Minerals .Engincering. Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.
427-432, 2001
Pergamen 0 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ud
All rights reserved
08924875(01)ooo2%1 0892-6875/016 - see front matter
TECHNICAL NOTE
BUBBLE SIZE MEASUREMENT IN FLOTATION MACHINES
F. CHEN, C.O. GOMEZ and J.A. FINCH
Dept. of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, McGill University, 3610 University St, Montreal, Quebec,
H3A 2B2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
(Received I7 October 2000; accepted I February 2001)
ABSTRACT
A direct bubble size measurement technique which employs a device to collect and expose bubbles
has been revived. Rising bubbles are collected into a vertical tubefilled with water and directed to a
flat viewing chamber at the top for imaging. The dimensions of the device were selected to make the
unit suitable for use in industrial mechanical flotation cells and columns. The bubble images,
collected using a video camera, are manually processed off-line in the version described here.
Operational details as well as practical limitations of the technique are illustrated though
measurements completed in two banks of four pilot-scale Denver cells processing a sulphide ore. 0
2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Flotation bubbles, flotation machines.
INTRODUCTION
Bubble size has a profound effect on flotation efficiency. Bubble size measurement has been investigated
for decades using a wide variety of techniques and approaches. Some methods for the size range typically
found in flotation (0.5 to 1.5 mm) include: measuring bubble frequency and total bubble volume collected
in a graduated burette (Kumar and Kuloor, 1970); using conductivity probes (Lewis et al., 1984; Barigou
and Greaves, 1996; Svendsen et al., 1998), or fiber optics (Saberi et al., 1995; Meernik and Yuen, 1988a,
1988b) to measure bubble velocity and intercepted chord; methods based on measuring the length of the
equivalent volume cylinder formed when the ‘bubble is drawn into a capillary of known inside diameter
(Randal et al., 1989; O’Connor et al., 1990; Barigou and Greaves, 1992, 1996; Tucker et al., 1994; Biswal
et al., 1994); by calculation from gas rate and gas holdup measurements using equations derived from drift
flux analysis (Dobby et al., 1988; Banisi and Finch, 1994); by analysis of images collected using
photographic (Jameson and Allum 1984; Yoon and Luttrell, 1986; Varley, 1995; Parthasarathy and Ahmed,
1996; Lage and Esposito, 1999) or video (Pamperin and Rath, 1995; Malysa et al., 1999; Zhou et al., 2000)
cameras.
Most of these techniques have been demonstrated in laboratory installations only. Currently, to our
knowledge, only the UCT method (Randal et al., 1989; O’Connor et al., 1990; Tucker et al., 1994) and the
drift flux calculation approach have been developed to produce devices capable of performing in industrial
flotation installations. As both methods have some drawbacks, for example segregation during bubble
suctioning in the case of the UCT technique or deciding the value of pulp viscosity and density of bubble-
particle aggregate in the drift flux calculation, a technique to be used as a standard is necessary. The
photographic method is considered the most credible provided that the bubbles imaged are representative of
427
428 F. Chen et ai
the bubble population. Based on an approach first described by Jameson and Allum (1984) a device
(referred to as “bubble viewer”) was built to collect and present bubbles for imaging. The same approach
has been used for sizing bubbles in coal flotation (Yoon and Luttrell, 1986) and recently for the
visualization of bubble-particle (Zhou et al., 2000) and bubble-bitumen aggregates (Malysa et al., 1999).
The description and illustration of the use of this device is the purpose of this communication.
EQUIPMENT
Bubble viewer
The bubble viewer used in this work consisted of a viewing chamber made of clear acrylic and a collection
tube made of PVC (Figure 1). The viewing chamber (0.16 m wide, 0.20 m high and 0.01 m deep) was
mounted on the top of a horizontal piece of 2-inch PVC tube. Also mounted at the center bottom of this
horizontal tube was a l-inch female PVC socket to connect the collection tube. Three tubes 0.8 m long,
each with a l-inch male PVC socket at its top, and with inside diameters 0.015 m (% inch nominal), 0.022
m (3/4inch nominal) and 0.028 (1 inch nominal) were available. The top of the viewing chamber was closed
with a screw-attached PVC plate which can be removed to allow cleaning between runs when slurries are
sampled.
FRoNTvIEw SIDE VIEW
Removable PVC plate
ml’ Viewina chamber
’ PVC socket (1”)
I ’ Collection tube
Fig. 1 Schematic of bubble viewer.
A wire of a known diameter was installed diagonally across the viewing area at its central plane to facilitate
focusing of the camera, and to provide a reference for bubble sizing. Contrast between the bubbles and the
background was enhanced by using a piece of black cardboard behind the viewing chamber during image
collection.
Imaging equipment
Bubble images were collected using a high speed video recorder (model CCD-V801, Sony Co.). Shutter
speeds between l/500 to 11600 of a second were normally used. Two 500-watt lights were used to
Bubble size measurement in flotation machines 429
illuminate the viewing area from the front. Selected images on the videotape were stored in a computer and
printed for analysis (Figure 2). The printed images were exposed to a stereo-microscope camera (Olympus,
model SZ-PT) integrated to an image analysis system (Leco, model 2005) where bubble sizes were
manually determined.
