J. Cent. South Univ.
(2014) 21: 720−727
DOI: 10.1007/s11771-014-1994-4
Bubble size as a function of some situational variables in
mechanical flotation machines
ZHANG Wei(张炜)1, 2, Jan E. Nesset2, James 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 0C5, Canada
© Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract: The specific results of the work investigating the effect of gas density and water temperature on bubble size were present.
These were surrogate variables designed to investigate the effect of viscosity (varying water temperature) and altitude (varying gas
density). The results show that there is a measurable but relatively small effect of gas density on bubble size. The D32 is revealed to
increase proportionally as (ρ0/ρg)0.132. The projected impact on flotation kinetics at 4500 m versus sea level is small, of the order of
0.5% recovery loss for a bank of eight flotation cells. The effect of water temperature (4−40 °C) on bubble size is more significant
than gas density. The relationship correlates with water viscosity values quite closely. A finding that D32 increases proportionally as
(µ/µ20)0.776 highlights the importance of accounting for viscosity effects if, for example, large process temperature fluctuations or
deviation from design/test conditions are expected.
Key words: flotation; frother; bubble size; viscosity; altitude
size measurement and modeling in flotation has been
1 Introduction limited to testing on laboratory sized equipment and
with a relatively incomplete suite of the important
In flotation, hydrophobic particles are collected and variables. As a starting point, the variables selected for
transported by bubbles from the pulp to froth zone. The this work are gas/air density and liquid viscosity.
efficiency of the process is dependent on the size of the Flotation plants operate at elevations from sea level
bubbles [1−5]. Therefore, the ability to control the to about 5000 m above sea level where the highest mines
generation of bubbles in order to produce an optimum in the world operate at altitude between 4 and 5 km
size range in flotation cells is attractive. Towards this above sea level. The Antamina Cu-Zn mine in Peru at 4.2
purpose, bubble size measurements and modelling in km and the Collahuasi Cu-Mo mine in Chile at 4.1 km
flotation cells are clearly required. There has been some are examples of large operations utilizing flotation. At
work on bubble size measurements and modelling in these elevations, the air density is approximately half that
flotation [6−8]; however, these studies have been at sea level and the question has been raised as to the
inadequate in accounting for the effect of many key impact on flotation performance [9], specifically change
variables affecting the flotation process. in bubble size and its impact on mineral recovery. If
The aim of this work is, therefore, to measure significant, altitude would therefore become an important
and model bubble size as a function of the key design variable, albeit not a manipulated one once
variables in flotation. The operating variables usually equipment is in place. However, the effect of gas density
can be considered as the ‘manipulated’ variables (e.g. on flotation has not been well studied. HALES [9]
frother concentration, gas rate, and impeller speed) reported some initial testing but bubble size
and ‘situational’ variables (e.g. water quality, gas/air measurements were not included in the work. Work by
density, and liquid viscosity). While the manipulated WILKINSON and van DIERENDONCK [10], on
variables are self-evident, the choice of the situational aerated bio-reactors at pressures from 1 to 20
variables may be less so. Previous work on bubble atmospheres using different gas mixtures to vary
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: 2012−09−14; Accepted date: 2013−01−11
Corresponding author: ZHANG Wei, PhD; Tel: +86−13521508736; E-mail: [email protected]
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727 721
density, suggested that only density but not gas type (D32) diameter calculated as follows:
impacted bubble size. Therefore, in order to simulate the in
effect of altitude, a low density gas, in this case Helium Di3
(density of 0.1786 kg/m3 at STP) mixed with air (density D32 i 1
(1)
i n
of 1.293 kg/m3) in different proportions, was used to
Di2
simulate different altitudes. i 1
Plants also operate in conditions where the pulp
2
temperatures can vary from near 0 °C to near 70 °C, and where Di 3 Dmax Dmin .
