International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mineral Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijminpro

Effect of particles on bubble size distribution and gas hold-up in

column flotation
Ali Vazirizadeh a, Jocelyn Bouchard b,⁎, Yun Chen b
a
Mineral Processing, Hatch Ltd. Canada
b
Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, LOOP (Laboratoire d'observation et d'optimisation des procédés), Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada

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

Article history: In flotation systems, it is generally assumed that the bubble size presents an inverse correlation with the gas hold-
Received 3 June 2016 up. However, this hypothesis is not systematically true. The focus of this work is to study the effect of solid particles
Received in revised form 21 October 2016 on the bubble size distribution and gas hold-up, as well as the correlation between the bubble size distribution and
Accepted 25 October 2016
gas hold-up in column flotation. Experiments were conducted in two and three-phase systems using a laboratory
Available online 28 October 2016
flotation column (5.6 cm internal diameter, total height of 650 cm), and mixtures of quartz (hydrophilic gangue)
Keywords:
and talc (naturally hydrophobic mineral), classified in four different size fractions. For the studied flotation system,
Bubble size distribution experimental results are compared with literature correlations and models to reveal that hydrophobic particles af-
Gas hold-up fect the gas hold-up through three different mechanisms modifying the Sauter mean diameter and rise velocity,
Column flotation namely (1) surface interactions, and the joint antagonistic effect of (2) bubble loading and (3) coalescence.
Solid particles © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In flotation systems, gas dispersion plays a critical role for particle
collection (recovery) and froth mass transport (selectivity). To evaluate
this effect at the industrial scale, the bubble surface area flux (Sb) is typ-
ically estimated from the superficial gas rate (Jg) and bubble size distri-
bution (BSD) measurements, where the complete BSD is compressed
into a single value, i.e. the Sauter mean diameter (d32). However, it is
now criticized that (1) a given Sb value can be obtained from different
combinations of Jg and d32 (Vinnett et al., 2012), and (2) a given d32
value can be obtained from different BSDs (Maldonado et al., 2008b).
A better approach consists in adequately parameterizing the overall
BSD as presented by Vazirizadeh et al. (2015).
The gas hold-up is another important parameter used to character-
ize the hydrodynamic conditions of bubble column reactors (Luo et al.,
1999). It is useful because it combines the influence of both the bubble
size and gas rate. It provides a holistic indication of the hydrodynamic
conditions because it is dependent on various factors such as frother
type and concentration, cell dimensions, operating temperature and
pressure, as well as solid phase properties and concentration.
Banisi et al. (1995) observed that the presence of solid particles re-
duces the gas hold-up in a column operated under conditions relevant
to flotation. This effect increased in their experiments with solids con-
centration over the range 0–15% v/v. Hydrophilic (silica and calcite)
and hydrophobic (coal) particles produced similar reductions in the
gas hold-up. They explored four possible mechanisms responsible for
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jocelyn.bouchard@gmn.ulaval.ca (J. Bouchard).
the gas hold-up reduction in the presence of solids: (1) coalescence,
(2) a shift in the density and viscosity of the pulp, (3) a change in the ra-
dial gas hold-up and flow profiles, and (4) bubble wake effects. They
concluded that changes in gas hold-up following the addition of solids
were due to a combination of the two latter mechanisms, i.e. a change
in radial gas hold-up and flow profiles, and bubble wake effects.
Gandhi et al. (1999) investigated the hydrodynamic behavior of
slurry bubble columns at high solids concentrations, and found that
the axial distribution of slurry concentration followed the classical sed-
imentation–dispersion model. They also showed that the effect of the
gas velocity on axial solids distribution were minimal over the range
of gas velocities investigated.
To date, most of the laboratory-based research has been conducted
on gas-water (two-phase) systems. Since one cannot conclude that re-
sults in two-phase systems necessarily apply for slurries, ‘surrogate’
solids such as talc, silica and coal have been used. Although such syn-
thetic feed material are idealized/simplified compared to natural ores,
they provide important insights about the nature of three-phase sys-
tems in flotation (Kuan and Finch, 2010). Despite extensive research
on the effect of solids on gas-liquid systems, results are not conclusive
and sometimes apparently contradictory, for instance some of them
showing a reduction in the gas hold-up (Banisi et al., 1995; Kuan and
Finch, 2010), and others an increase (Yang et al., 2007).
Little is known about the physical mechanisms causing the observed
macroscopic effects. The majority of literature on the topic points to a
decrease in gas the hold-up with increasing solids concentration
(Banisi et al., 1995; Reese et al., 1996; Kuan and Finch, 2010). In other
words, the presence of solids tends to increase the rise velocity of a bub-
ble swarm.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2016.10.005
0301-7516/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
164 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173
Most of the literature focuses on the effect of solid particles on a sin-
gle hydrodynamic parameter, either the gas hold-up (Banisi et al., 1995;
Kuan and Finch, 2010) or bubble size distribution (O'Connor et al., 1990;
Gandhi et al., 1999; Grau and Heiskanen, 2005). In this paper, the effect
of solid particles is studied not only on the bubble size distribution and
gas hold-up, but also on the relationship between these two hydrody-
namic characteristics jointly. Different mechanisms introduced from
the literatures are discussed in light of experimental results.
2. Experimental set-up
Experimental data were generated using a fully automated laborato-
ry column flotation set-up depicted in Fig. 1. The column is made of
5.6 cm internal diameter acrylic tubes, and exhibits a total height of
650 cm.
A frit-and-sleeve sparger, detailed below, was located at the bottom
of the column to provide steady air flow rates through local PID control-
lers. Temperature and absolute pressure sensors were mounted at the
bottom of the column to compensate for standard condition flow rate
measurements (referred to a given temperature and pressure). A con-
ductivity-based sensor (Gomez et al., 2003), installed in the middle of
the column (350 cm from the tailings port), allowed measuring the
gas hold-up using the conductivity of both the aerated and de-aerated
slurry. Maxwell's equation relates the conductivity to the concentration
of a dispersed non-conducting phase (i.e. bubbles) in a continuous liq-
uid phase (pulp in this case) as:

