube to collect and direct bubbles to a viewing cham-
ber. The recommended protocol is to add frother to the water in
the sampling/viewer assembly (chamber) to limit coalescence
(Chen et al., 2001; Hernandez-Aguilar et al., 2002; Grau and
Heiskanen, 2002). For situations where frother concentration in
the flotation cell is known (usually a laboratory environment)
the same concentration is used in the chamber. In industrial sit-
uations cell concentration is usually not known. No detail on
how much to add in those cases was given, which is the subject
of this communication.
Experimentation calls for changing frother concentration in
the chamber independent of that in the flotation cell. As water
is expelled from the chamber as bubbles accumulate a large vol-
ume cell is required. We used a 0.8 m3 cell (on loan from Metso
Minerals) as even discharging all the chamber water (ca. 5 L)
into the cell (ca. 700 L) would not materially change the cell
concentration.
A sketch of the set-up is shown in Fig. 1. We used a McGill
bubble size analyzer (MBSA)2 only the bubble sampling tube is
shown, positioned away from the turbulence of the impeller–stator
region.
The bubbles are collected (sampled) via a tube and directed into
a viewing area where they are exposed under pre-set back-lighting
conditions to be imaged using a digital camera. The sampling tube
was 0.9 m long with internal diameter 2 cm made of transparent
Plexiglas. The viewing chamber was 31.7  22.1  13.0 cm con-
structed of PVC with two facing glass windows sloped at 15° to
the vertical. The assembly had a volume of 5 L. Further details
are given in Gomez and Finch (2007).
The frother was DF250 (Dow Chemicals). The concentrations
were selected using a critical coalescence concentration (CCC) scale
determined on this cell at the superficial air rate of 0.5 cm/s em-
ployed (Table 1) (Finch et al., 2008). All the experiments were con-
ducted after allowing water to equilibrate to room temperature,
16–18 °C. The bubble size distribution (BSD) and Sauter mean
(D32) were used as metrics. Each condition was run three times
to gauge reliability; the pooled standard deviation on the Sauter
mean was 0.052 mm.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 514 398 4492.
E-mail address: jim.finch@mcgill.ca (J.A. Finch).
1
Associate Professor, School of Mining Engineering, University of Tehran: on
sabbatical at McGill University.
2
The MBSA employs a sloped window to spread bubbles into a near monolayer and
reduce the number of overlapping and out of focus bubbles; this advantage is
considered to outweigh the disadvantages associated with impacts on bubble shape
(Hernandez-Aguilar and Finch, 2005) and convection currents (Boycott Effect, e.g.
Peacock et al., 2005). Others have also adopted this style for the same reasons (Grau
and Laskowski, 2006).

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2008.11.004
514 W. Zhang et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 513–515

40
MBSA
(sampling tube)
water level 12.5 ppm

Number Frequency (%)

30
3.8 ppm
20.4 cm
0.8 ppm
20
0.8 ppm
23 cm
3.8 ppm
10
12.5 ppm
122 cm
71 cm
0
48 cm 0.1 1.0 10.0
impeller Bubble Size (mm)
stator
Fig. 3. Number frequency bubble size distribution for three chamber frother
concentration: cell concentration 5.2 ppm (CCC85).
116 cm

Fig. 1. General set-up (not to scale).

4.4 Cell CCC/ppm

0/0
Table 1 3.4
DF250 concentration on CCC scale (e.g. CCC50 means 50% reduction in bubble size D32 (mm)
relative to water) and equivalent concentration in ppm. 2.4
50/1.9
a
CCC 25 50 75 85 99 150 200
ppm 0.8 1.9 3.8 5.2 12.5 18.8 25.0 1.4 85/5.2
a
Strictly this is two times CCC99. 200/25
0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Chamber DF 250 Concentration (ppm)
3. Results
Fig. 4. Sauter mean bubble size D32 as a function of chamber frother concentration
Figs. 2 and 3 give results for cell concentration 5.2 ppm (CCC85). for cell concentrations: CCC0, 50, 85 and 200.
As chamber concentration was increased the Sauter mean (Fig. 2)
decreased from nearly 1.6 mm at zero frother to a minimum size
ca. 1.14 mm above ca. 2–4 ppm. The evolution of the bubble size 40
distribution (Fig. 3) shows a pronounced bi-modality at 0.8 ppm 18.8 ppm
chamber concentration which evolves towards a single mode at
12.8 ppm. The presence of both large and fine bubbles at chamber 5.2 ppm
Number Frequency (%)

30
concentrations <2 ppm indicates coalescence/breakage events are 3.8 ppm
5.2 ppm 3.8 ppm
occurring somewhere in the device.
Fig. 4 summarizes the D32 results for four cell concentrations. 18.8 ppm
All show similar trends: at chamber concentrations greater than 20
ca. 4 ppm the bubble size is stable at the minimum size. This con-
dition prevails up to excess chamber concentration as tested for
cell concentration 1.9 ppm (CCC50) where chamber concentration 10
is taken to 18.8 ppm (equivalent to CCC150). Fig. 5 emphasizes that