with a wide range in both particle size and solid content,
both of which will impact pulp viscosity. As a result, the
effective viscosity of the liquid/solid phase can vary
greatly. Testing for the effect of viscosity change is not
straightforward; an attempt was therefore made to
include the effect of viscosity on bubble size, by varying
water temperature between 4 and 40 °C. The plan of
work did not involve solids so the reference here to the
effect of viscosity must be strictly that resulting from
changes in water temperature. The ranges selected for all
the variables can be considered representative of
industrial practice, with some extension above and below Fig. 1 McGill bubble size analyzer (MBSA)
typical operating range for frother concentration, and
below normal for gas rate (Jg), in order to more fully The suitable vehicles for the experiments were the
define relationships. The initial work reported here was D1-Denver 5.5 L lab scale mechanical flotation machine
performed using the two phase water−gas (air) system in and mini-industrial Metso RCS 0.8 m3 pilot mechanical
the laboratory environment. Once developed, the flotation machine being used for a bubble size
approach calls for an additional stage of experimentation measurement and modeling study. These machines were
by introducing solids as well. fitted with McGill bubble size analyzers.
2 Apparatus and methods 2.2 Metso cell (simulating different viscosity)
An AutoCAD sketch of the set-up to measure
2.1 McGill bubble size analyzer bubble size is shown in Fig. 2. The nominal volume of
Bubble sizing employed the McGill bubble size the cell is 800 L, with a standard test volume of 700 L
analyzer (MBSA), a sampling-for-imaging technique being employed. The impeller diameter is 21 cm and that
[11−13]. The MBSA system (Fig. 1) comprises a of the outside diffuser is 33 cm. A feature of the design is
sampling tube attached to the bottom of a sealed viewing the baffle ring at 40 cm from the bottom of the tank
chamber. The sampling tube consists of plastic tubing (32 cm below water surface) which divides the turbulent
with a quick-connect fitting at the upper end and either a zone around the impeller from the quiescent zone above
ball valve or stopper to seal the tube prior to starting the where bubble size is determined. The cell is forced-air
measurements. The viewing chamber is made of and air supply is from a compressed air system and
machined plastic with two facing glass windows. In manipulated via a 400 LPM KMSTM mass flow meter.
order to enhance image contrast, a light diffuser is The sampling tube of the MBSA is positioned 33 cm
attached to the back window. The chamber is sloped from the central shaft (19 cm from the wall) and 52 cm
(angle of 15 °) to spread the bubbles into a single layer to from the bottom of the tank (20 cm below the water
limit overlap and provide an unambiguous plane of focus. surface). This location inside the quiescent zone has been
The viewing chamber, digital camera and light source are established previously as being both representative of the
supported on aluminum-frame tubing that makes the average air rate in the cell and giving reproducible data
device light enough to transport and mount on many [14−15]. All experiments were run under the following
types and sizes of cells. Bubbles generated in the conditions: air superficial velocity (Jg, i.e., volumetric air
flotation cell arrive at the sampling tube inlet and rise rate divided by cell cross-sectional area) 1 cm/s and
through the tube to the bubble viewer where their images impeller speed 1500 r/min (equivalent to 5.73 m/s tip
are captured by the camera linked to a computer for data speed). The cell was filled with Montreal tap water and
logging. Bubble size distributions are generated (using frother DF250 was added at 5×10−6 (CCCx of 59%,
specific software adapted by the McGill group) as a CCCx implies frother concentration achiering x% of the
number distribution and represented by the Sauter mean bubble size reduction compared to using water alone).
722 J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727
Fig. 2 Schematic CAD drawing of Metso RCSTM 0.8 m3 mechanical cell and accessories
The CCCx was set at a level where changes to D32 would
be evident.
In order to vary water temperature in the Metso cell
as a means of altering viscosity, the testing period was in
winter and a test range of 3−40 °C was possible by
varying proportions of cold and warm water and by
running the cell at the highest possible speed to generate
additional heating. A total of five test series (i.e. 32 tests)
were run to cover the full temperature range.