cross sectional area of the gap. The water flow rate to the sparger is ma-
1−kd =kp
εg ¼
ð1Þ
1 þ 0:5kd =kp
where kd is the conductivity of the dispersed phase with air, and kp, the
conductivity of air-free dispersion (de-aerated slurry).
The column was operated under automatic control of froth-depth,
gas rate, shearwater and feed flow rate. The froth zone level was mea-
sured and controlled using a sensor exhibiting eleven conductivity
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental set-up.
cells as described by Maldonado et al. (2008a). No wash water was
used in the experiments. The air flow rate was measured and controlled
using a mass flow controller, whose readings were converted to volu-
metric flow rates at reference conditions of gas flow rate, which were
then corrected for actual (test) temperature and pressure conditions as
  
1033:23 T þ 273:15
J g ¼ J ref
g ð2Þ
1033:23 þ P 294:16
where P is the measured absolute pressure (cm H2O) at the bottom of
column, T is the temperature (°C) and Jref g is the superficial gas rate
(cm/s) at 21 °C and 1033.23 cm H2O.
The frit-and-sleeve sparger consisted of a porous stainless steel ring
concentrically installed within a cylindrical sleeve (Kracht et al., 2005).
The porous ring was 4 cm long and 2.5 cm in diameter and had a nom-
inal pore diameter of 10 μm. The cylindrical gap (annulus) between the
frit and the sleeve was 1 mm. This design allowed an external flow of
water to circulate through the gap creating the necessary shear to re-
duce the size of the bubbles generated in the device (Maldonado et al.,
2015).
This kind of sparger thus provides an additional degree-of-freedom
to control the bubble size with the water velocity, i.e. Jsl, defined such as:
Q sl
J sl ¼ ð3Þ
Agap
where Qsl is the volumetric water flow rate in the sparger, and Agap is the
nipulated by the speed of a gear pump, using a PID loop implemented in
an industrial controller.
In order to continuously monitor the bubble size, the McGill bubble
viewer (Hernandez-Aguilar et al., 2004) was adapted to the experimen-
tal column at 100 cm above feed port. The bubbles were collected via a
sampling tube – 1.5 cm in diameter and oriented downward – and di-
rected into a viewing chamber where they were exposed under lighting
conditions to be photographed. The sampling tube diameter was ~ 7
 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173
times larger than the largest observed bubble, which exceeds the gener-
ally accepted minimum opening (3 times the largest member of the
population) for particle sampling (Finch and Wills, 2015).
Parameters of the bubble size distribution – such as the Sauter mean
diameter, mean and variance at actual conditions (i.e. not corrected to
reference conditions) – were then determined by image analysis. With
this regard, the Circular Hough Transform (CHT)-based algorithm pre-
sented by Riquelme et al. (2013a, 2013b) was implemented for accurate
bubble detection (including large ones and clusters). Fig. 2a shows an
example of an original picture (24 pixels/mm) taken which contains
800 × 600 pixels. In Fig. 2b, the bubbles detected by the CHT-based
algorithm are circled in blue and marked by a red cross in the middle.
Three frames per second have been taken to ensure every picture pre-
sented an entirely ‘new’ sample of bubbles, and avoid multiple counts
of the same bubble. Each test allowed sampling populations approxi-
mately composed of 10,000 bubbles, thus ensuring a representative
distribution.
Quartz particles were used as a hydrophilic gangue
(+ 53 μm/− 150 μm) and talc, as a naturally hydrophobic mineral,
ground and classified into four size classes presented in Table 1. The
pulp fed to the column contained 4% solids assaying 40% talc and 60%
quartz.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. Example of bubble detection, (a) original image showing bubbles in a two-phase
system (b) image with detected bubbles using the CHT-based algorithm, circled in blue
and marked by a red cross in the middle.
165
Table 1
Size classes for the talc feed material.
Class 1 2 3 4
Size (μm) +53/−75 +75/−106 +106/−150 +53/−150a
a
The fourth class was prepared as a mix of equal amounts of the three other classes.
For its constant efficiency over a rather long period of time, a
polyglycol frother (F150) was selected. The superficial gas and feed ve-