Fig.2 Typical bubble image collected with video camera.
Operation
The bubble collector was assembled by screwing the PVC plate to the top of the viewing chamber and
attaching the selected collection tube. The unit was then completely tilled with water containing frother
whiie resting up side down. The camera was focused at this time. Closing the bottom of the tube with a
finger the unit was moved to the selected sampling point and quickly returned to its vertical working
position and introduced into the cell. After some large air bubbles rose through the device (collected as the
tube descended through the froth) a steady flow of rising bubbles was established. The air accumulates at
the top of the viewing chamber. The liquid within the bubble viewer becomes cloudy as the particles
carried by the bubbles are released when the bubbles burst as they leave the liquid phase. The liquid
remained clear for imaging purposes for up to 1 minute.
ILLUSTRATION OF USE: PILOT-SCALE MECHANICAL CELLS
The device was demonstrated on pilot-scale Denver cells processing a sulphide ore. Two banks of four cells
were sampled, one bank used as a rougher (each cell with average cross sectional area 20.7 dm’ and
volume 82.6 L), the second as a scavenger (each cell with cross sectional area 17.8 dm’ and volume 67.0
L). The cells were provided with rotating paddles to remove the concentrate. The most convenient location
to install the device was close to the wall along the bank centerline, with the bottom end of the collection
tube at a depth of about 0.15 m from the cell lip. After a few trials, the %-inch tube was selected because a
satisfactory number of bubbles in a single frame was obtained (“satisfactory” means a compromise between
having too many bubbles causing overlap and having too few that many frames have to be counted).
Imaging settings resulted in a field of view of 0.047 m by 0.032 m for image collection and a square of
0.012 m side for image processing.
430 F. Chen et al.
To illustrate the results two Figures are included: Figure 3 compares bubble sizes (Sauter mean diameter)
obtained in the rougher and scavenger cells; and Figure 4 compares size distributions obtained in the four
rougher cells (based on 200 bubbles per cell). As the purpose of this communication is to introduce the
device rather than discuss results obtained in its use no further analysis will be attempted.
_.................^. _._..._...”
.“_.._.... ..._...............................”
................__.........................................................
..”._...._.._......,....~...._..............,......,”
................-...............................................-. .._..___..._.
__......____...._____._,
Sunnpr alla
\
...._ b_
_......_.................... ......._......_.
,..................,........................
.._.........~~~~~~~~~~
I
I I I ,
0.0 I I
0 1 2 3 4 5
CEUNUMB~
Fig.3 Bubble sizes (Sauter mean diameter) obtained in rougher and scavenger cells.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The technique was simple to use and worked well with slurries. The results demonstrated that the device
has the potential to be the standard technique for sizing bubbles in industrial flotation equipment. It will be
essential that the device ensures the bubbles sampled and imaged are representative of the bubble
population in the flotation machine (e.g., no bubble is excluded because of its size and segregation as
bubbles rise and spread in the viewing chamber is accounted for).
There are also a number of hardware areas to improve:
1) Imaging equipment, to enlarge bubbles into digitized images.
2) Image analysis program, to automate bubble counting and sizing.
3) Illumination, to increase contrast between bubbles and background.
4) Viewing chamber, to minimize bubble overlap, to facilitate cleaning and preparation between
runs, and to increase the fraction of bubbles that stay in focus.
Bubble size measure.ment in flotation machines 431
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Into, Cominco, Noranda, Falconbridge, and the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for funding under the NSERC Collaborative Research
and Development Program. Special recognition is also extended to Dr. Donald Leroux from Noranda
Technology Centre for his invitation to test the technique during pilot-plant trials at Lakefield Research.
The work formed part of a presentation at Flotation 2000, Adelaide, March 29-3 1,200O.
80
[-iiiG-q
_..._..__.......,
_ .._._.. ._.. .. ._ .._.._.._..........
_ ...._ ............_...._..................................
_......_.,.......,..................._........................................_..
__
M
40 ..._....._......._......._.”
...__..
“.““... ....................................................................................................-...
20 __”.....”._....._._...._C_...
“”.. ....” ..... . ....... ._.... . ..^.. ...... ... . .-.. ... . .
0
So
piiq
60 _ - . ...”......_................_..............._.”
....__..........._......_..............”
...._........
- ............- _..._..........._....
- ....- .. - .. .._......._
-_.-...._.L.._.
40 ._._.....
^.. . .._.- ...”._... -.“- -.... __... .”.__,.._..._.”
..._...._.......”
..........._..
“”._.,..__....._.-.._-....-..
20 .._........._._.,....._........_.......”
..._” .._...-.......-...................................-..............
- -...
0
00 ,
I
60
40 ........._ . ._.........__....“”.. . ._. ._. .. _._...
_.. ....”._.._......,..._.........,.....................................................................