2.3 Denver cell (simulating different altitude)
Figure 3 shows the 5.5 L Denver flotation machine
setup with the MBSA assembly located above the
flotation cell, and the bubble sampling tube extending
down into the corner of the cell. Since there is no
Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of Denver flotation machine, cell
quiescent zone in such a small volume cell, the sampling
dimensions, gas delivery system and bubble sampling location
location represents a compromise between distance
[18]
below the froth interface and above the impeller. The
default position was half-way between the two. The
system studied was metered/controlled forced air to the
cell as opposed to the standard self-aspirated setup for
the Denver unit. Gas flow to the unit was controlled via
two mass flow meters, one for air and the other for
Helium during the variable gas density testing, simulating
the effect of altitude. Since 100% Helium corresponds to
an unrealistic, for flotation plants, elevation of 15000 m,
it is necessary to run tests across a range of air-to-Helium
ratios that more closely correspond to the elevation range Fig. 4 In-line gas mixer arrangement
of interest. Figure 4 shows the constructed in-line gas
mixer consisting of 0.9 m of stainless steel chain inside a chosen as it is typical of industrial impeller speed values
section of Tygon tubing, to ensure that both gases are [16−17], and similar to the default value for the Metso
fully mixed prior to introduction to the cell. 1600 r/min, cell at 5.73 m/s. A constant frother DF250 concentration
corresponding to an impeller tip speed of 5.86 m/s was 5×10−6 was applied and water temperature remained
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727 723
constant at about room temperature (20−22 °C). Constant change in viscosity seems to trend well with relative D32.
cell level and water temperature were maintained by It is proposed that one can reasonably conclude that
re-circulating the froth/water overflow back into the cell. viscosity is the water property most closely corrected
The superficial gas velocity value, Jg, was chosen as 0.25 with D32 with changing temperature.
and 0.3 cm/s, respectively. The experiments were carried out in the Metso
0.8 m3 RCS pilot cell. Tests were run in three
3 Results and discussion temperature ranges on separate days. Ice water was used
from 3 to 9.5 °C (water warming over time); available
Bubble size data can reveal much about the impact tap water from 7 to 30 °C (temperature rise due to the
of the operating variables in a flotation cell, such as liquid agitation by the impeller); hot water from 41 to
reagents, gas rate, gas density, and fluid viscosity. The 31.5 °C (water cooling over time). The results for D32
information can be presented as a frequency distribution and D10 are shown in Figs. 6(a) and (b), respectively.
(number, surface or volume), cumulative frequency, or Figure 6 shows that the D32 and D10 values increase
various mean diameters such as D10 and D32 already markedly below about 10 °C, followed by a slower
discussed, the latter being the measure normally used to decline at higher temperatures.
calculate surface area flux (Sb). In this work, D32 is the
primary measure used to describe the bubble size
distribution and in the calculation of Sb.
There are two portions of the experimental results
presented here: establishing the effect of viscosity by
varying the water temperature, and relating gas density to
bubble size as measured in a series of air-Helium mixture
tests designed to simulate the effect of altitude.
3.1 Temperature (viscosity)-Metso cell
Varying only viscosity without significantly
affecting many other factors that could influence bubble
size is not straightforward. The point could be argued
that other properties of water that are temperature-
dependent could impact the bubble size distribution, such
as surface tension, density or contained enthalpy. The
trends in Fig. 5 suggest that water temperature is selected
as the first situational variable to test as a large change in
viscosity occurs relative to the small changes in water
surface tension and water density across the range of
interest (4−40 °C). Inverse enthalpy appears overly
sensitive to temperature and could be a variable affecting
viscosity through molecular excitation. The relative
Fig. 6 Effect of water temperature on D32 (a) and D10 (b) at Jg=
1.0 cm/s and 5×10−6 DF250
The question then naturally arises as to how these
relationships are compared to the change in water
viscosity with temperature. Figure 7 shows the
relationship between water temperature and viscosity
(where µ is the viscosity at the temperature of interest
and µ20 is the viscosity at 20 °C). These measurements
were made using a Canon-Fenske Routine (CFR)
Fig. 5 Relative values for water of density, surface tension, viscometer. The similarity of this calibration curve with
viscosity and inverse enthalpy to their values at 20 °C as a the bubble size temperature curves of Figs. 6(a) and (b)
function of temperature is immediately obvious.