locities were set at 1 cm/s for all tests. Talc, as a natural hydrophobic
mineral consumes a fraction of F150, which is adsorbed on the particle
surface (Kuan, 2009). To avoid the results being affected by this interac-
tion, samples started being taken after 1 h of column operation time,
thus ensuring constant frother efficiency over time.
All experiments were in closed circuit, i.e. the tailings and concen-
trate streams were recirculated to the feed tank. Shearwater was
drawn from the top of the feed tank through a strainer to avoid fine par-
ticles to be entrained. The test procedure consisted in preparing the
slurry feed with a given size fraction, and conducting the trials one
after the other with increasing frother concentration. The procedure
was repeated for every size fraction.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of solid particles on bubble size distribution
Fig. 3 provides the measured bubble size cumulative distribution
functions (CDF), and Fig. 4 shows the resulting bubble images as a func-
tion of solids addition in the presence of a polyglycol frother. The data at
0% solids (w/w) (i.e. the gas–water system) shows decreasing bubble
sizes (Fig. 3), and more uniform distributions (Fig. 4) with increasing
shearwater to the sparger.
The most significant impact of solids is to increase the bubble size.
This becomes apparent when introducing 4% (w/w) (40% talc and 60%
quartz) in the presence of 25 ppm F150 (i.e. above the critical coales-
cence concentration (CCC)): d32 increased from 0.72 mm to 1.35 mm
while introducing 10.1 cm/s shearwater (Jsw), and from 0.64 mm to
1.17 mm with 40.4 cm/s shearwater.
Kuan and Finch (2010) suggested that bubble coalescence in the
presence of talc was the explanation for this phenomenon. Bubble size
distribution measurements observed in the present investigation sup-
port this mechanism. For instance, Fig. 5 shows how the bubble size dis-
tribution evolves at 25 ppm F150 from (a) a narrow unimodal range in a
water-only system to (b) a widespread one following the introduction
of talc particles (4% (w/w) slurry). This result is typical of coalescence:
the coexistence of fine and coarse bubbles.
At lower frother concentration (5 ppm F150), the bubble size distri-
bution shifts from unimodal to bimodal, which suggests a coalescence-
induced break-up mechanism (Tse et al., 2003). Quinn and Finch (2012)
also reported bimodal bubble size distributions in the absence of coales-
cence inhibiting agents, probably resulting from bubble-bubble interac-
tions. Fig. 6a depicts an example of a bimodal distribution typically
resulting from coalescence-induced break-up. At 5 ppm F150, the bub-
ble size distribution shifted following the introduction of solids
(4 wt%) to the feed tank, and the volume fraction of very fine bubbles,
i.e. b0.5 mm, then increased from 2.99 % to 28.63%. Bubble images
shown in Fig. 6b confirm that the population essentially consists in
two extreme classes, i.e. very fine and large bubbles.
Dippenaar (1982) reported that hydrophobic solids can promote co-
alescence through a bridging effect of hydrophobic particles between
bubbles. In addition, coalescence could occur because the frother con-
centration decreases due to frother adsorption by talc (as a hydrophobic
solid). With this regard, Kuan and Finch (2010) proposed the following
166 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Effect of the solids percent on the bubble size distribution (CDF) at different shearwater rate (a) 0 wt%, (b) 4 wt%.

hypothesis about the adsorption of F150 by talc particles based on the
structure of the frother molecule. Talc particles, via their uncharged sur-
faces providing natural hydrophobicity, tend to attach to the bubbles.
On the other hand, the F150 molecule has two end OH groups (hydro-
philic) lying flat on the surface of the bubble to accommodate the two
hydrophilic groups (OH and H(C3H6O)). In this orientation, F150 is
possibly exposing its hydrocarbon backbone with talc attached to bub-
bles, thus inducing uptake by talc surfaces through hydrophobic
interactions.
According to the above-mentioned hypothesis, talc surfaces exposed
to bubble surfaces would play an important role on the adsorption of
frother. Frother up-taken by particles is obviously not a desirable effect