20 _..”.....”....................._...._.-...-.... “... .. . . . . . .. . . -. ...-. . .. . . ........ . .
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
BUBBLE DIAMETER, mm
Fig.4 Bubble size distributions obtained in the four rougher cells.
REFERENCES
Banisi, S. and Finch, J.A., Reconciliation of bubble size estimation methods using drift flux analysis,
Minerals Engineering, 1994,7(12), 1555-1559.
432 F. Chen et (11.
Barigou, M., and Greaves, M., A capillary suction probe for bubble size measurement, Meas. Sci. Technol.,
1991,2,318-326.
Barigou, M., and Greaves, M., Bubble-size distributions in a mechanically agitated gas-liquid contactor,
Chemical Engineering Science, 1992,47(8), 2009-2025.
Barigou, M., and Greaves, M., Gas holdup and interfacial area distributions in a mechanically agitated gas-
liquid contactor, Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineering, 1996,74(A), 397-405.
Biswal, SK., Reddy, P.S.R., and Bhaumik, SK., Bubble size distribution in a flotation column, Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1994,72,148-152.
Dobby, G.S., Yianatos, J.B., and Finch, J.A., Estimation of bubble diameter in flotation columns from drift
flux analysis, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, 1988,27(2), 85-90.
Jameson, G.3. and Allum, P., A survey of bubble sizes in industrial flotation cells, Report to AMIRA Ltd.
(Australian Mineral Industries Research Association Limited), 1984.
Kumar, R. and Kuloor, N. R., The formation of bubbles and drops. In Advances in Chemical Engineering,
Ed. T. B. Drew and C. R. Cokelet, Academic Press, New York, 1970, Volume 8, pp. 255-368.
Lage, P.L.C., and Esposito, R.O., Experimental determination of bubble size distributions in bubble
columns: prediction of mean bubble diameter and gas hold up, Powder Technology, 1999,101,142-150.
Lewis, D. A., Nicole, R. S. and Thompson, J. W., Measurement of bubble sizes and velocities in gas-liquid
dispersions, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 1984,62,334-336.
Malysa, K., Ng, S., Cymbalisty, L., Czarnecki, J, and Masliyah, J., A method of visualization and
characterization of aggregate flow inside a separation vessel, Part 1. Size, shape and rise velocity of the
aggregates, International Journal of Mineral Processing, 1999,55, 171-188.
Meernik, P.R. and Yuen, MC., An optical method for determining bubble size distributions-Part I:
Theory. Journal of Fluid Engineering, 1988a, 110,325-33 1.
Meernik, P.R. and Yuen, M.C., An optical method for determining bubble size distributions-Part II:
Application to bubble size measurement in a three-phase fluidized bed, Journal of Fluid Engineering,
1988b, 110,332-338.
O’Connor, C.T., Randall, E.W. and Goodall, C.M., Measurement of the effects of physical and chemical
variables on bubble size, International Journal of Mineral Processing, 1990,28, 139-149.
Pamperin, 0. and Rath, H.J., Influence of buoyancy on bubble formation at submerged orifices, Chemical
Engineering Science, 1995,.50(19), 3009-3024.
Parthasarathy, R., and Ahmed, N., Size distribution of bubbles generated by fine-pore spargers, Journal of
Chemical Engineering of Japan, 1996,29(6), 1030-1034.
Randall, E.W., Goodall, C.M., Fairlamb, P.M., Dold, P.L., and O’Connor, C.T., A method for measuring
the sizes of bubbles in two- and three-phase systems, 1989, Journal of Physics, Section E, Scientific
Instrumentation, 22,827-833.
Saberi, S., Shakourzadeh, K., Bastoul, D., and Militzer, D., Bubble size and velocity measurement in gas-
liquid systems: application of fiber optic technique to pilot plant scale, Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, 1995,73,253-257.
Svendsen, H.F., He’an L., Hjarbo, K.W., and Jacobsen, H.A., Experimental determination and modeling of
bubble size distributions in bubble columns, Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1998,6(l), 29-
41.
Tucker, J.P., Deglon, D.A., Franzidis, J.P., Harris, M.C. and O’Connor, C.T., An evaluation of a direct
method of bubble size distribution measurement in a laboratory batch flotation cell, Minerals
Engineering, 1994,7(5-6), 667-680.
Varley, J., Submerged gas-liquid jets: bubble size prediction, Chemical Engineering Science, 1995, 50(5),
901-905.
Yoon, R,H, and Luttrell, G.H., The effect of bubble size on fine coal flotation, Coal Preparation, 1986, 2,
179-192.
Zhou, Z.A., Xu, Z., Masliyah, J., Kasongo, T., Christendat, D., Hyland, K., Kizor, T., and Cox, D.,
Application of on-line visualization to flotation systems. In Proc. of the 32”’ Annual Operator’s
Conference of the Canadian Mineral Processors, compiled by M. Tagami, Canadian Mineral
Processors, 2000, pp.120-137.
Correspondence on papers published in Minerals Engineering is invited by e-mail to
bwills@min-engcom