724 J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727
Table 1 Measure of precision and goodness-of-fit for
D32−viscosity model presented in Fig. 8 and Eq. (2)
Parameter Value
Residual sum of squares 0.5428
Data points, N 32
Standard deviation/mm 0.1323
t-statistic 2.039
95% confidence interval/mm ±0.270
2
R 0.888
2
RAdiusted 0.880
(i.e. >50 °C) on frother activity is not known and it could
Fig. 7 Water viscosity versus temperature [18]
well be that some effectiveness is lost due to the
volatilization.
Combining the data of Figs. 6(a) and 7, one obtains
the comparison shown in Fig. 8. Note the similarity of
3.2 Air/Helium ratio (simulating different altitude)-
the curves. As noted earlier (Fig. 5), the variations in
Denver cell
surface tension and density are very minor in comparison,
The experiments were conducted in the 5.5 L
so the inescapable conclusion must be that it is viscosity
laboratory scale Denver flotation. Although the Metso
effects that affect the change in bubble size as no other
cell was the preferred choice, for reasons of cost and
property of the water changes.
safety when using Helium in a confined space, this small
scale alternate was selected. The purpose of this test was
to explore the effect of altitude on bubble size by using
different gas densities. The assumption being the type of
gas used, in this case Helium and air, will not affect the
bubble creation process other than density. Keeping Jg
the same for the range of gas densities tested assures that
density, and by extension simulated altitude, is the factor
being tested for. Figure 9 shows that gas density (1.293
g/L under the standard conditions of temperature and
pressure, or STP) decreases significantly with increasing
elevation above sea level and this effect can be modeled
by changing the air/Helium gas ratio. For example, a
42/58 mixture of air/Helium corresponds to an elevation
Fig. 8 Effect of water temperature on viscosity and D32 for of 5000 m or a gas density of about 0.1786 g/L (at STP),
Metso cell as indicated in Fig. 9. This covers the range of interest as
the highest mines in the world would be at approximately
This observation, as seen in Fig. 8, results in the 5000 m above sea level.
following equation to characterize the D32−viscosity
relationship:
0.776
D32 1.662 ( ) (2)
20
where D32 is the Sauter mean diameter, µ is the viscosity
at the temperature of interest, and µ20 is the viscosity at
20 °C.
Table 1 indicates the measures of precision and
goodness-of-fit for Eq. (2). The results show that Eq. (1)
for D32 mirrors the viscosity change with temperature
reasonable well, however the data are flattened in the
range of 10−20 °C, contributing to the poorer overall
precision of the data fit. The effect of higher temperature Fig. 9 Elevation−gas density−Helium content relationship
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727 725
Figure 10 shows the impact on D32 as a function of Table 2 Range of air-Helium mixtures and corresponding gas
Jg for 100% air and 100% Helium. Note that the density density and attitude above sea level (dry gas assumed)
of air alone is 1.293 g/L and Helium is 0.1786 g/L at STP. Gas ratio/% Density of mixture Equivalent
From Fig. 10, the bubble size (D32) produced by Helium Air Helium (STP)/(g·L−1) altitude/km
is consistently larger than for air from the lowest
100 0 1.293 0
(0.05 cm/s) to the highest (1.7 cm/s) Jg. The data
demonstrate that there is an inverse gas density effect on 90 10 1.182 0.68
bubble size. 80 20 1,070 1.43
70 30 0.959 2.26
60 40 0.847 3.19
50 50 0.736 4.25
40 60 0.624 5.49
30 70 0.513 6.97
20 80 0.401 8.82
10 90 0.290 11.27
0 100 0.179 14.93
*Over sea level.