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

1mm

Fig. 4. Examples of bubble images using 25 ppm F150, and for Jg = 1 cm/s. (a) Jsw = 10.1 cm/s, 0 wt% (b) Jsw = 40.4 cm/s, 0 wt%, (c) Jsw = 10.1 cm/s, 4 wt% (d) Jsw = 40.4 cm/s, 4 wt%.
 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. Effect of the solids percent on the bubble size histogram (25 ppm F150, Jg = 1 cm/s and Jsw = 40.4 cm/s). (a) 0 wt% (b) 4 wt%.
in flotation. However, it must be taken into account in cases where a
finer grind size is considered to improve the degree of liberation, as it
will lead to a larger total surface of particles in the slurry. Similarly, in-
creasing the solids fraction in a flotation circuit, for instance to increase
the production rate, could also lead to higher frother consumption.
To check the variation of frother up-take by increasing particle total
available surface, a set of tests have been conducted. Four talc particle
size-classes (53/75 μm, 75/106 μm, 106/150 μm and 53/150 μm) were
used, each one combined with the same quartz particle size class. The
amount of both the hydrophobic and hydrophilic added solids remained
constant. For each particle class, three frother concentrations (5, 15 and
25 ppm) were applied in conjunction with three levels of shear water
rate (10.1, 20.2 and 40.4 cm/s). The shearwater rate provided an extra
degree-of-freedom for modifying the mean bubble size, particularly
for tests conducted at a constant frother concentration. Table 2 summa-
rizes the experimental plan for each particle size class.
It is worth emphasizing that neither the effective frother concentra-
tion nor the frother up-take was directly quantified in this work. The
frother concentration was simply calculated from the amount of F150
added to the volume of water. However, the proposed experimental de-
sign allowed qualifying frother up-take indirectly, and therefore charac-
terizing the effect.
Fig. 7 presents the effect of the talc particle size on the d32 at a con-
stant gas rate of 1 cm/s. Coalescence leads to an increase of both the
d32 and standard deviation of bubble size distribution. As can be seen,
the particle size does not show a systematic effect on the d32, and there-
fore, increasing the available surface of hydrophobic mineral surprising-
ly did not always promote coalescence.
It is worth mentioning with this regard that talc particles exhibit a
flattened shape, entailing that the surface area to volume ratio remains
approximately constant regardless of the particle size. This could ex-
plain why finer mineral feed apparently does not seem leading to in-
creased frother up-take and bubble coalescence.
Tests 4 to 9 in Table 2 were conducted using 15–25 ppm frother,
which is higher than the CCC of F150. Results could not reveal any signif-
icant effect of the particle size on coalescence, perhaps because of the
167
concentration of frother in the solution, which remained over the CCC.
Even for the first three tests, conducted using 5 ppm frother concentra-
tion, which is below the CCC of F150 (Finch et al., 2008), the particle size
effect could still not be observed, again most probably because the sur-
face area to volume ratio does not vary much with the particle size. A
different mineral system or experimental plan would be required to
clarify the effect of frother up-take, using for instance the solids fraction
as a factor, instead of the particle size distribution to modify the total
available hydrophobic mineral surface.
3.2. Effect of solid particles on gas hold-up
Different hypotheses have been postulated in the literature to ex-
plain the influence of hydrophobic particles on gas hold-up. The effects
would be to:
• promote bubble coalescence leading to a reduction of the gas hold-up
(Banisi et al., 1995; Kuan and Finch, 2010);
• lead to bubble break-up, which in turn increases the gas hold-up
(Yang et al., 2007);
• increase the apparent viscosity, and thus the gas hold-up (Finch and
Dobby, 1990; Banisi et al., 1995);
• increase bubble wake entrainment effects which decrease the gas
hold-up (Banisi et al., 1995);
• change the radial gas hold-up and flow profiles, thus leading to a re-
duction of the global gas hold-up (Banisi et al., 1995);
• increase the weight of bubbles once attached, and therefore increase
the gas hold-up (Tsutsumi et al., 1991; Uribe-Salas et al., 2003).
Each of these hypotheses is examined hereafter.
3.2.1. Bubble coalescence and break-up
Bubble coalescence occurs due to the bridging effect of particles
(Dippenaar, 1982) and/or adsorption of frother on the hydrophobic par-
ticle surface (Kuan and Finch, 2010). Faster rising larger bubbles thus
168 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173

0.08
two-phase water-air system
0.06

Frequency
0.04

0.02

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Bubble size (mm)

0.15

slurry system
0.1
Frequency

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Bubble size (mm)

(a)

(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Modification of the bubble size distribution following the introduction of solids (4 wt%): creation of very small and large bubbles. (b) Images showing very fine and large bubbles
generated at 4% solids due to coalescence-induced break-up (5 ppm F150, Jg = 1 cm/s, and Jsw = 10.1 cm/s).