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
1.6 Bubble Size (mm)

Fig. 5. Number frequency bubble size distribution for three chamber frother
1.4 concentrations, 3.8, 5.2 and 18.8 ppm at cell concentration 1.9 ppm (CCC50).
D32 (mm)

1.2 the BSD has stabilized: the same bi-modal bubble size distribution,
typical of low cell frother concentration (Nesset et al., 2006), is pre-
1.0
served for all chamber concentrations.3

0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Chamber DF250 Concentration (ppm) 3
The bi-modality hints at Ostwald ripening, large bubbles growing at expense of
smaller ones when frother concentration is low; the current tentative explanation is
Fig. 2. Sauter mean size D32 as a function of chamber frother concentration: cell coalescence-induced bubble breakup (Finch et al., 2008), as described by Tse et al.
concentration 5.2 ppm (CCC85). (2003).
 W. Zhang et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 513–515
4. Discussion
The observations emphasize the need to add frother to the
chamber when using the sampling-for-imaging bubble sizing tech-
nique. For plant work, where the volume of flotation cell is large
and the frother concentration is usually unknown, the recommen-
dation is to use excess frother in the chamber water, above the CCC
for the system. The work here shows this does not introduce error.
In typical lab-scale cells the chamber concentration cannot be
independently manipulated without contaminating the cell con-
tents. The adopted approach has been to use the same concentra-
tion in the chamber as in the cell, which remains the
recommendation (for concentrations above ca. CCC75 this should
incur little penalty).
Coalescence/breakage can occur in the assembly if there is not
sufficient frother. From visualization experiments (Bailey et al.,
2005), coalescence of bubbles freely rising in the chamber does
not seem sufficiently frequent to account for the findings here. Sus-
picion is falling on the entrance to the sampling tube where bubble
motion can be interrupted and liquid flows disturbed.
As noted this bubble sizing method is becoming widely used in
industrial applications: as an example the MBSA was instrumental
in evaluating competing sparger systems for flotation columns at
two plants (Pyecha et al., 2005; Lizama et al., 2008). We continue
to seek best operating practices; this communication is one result.
5. Conclusion
In the sampling-for-imaging technique for bubble sizing, tested
here using the McGill bubble size analyzer, it is recommended for
plant work to use excess frother in the chamber, above the CCC for
the system.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this work is under the Chair in Mineral Processing
co-sponsored by Vale Inco, Teck Cominco, Xstrata Process Support,
515
Agnico-Eagle, Shell Canada, Barrick Gold, SGS Lakefield Research,
COREM and Flottec under the Collaborative Research and Develop-
ment program of NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Re-
search Council of Canada) and through the AMIRA International
P9N project also under the Collaborative Research and Develop-
ment program of NSERC.
References
Bailey, M., Torrealba-Vargas, J., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2005. Coalescence of
bubbles sampled for imaging. Minerals Engineering 18, 125–126.
Chen, F., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2001. Bubble size measurement in flotation
machines. Minerals Engineering 14, 427–432.
Finch, J.A., Nesset, J.E., Acuna, C., 2008. Role of frother on bubble production and
behaviour in flotation. Minerals Engineering 21, 949–957.
Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2007. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation cells.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 84, 51–58.
Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2002. Visual technique for measuring bubble size in
flotation machines. Minerals Engineering 15, 507–513.
Grau, R.A., Laskowski, J.S., 2006. Role of frothers in bubble generation and
coalescence in a mechanical flotation cell. Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering 84, 170–182.
Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2002. A technique for the direct
measurement of bubble size distribution in industrial flotation cells. In:
Proceedings 2002 – 34th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors
(CIM), Ottawa, January 22–24, pp. 389–402.
Hernandez-Aguilar, J., Finch, J.A., 2005. Validation of bubble sizes obtained with
incoherent imaging on a sloped window. Chemical Engineering Science 60,
3323–3336.
Lizama, H. M., Carrion, J., Estrella, D., 2008. Improvements in column flotation
through the use of MicrocelTM spargers at Antamina. In: Proceedings 2008 –
40th Annual Meeting of Canadian Mineral Processors (CIM), Ottawa, January
22–24, pp. 363–76.
Nesset, J.E., Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Acuña, C., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2006. Some
gas dispersion characteristics of mechanical flotation machines. Minerals
Engineering 19, 807–815.
Peacock, T., Blanchette, F., Bush, J.W.M., 2005. The stratified Boycott effect. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics 529, 33–49.
Pyecha, J., Sims, S., Lacouture, B., hope, G., Stradling, A., 2005. Evaluation of a
Microcel sparger in the Red Dog column flotation cells. In: CD of Proceedings of
Centenary of Flotation Symposium, Brisbane, June 2–5, pp. 1017–1025.
Tse, K.L., Martin, T., McFarlane, C.M., Nienow, A.W., 2003. Small bubble formation
via a coalescence dependent break-up mechanism. Chemical Engineering
Science 58, 275–286.