Fig. 10 D32 versus Jg for 100% air and 100% Helium
It is evident from Fig. 10 that at Jg from 0.5 to
1.75 cm/s, the trends are relatively flat, suggesting that Jg
has little additional influence on D32. After reflecting on
this trend, and after discussions with other users of
Denver lab cells for metallurgical testing at
SGS-Minnovex, it is felt that the practical operating
range of the unit in the forced-air mode of operation
should be below about 0.75 cm/s. Consequently,
meaningful results are only obtained for values of Jg Fig. 11 D32 as a function of gas density ratio, ρg/ρ0 (adapted
below 0.75 cm/s, i.e. 0.25 and 0.3 cm/s, during these from Ref. [18])
experiments. For this range of Jg, the relationships are
consistent and a clear response is obtained. Two tests are approximately 20% increase in D32 (from 1.05 mm to
performed at each Jg level and for six gas density 1.3 mm) as the gas density decreases across the full
combinations of air and Helium, representing 0, 20%, range tested. In practice, the maximum elevations are
40%, 60%, 80% and 100% mixtures (volumetric flow only 60% of this density-change range, so a
rate). corresponding D32 increase of the order of 12% would be
Table 2 shows the range of air-Helium mixtures, the expected.
corresponding gas density, and equivalent altitude based Figure 12 shows the (same) D32 data and model
on density. The indicated region of interest is an with equivalent altitude plotted on the main axis. The
air/Helium ratio of 40/60 and greater, representing relationship of D32 versus altitude then becomes linear,
altitudes from sea level to 5.5 km. corresponding to a +2% increase in D32 per kilometer of
The results indicating the effect on D32 of gas altitude increase. The inverse of this, a 2% decrease per
density (ρg, air-Helium mixture) relative to standard kilometer, would be the case for the chance in
conditions, defined as 100% air at one atmosphere and Sb(=6 Jg/D32) with altitude, yielding a practical maximum
20 °C (ρ0), are shown in Fig. 11. Note that the data for of 10% decrease in Sb at 5 km (simulated) altitude
100% Helium are excluded since this density is well relative to sea level.
outside any region of practical interest, corresponding to Results presented in Fig. 11 indicate an increase in
a simulated elevation in excess of 10 km. D32 with decreasing density. The data show a weak of
The effect of gas density and altitude (by inference), gas density on D32 for the density range representing sea
is not as large as expected from the review of literature, level and the D32−gas density relationship can be
however it is still evident. Based on Fig. 11, there is concluded as follows:
726 J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727
4 Conclusions
1) The effect of viscosity is established by
temperature variation of the water in the test flotation
cell, covering the range of 4−40 °C, and it is shown that
liquid viscosity has a significant impact on bubble size.
The D32 increases proportionally as (µ/µ20)0.776. A finding
highlights the importance of accounting for viscosity
effects if, for example, large process temperature
fluctuations or deviation from design/test conditions are
expected.
2) The effect of altitude (elevation above sea level)
Fig. 12 D32 as a function of simulated altitude above sea level
is simulated by varying the gas density of an air-Helium
(adapted from Ref. [18])
mixture and shows a relatively small impact of density
0 0.132 on bubble size for the practical range of altitude variation
D32 1.06 ( ) (3)
g of 0−5000 m. The D32 is revealed to increase
proportionally as (ρ0/ρg)0.132. The projected impact on
where ρ0 is the density of dry air at 20 °C and 1
flotation kinetics at 4500 m versus sea level is small, of
atmosphere at STP, and ρg is the density of gas/air under
the order of 0.5% recovery loss for a bank of eight
the conditions of temperature and pressure of interest.
flotation cells.
Of note in this relationship is the relatively weak
3) The future work is planning to confirm the D32
dependency of D32 on the gas density ratio, exponent
model in a plant environment (i.e. three-phase system)
0.132, corresponding to a 10% increase in D32 at
by running the actual situational variables such as the
simulated 5 km elevation, the maximum elevation of
altitude and liquid/bulk viscosity. Ideally, the 0.8 m3
practical interest, relative to sea-level.
The parameters describing the precision and Metso flotation unit could be used.
goodness-of-fit for the model and data of Eq. (3) are
presented in Table 3. Note that the data are 0.25− References
0.3 cm/s for Jg, however, the density ratio and exponent
[1] RAO S R, LEJA J. Surface chemistry of froth flotation [M]. 2nd
term correction should be applicable for the full range of
Edition. New York/London: Kluwer Academic Publication/Plenum
D32. The model is judged a very good fit having Publishers, 2004: 3−11.