appear in the population, leading to a reduction of the gas hold-up. The coalescence during the generation stage since the water injected to
bubble coalescence induced by solid particles could occur during the the sparger does not contain solid particles. Therefore, the observed co-
generation process or progressively along the column. alescence would occur along the collection zone.
In the present study, a frit-sleeve sparger was used. The mechanism Coalescence-induced break-up occurs as one form of coalescence
of frit-sleeve spargers does not permit particles to induce bubble mechanism in which very fine bubbles are generated along with very
large ones (Tse et al., 2003; Quinn and Finch, 2012). This mechanism de-
creases the gas hold-up, as larger/faster rising bubbles are created.
On the other hand, it was suggested that in a three-phase fluidiza-
tion system, ‘sharp’ particle edges could penetrate and break some bub-
Table 2
Summary of the experimental plan.
ble surfaces. This would cause bubble to break-up into smaller ones,
thus leading to an increase in the gas hold-up. Yang et al. (2007) report-
Test # Frother concentration (ppm) Shearwater rate (cm/s) ed this phenomenon for large particles (larger than 1 cm). The exact ef-
1 5 10.1 fect of solids on bubble break-up is still not clear though. According to
2 5 20.2 Gandhi et al. (1999), the reduction in gas hold-up caused by solids addi-
3 5 40.4
tion would lead to a reduction in the bubble break-up rate. It must be
4 15 10.1
5 15 20.2 emphasized though that their experiments were conducted at high
6 15 40.4 slurry concentration (40 vol.%), and using very high gas rate (26 cm/s)
7 25 10.1 that are outside the typical range of operation.
8 25 20.2 The coexistence of both large and small bubbles was demonstrated
9 25 40.4
above in Fig. 6. Fig. 8 now illustrates the effect of solid particles on
 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173 169

2.2
53/75 m
75/106 m
106/150 m
53/150 m
2

1.8

d 32 [mm]

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Test number

Fig. 7. The effect of the particle size on the bubble d32 at constant gas rate (1 cm/s).

bubble coalescence-induced break-up. Appendix A details the 3.2.2. Viscosity and bubble wake
corresponding hydrodynamic conditions. Results show that adding Based on the equation of Roscoe (1952), the slurry viscosity (μsl) can
solids (4% (w/w)) to the gas-water system and keeping the gas be calculated as
rate and frother concentration constant increased both the d10 and rel-
ative standard deviation of the distribution. As mentioned above, the μ sl ¼ μ l ð1−α Þ−2:5 ð4Þ
addition of hydrophobic particles thus promoted coalescence (larger
d10) and resulted in a more widespread distribution (larger relative where μl is the liquid viscosity, and α is the volume fraction of solids in
standard deviation), thus supporting the coalescence-induced break- the slurry.
up hypothesis. Increased slurry viscosity through the addition of solid particles
can stabilize the bubble wake. This, in turn leads to an increase of the

0.5
slurry system
two-phase water-air system
0.45

0.4
standard deviation [%]

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
d 10 [mm]

Fig. 8. The effect of solids on the parameters of the bubble size distribution (Jg = 1 cm/s, 25 ppm F150).
170 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173
bubble velocity, and thus a reduction of the gas hold-up (Banisi et al.,
1995).
In the present work though (4% w/w solids or α = 1.5% v/v), μsl /
μl = 1.038, and the effect of viscosity on the gas hold-up is unlikely to
be dominant. However, it should be considered for higher solids frac-
tions and with this regard, a significant effect was reported by Banisi
et al. (1995) for α N 5%.
3.2.3. Radial gas hold-up and flow profiles
Using a laboratory flotation column (4.47 m height and 10.18 cm in di-
ameter), Banisi et al. (1995) observed that the flat radial gas hold-up
in the water-gas system changes to non-uniform profiles in the slurry-
gas system (10% v/v calcite). They reported a significant difference be-
tween the distribution parameters of the gas hold-up in the gas-water
and gas-slurry systems due to a non-uniform profile using drift flux anal-
ysis. This mechanism could explain the lower gas hold-up in the slurry
system.
The radial gas hold-up was not evaluated in the current study. How-
ever, more recently Rabha et al. (2013) obtained contradictory experi-
mental results using a similar set-up (7 cm diameter and 150 cm
height), and showing that the radial gas hold-up remained flat follow-
ing the addition of 5% solids, but decreased to a lower value. The mate-
rial used was 100 μm spherical glass particle exhibiting a specific gravity
of 2500 kg/m3.
It must be emphasized that Banisi et al. (1995) applied the general
drift-flux analysis method to study the radial hold-up, which is not
very accurate compared to the ultrafast electron beam X-ray tomogra-
phy used by Rabha et al. (2013).
3.2.4. Bubble loading
The added weight following hydrophobic particle attachment is
known to reduce the bubble velocity and consequently increase the
gas hold-up (Uribe-Salas et al., 2003). In the present case, particles
of talc attached on the bubble surface and were collected at the top
of the column. Fig. 9 demonstrates how talc particles readily at-
tached to the bubble surfaces, and even accumulated over multiple
layers. The bubble loading effect can explain why the gas hold-up
was not reduced while increasing the bubble size. This is clearly
demonstrated in Table 3, which compares test results in gas-water
Fig. 9. Loaded bubbles.
Table 3
Measured gas hold-up and d32 for gas-water and gas-slurry systems (Jg = 1 cm/s,
Jsw = 40.4 cm/s, 25 ppm F150).
Particle class (μm) εg (%) d32 (mm)
Two-phase – 12.95 0.63
Three-phase 53/75 12.48 1.17
and gas-slurry systems. The slurry system reports roughly the same
gas hold-up in spite of a d32 value almost twice larger than that of
the gas-water, thus supporting the role of bubble loading on the
gas hold-up.
In addition to loading, it is possible that the bubble shape also plays a
role in the difference of rise velocity, images taken revealing that larger
bubbles tended to be less spherical than smaller ones (see Fig. 6). It is
well documented that spherical bubbles exhibit lower rise velocities
than flattened ones (Maldonado et al., 2013) at a given frother concen-
tration. In other words, the shape factor should further decrease the gas
hold-up for large d32 values, which is not corroborated by the experi-
mental results.
4. Discussion
Among the presented mechanisms, coalescence (and coales-
cence/induced break-up) and bubble loading can be used to explain
the variations of gas hold-up with the bubble size for two and three-
phase systems as depicted in Fig. 10. The first mechanism accounts
for decreasing gas hold-up and the second one, for the opposite
effect.
By manipulating the shearwater rate, different bubble size distribu-
tions can be generated while the gas rate and frother concentration re-
main constant (25 ppm F150, Jg = 1 cm/s). As can be observed in Fig. 10,
different combinations of gas hold-up and bubble sizes were thus pro-
duced. Without great surprise, increasing the bubble size reduced the
gas hold-up in the two-phase operation.
Adding solids produced coarser and more spread out bubble size dis-
tributions (see Fig. 6) due to coalescence. In most of the cases, this led to
a reduction of the gas hold-up that can be explained by the dominant ef-
fect of the bubble size on the rise velocity. It is worth mentioning that
shifting the d32 and increasing the standard deviation of the distribution
do not change the general shape of bubble size histogram, which can
still be represented by lognormal probability density function in this
case.
On the other hand, comparing the obtained results of the gas
hold-up in three-phase and two-phase systems also revealed that
in a few cases, notwithstanding coarser bubble size distributions,
the addition of solids led to higher gas hold-up values. The in-
creased weight of bubbles explains this behavior – in spite of the ef-
fect bubble shape favoring faster rise velocity for less spherical
bubbles –, i.e. the bubble rise velocity decreases as bubble loading
increases.
Results from the test conducted at different frother concentra-
tions in the presence of solids lead to the same conclusion:
coalescence and bubble–particle attachment are the main mech-
anisms explaining how the presence of solids affect the ties be-
tween the bubble size and gas hold-up. Reducing the frother
concentration below the CCC value revealed the effect of having
larger bubbles in the swarm. At the same time, decreasing the
number of bubbles due to coalescence increases bubble loading,
and thus decreases the rise velocity. Fig. 11 depicts how hydro-
phobic particles affect the correlation between the gas hold-up
and bubble size for three different frother concentrations. It is
worth noting that
 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173 171

0.25

0.2 Minimum bubble Minimum bubble

coalescence in two-phase coalescence &
0.15
maximum bubble
Frequency

0.1 loading in three-phase

0.25
0.05

0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Bubble size [mm]

0.15

Frequency
16 0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Bubble size [mm]

14

12
[%]

10
g

two-phase water-air system

slurry system
4
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
d32 [mm]

0.25

Medium bubble coalescence 0.2

& medium bubble loading in

three-phase 0.15
Frequency

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Bubble size [mm]

Fig. 10. Bubble size and gas hold-up correlation in two and three-phase system.

1) εg ranging between 6 and 11% can be obtained for d32 ~1.3 mm, and
2) d32 ranging between 1.4 and 1.9 mm can produce εg ~5.5%.
Very similar bubble size distributions – and gas hold-up – were mea-
sured at 15 and 25 ppm as in both cases the concentration is above the
CCC.
5. Conclusion
Experimental results presented in this paper allowed studying
the effect of solid particles on bubble size distribution and gas
hold-up, but also on the relationship between these two hydrody-
namic characteristics jointly. Different mechanisms introduced
172 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173

0.25

0.2
Minimum bubble
coalescence &
0.15

maximum bubble
Frequency

0.1 loading in three-phase

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Bubble size [mm]