2
an RAdjusted of 0.835 and 95% confidence interval of [2] AHMED N, JAMESON G J. The effect of bubble size on the rate of
±0.055 mm representing a relative standard deviation of flotation of fine particles [J]. International Journal of Mineral
only ±2.3%. Recall that data for 100% Helium were not Processing, 1985, 14(3): 195−215.
[3] DOBBY G S, FINCH J A. Particle collection in columns: Gas rate
included in the data-fitting analysis, being well outside
and bubble size effects [J]. Canadian Metallurgy Quarterly, 1986,
the region of interest, so the limit of applicability for
25(1): 9−13.
Eq. (3) is for density ratios of 1−0.25, well beyond the [4] ZHANG Wei, NESSET J E, FINCH J A. Water recovery and bubble
practical range of interest for the simulated effect of surface area flux in flotation [J]. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly,
elevation. 2010, 49(4): 353−362.
[5] ZHANG Wei, ZHOU X, FINCH J A. Determining independent
control of dual-frother systems – gas holdup, bubble size and water
Table 3 Measure of precision and goodness-of-fit for D32-gas
overflow rate [J]. Minerals Engineering, 2012, 39: 106−116.
density model presented in Fig. 11 and Eq. (3) [6] LIZAMA H M, CARRION J, ESTRELLA D. Improvements in
Parameter Value column flotation through the use of microcel spargers at Antamina
[C]// Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of Canadian Mineral
Residual sum of squares 0.01247
Processors (CIM). Ottawa, ON, 2008: 363−376.
Data points, N 19 [7] KRACHT W, FINCH J A. Bubble break-up and the role of frother
Standard deviation/mm 0.0263 and salt [J]. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 2009,
92(3/4): 153−161.
Relative standard deviation/mm 2.31 [8] HU Yue-hua, MENG Xiang-li, SUN Wei. A novel quantificational
t-statistic 2.101 assessment method of frothers effect on bubble characteristics [J].
Journal of Central South University of Technology, 2011, 18:
95% confidence interval/mm ±0.055
1910−1916.
2
R 0.853 [9] HALES M L. The effect of altitude on aeration of a lab model
2 Wemco smart Cell™ flotation machine [R]. Baker Process, Baker
RAdjusted 0.835
Hughes Report, 1998.
J. Cent. South Univ. (2014) 21: 720−727 727
[10] WILKINSON P M, van DIERENDONCK L. Pressure and gas [C]// Proceedings of Ninth Mill Operators’ Conference. Fremantle,
density effects on bubble break-up and gas hold-up in bubble WA, 2007: 19−21.
columns [J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 1990, 45: 2309−2315. [15] NESSET J E, ZHANG Wei, FINCH J A. A benchmarking tool for
[11] GOMEZ C O, FINCH J A. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation assessing flotation cell performance [C]// Proceedings 2012–44th
cells [J]. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 2007, 84: Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors (CIM). Ottawa,
51−58. ON, 2012: 183−209.
[12] ZHANG Wei, NESSET J E, RAO S R, FINCH J A. Characterizing [16] DEGLON D A, EGYA-MENSAH D, FRANZIDIS J P. Review of
frothers through critical coalescence concentration (CCC95)- hydrodynamics and gas dispersion in flotation cells on South African
hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) [J]. Minerals, 2012, 2(3): platinum concentrators [J]. Minerals Engineering, 2000, l13(3):
208−227. 235−244.
[13] ZHANG Wei, KOLAHDOOZAN M, NESSET J E, FINCH J A. Use [17] ARBITER N, STEININGER J. Mineral processing [M]. ROBERTS
of frother with sampling-for-imaging bubble sizing technique [J]. E. Ed. New York: Pergammon, 1965: 21−37.
Minerals Engineering, 2009, 22(5): 513−515. [18] NESSET J E. Modeling the Sauther mean bubble diameter in
[14] NESSET J E, FINCH J A, GOMEZ C O. Operating variables mechanical, forced-air flotation machines [D]. Montreal: McGill
affecting the bubble size in forced-air mechanical flotation machines University, 2011.
(Edited by YANG Bing)