14
25 ppm
15 ppm
5 ppm
12

0.25

Maximum bubble 0.2

10
coalescence &
0.15

medium bubble

Frequency
loading in three-phase 0.1
[%]

8 0.05
g

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Bubble size [mm]

0.25

0.2

0.15
Frequency

0.1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

0.05
d32 [mm]
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.25
Bubble size [mm]

Maximum bubble coalescence &

Medium bubble minimum bubble loading in
0.2

coalescence & medium three-phase 0.15

Frequency

bubble loading in three-

phase
0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Bubble size [mm]

Fig. 11. Bubble size and gas hold-up correlation in three-phase system for three frother concentrations.

from the literature were analyzed leading to the following 3. resulting effect: increasing the bubble size will not lead to the reduc-
conclusions: tion of the gas hold-up if the effect of the bubble loading outweighs
that of the bubble size on the rise velocity.
1. surface interactions: the effect of solid particles on the bubble size
distribution can be explained by coalescence through (1) the bridg- Characterizing the role of each one of these two mechanisms to de-
ing effect of solid particles and/or (2) the adsorption of frother by hy- termine the gas hold-up remains to be investigated.
drophobic surfaces;
2. bubble weight and volume: the effect of hydrophobic parti- Acknowledgements
cles on the gas hold-up is determined by a combination
of two antagonistic mechanisms: (1) bubble loading, which The authors acknowledge the financial support of NSERC grant # CRDPJ
reduces the rise velocity and (2) bubble coalescence, which 376316 – 2008 sponsored by COREM, Agnico-Eagle Mines – LaRonde
increases it; Division, and Glencore – Strathcona Mill (formerly Xstrata Nickel).
 A. Vazirizadeh et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 157 (2016) 163–173 173

Appendix A. Experimental hydrodynamic conditions

Table A.1 provides the hydrodynamic conditions of the tests conducted with the water-air two-phase system. Table A.1 Hydrodynamic conditions for two-phase tests.

εg (%) d32 (mm) d10 (mm) σ2 σ Sb (1/s)

9.02 0.96 0.71 0.07 0.27 62.79

9.97 0.77 0.62 0.04 0.19 78.41
10.44 0.73 0.60 0.04 0.19 82.72
10.72 0.71 0.60 0.03 0.16 84.50
11.36 0.70 0.58 0.03 0.17 85.30
11.70 0.65 0.58 0.02 0.14 91.83
12.73 0.67 0.57 0.02 0.14 89.83
12.65 0.64 0.56 0.02 0.14 93.66
12.95 0.64 0.56 0.02 0.14 94.40
12.65 0.64 0.55 0.02 0.13 93.75
13.39 0.62 0.56 0.01 0.12 97.38
14.52 0.62 0.56 0.01 0.12 97.09
15.39 0.62 0.56 0.01 0.11 96.56

Table A.2 provides the hydrodynamic conditions of the tests conducted with slurry. Table A.2 Hydrodynamic conditions for three-phase tests.

εg (%) d32 (mm) d10 (mm) σ2 σ Sb (1/s)

7.10 1.36 0.97 0.17 0.41 44.23

9.85 1.21 0.86 0.12 0.35 49.71
12.48 1.17 0.85 0.11 0.34 51.27
6.85 1.35 0.96 0.17 0.41 44.32
9.68 1.26 0.92 0.13 0.37 47.66
10.86 1.30 0.92 0.15 0.39 46.06
4.58 1.35 0.95 0.17 0.42 44.57
7.93 1.24 0.95 0.13 0.36 48.25
10.46 1.18 0.91 0.11 0.33 50.93
5.11 1.46 1.01 0.21 0.46 41.22
7.85 1.33 0.99 0.16 0.40 45.19
9.34 1.31 0.96 0.15 0.39 45.73

References
Banisi, S., Finch, J., Laplante, A., Weber, M., 1995. Effect of solid particles on gas holdup in
flotation columns—II. Investigation of mechanisms of gas holdup reduction in pres-
ence of solids. Chem. Eng. Sci. 50 (14), 2335–2342.
Dippenaar, A., 1982. Destabilization of froth by solids - 1. The mechanism of film rupture.
Int. J. Miner. Process. 9 (1), 1–14.
Finch, J., Dobby, G., 1990. Column Flotation. Pergamon Press .
Finch, J.A., Wills, B.A., 2015. Wills' Mineral Processing Technology: An Introduction to the
Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery. Butterworth-Heinemann .
Finch, J.A., Nesset, J.E., Acuna, C., 2008. Role of frother on bubble production and behaviour
in flotation. Miner. Eng. 21 (12–14), 949–957.
Gandhi, B., Prakash, A., Bergougnou, M.A., 1999. Hydrodynamic behavior of slurry bubble
column at high solids concentrations. Powder Technol. 103 (2), 80–94.
Gomez, C.O., Cortés-López, F., Finch, J.A., 2003. Industrial testing of a gas holdup sensor for
flotation systems. Miner. Eng. 16 (6), 493–501.
Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2005. Bubble size distribution in laboratory scale flotation cells.
Miner. Eng. 18 (12), 1164–1172.
Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Coleman, R.G., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2004. A comparison be-
tween capillary and imaging techniques for sizing bubbles in flotation systems.
Miner. Eng. 17 (1), 53–61.
Kracht, W., Vallebuona, G., Casali, A., 2005. Rate constant modelling for batch flotation, as
a function of gas dispersion properties. Miner. Eng. 18 (11), 1067–1076.
Kuan, S.H., 2009. The Effect of Solids on Gas Holdup, Bubble Size and Water Overflow Rate
in Flotation. M.Sc. thesis, McGill University .
Kuan, S.H., Finch, J.A., 2010. Impact of talc on pulp and froth properties in F150 and 1-
pentanol frother systems. Miner. Eng. 23 (11), 1003–1009.
Luo, X., Lee, D., Lau, R., Yang, G., Fan, L.S., 1999. Maximum stable bubble size and gas hold-
up in high-pressure slurry bubble columns. AICHE J. 45 (4), 665–680.
Maldonado, M., Desbiens, A., del Villar, R., 2008a. An update on the estimation of the froth
depth using conductivity measurements. Miner. Eng. 21 (12–14), 856–860.
Maldonado, M., Desbiens, A., del Villar, R., Girgin, E., Gomez, C., 2008b. On-line estimation
of bubble size distributions using Gaussian mixture models. V International Mineral
Processing Seminar .
Maldonado, M., Quinn, J.J., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2013. An experimental study examin-
ing the relationship between bubble shape and rise velocity. Chem. Eng. Sci. 98, 7–11.
Maldonado, M., Desbiens, A., del Villar, Poulin R., Riquelme, A., 2015. Automatic control of
bubble size in a laboratory flotation column. Int. J. Miner. Process. 141, 27–33.
O'Connor, C.T., Randall, E.W., Goodall, C.M., 1990. Measurement of the effects of physical
and chemical variables on bubble size. Int. J. Miner. Process. 28 (1–2), 139–149.
Quinn, J.J., Finch, J.A., 2012. On the origin of bi-modal bubble size distributions in the ab-
sence of frother. Miner. Eng. 36–38 (0), 237–241.
Rabha, S., Schubert, M., Wagner, M., Lucas, D., Hampel, U., 2013. Bubble size and radial gas
hold-up distributions in a slurry bubble column using ultrafast electron beam X-ray
tomography. AICHE J. 59, 1709–1722.
Reese, J., Jiang, P., Fan, L.-S., 1996. Bubble characteristics in three-phase systems used for
pulp and paper processing. Chem. Eng. Sci. 51 (10), 2501–2510.
Riquelme, A., Desbiens, A., Bouchard, J., del Villar, R., 2013a. Parameterization of bubble
size distribution in flotation columns. 16th IFAC Symposium on Automation in Min-
ing, Minerals and Metal Processing, MMM 2013a, August 25–28, 2013 San Diego, CA,
USA .
Riquelme, A., Bouchard, J., Desbiens, A., del Villar, R., 2013b. Bubble detection in flotation
columns based on circular Hough transform. 23rd World Mining Congress, August
11–15, 2013, Montréal, Canada .
Roscoe, R., 1952. The viscosity of suspensions of rigid spheres. Br. J. Appl. Phys. 3 (8), 267.
Tse, K., Martin, T., McFarlane, C., Nienow, A., 2003. Small bubble formation via a coales-
cence dependent break-up mechanism. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2), 275–286.
Tsutsumi, A., Nieh, J.-Y., Fan, L.-S., 1991. Particle wettability effects on bubble wake dy-
namics in gas-liquid-solid fluidization. Chem. Eng. Sci. 46 (9), 2381–2384.
Uribe-Salas, A., de Lira-Gomez, P., Perez-Garibay, R., Nava-Alonso, F., Magallanes-
Hernandez, L., Lara-Valenzuela, C., 2003. Overloading of gas bubbles in column flota-
tion of coarse particles and effect upon recovery. Int. J. Miner. Process. 71 (1–4),
167–178.
Vazirizadeh, A., Bouchard, J., del Villar, R., 2015. On the relationship between hydrody-
namic characteristics and the kinetics of column flotation. Part I: modeling the gas
dispersion. Miner. Eng. 74, 207–215.
Vinnett, L., Contreras, F., Yianatos, J., 2012. Gas dispersion pattern in mechanical flotation
cells. Miner. Eng. 26, 80–85.
Yang, G.Q., Du, B., Fan, L.S., 2007. Bubble formation and dynamics in gas–liquid–solid
fluidization—a review. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (1–2), 2–27.