Separation Science and Technology

ISSN: 0149-6395 (Print) 1520-5754 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsst20

Effect of frothers on removal of unburned carbon

from coal-fired power plant fly ash by froth
flotation

Maoyan An, Yinfei Liao, Yifan Zhao, Xiaoheng Li, Qingteng Lai, Zechen Liu &
Yucheng He

To cite this article: Maoyan An, Yinfei Liao, Yifan Zhao, Xiaoheng Li, Qingteng Lai, Zechen
Liu & Yucheng He (2018) Effect of frothers on removal of unburned carbon from coal-fired
power plant fly ash by froth flotation, Separation Science and Technology, 53:3, 535-543, DOI:
10.1080/01496395.2017.1392575

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2017.1392575

Accepted author version posted online: 16

Oct 2017.
Published online: 16 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 63

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lsst20
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2018, VOL. 53, NO. 3, 535–543
https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2017.1392575

Effect of frothers on removal of unburned carbon from coal-fired power plant fly
ash by froth flotation
Maoyan Ana, Yinfei Liaob, Yifan Zhaoa, Xiaoheng Lia, Qingteng Laia, Zechen Liua, and Yucheng Hea
a
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou Jiangsu, P.R. China; bNational
Engineering Research Center of Coal Preparation and Purification, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou Jiangsu, P.R. China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The effect of single frothers and their blends on bubble size, froth stability, and unburned carbon Received 4 February 2017
(UC) flotation performance was studied. Methyl isobutyl carbinol that produces smaller bubbles is Accepted 11 October 2017
efficient in floating ultrafine particles and producing concentrate. DF-250 that gives higher froth KEYWORDS
stability is effective for recovering coarse particles and improving recovery. The presence of DF- Bubble size; flotation;
250 in the blend increases bubble size and significantly enhances froth stability, and hence the frother; frother blend; froth
optimal flotation performance is achieved with 75% DF-250. It indicates that the frother giving stability
high froth stability is better in UC flotation due to the little effect of UC on froth stability.

Introduction aromatic) which have –OH groups. A commonly

used frother in this group is methyl isobutyl carbinol
In 2012, 400 million tons of coal fly ash was approxi-
(MIBC). The second group, which is similar to pine
mately produced in coal-fired plant for electricity gen-
oil having limited applications, is alkoxy-substituted
eration in China, and the ash amount is expected to
paraffins such as triethoxy butane.[11] The third
reach 800 million tons in 2020. Ash from the combus-
group is polyglycol frothers which are synthetic
tion of coal is one of the major industrial by-products
reagents consisting of polyethylene oxide, polypropy-
used as an admixture in cement concrete.[1] However,
lene oxide, and polybutylene oxide types.[12] It is
the presence of the unburned carbon (UC) in fly ash
acknowledged that alcohols yield a small bubble size
limits its application on a large scale as building
and polyglycols exhibit good frothing property.[12,13]
materials.[2,3] In order to produce ash materials with
It is expected that the combination of different
stable property and adequate quantity, removal of UC
frother types at different concentrations may result
from fly ash is necessary and froth flotation is believed
in a better frother property and hence floatation
to be an efficient approach for the separation.[4–6]
performance. This is evidenced by recent studies
Froth flotation, introduced over a century ago, is
which showed that there has been a shift from the
widely used for particle separation in the minerals indus-
use of a single frother to frother blends in flotation as
try. Flotation process requires the addition of various
frother blends were more effective in improving flo-
flotation reagents to facilitate separation. In flotation,
tation performance.[12–15] To date, however, little
frothers are used to enable air to disperse into fine bubbles
research has been undertaken to understand the
as well to stabilize the froth. The effect of frothers on
effect of frother blends.
bubble size results from their ability to prevent bubble
Compared to the flotation of conventional ores,
coalescence.[7] In the latter, froth stability is mainly
there are still some technical problems in removing
dependent on frother (type and concentration) and nat-
UC from fly ash, such as the poor flotability of UC
ure of the particles loading on the bubbles, in particular,
and the weak, dry froth.[16–18] To select an appropriate
particles hydrophobicity and size.[8,9]
frother for UC flotation is therefore particularly impor-
Various frothers of different chemical structures
tant. In this study, bubble size and froth stability were
are used in flotation. Based on chemical structure,
measured using MIBC, polyglycol ether (DF-250), and
frothers are classified into three main groups.[10] The
their blends of different composition. These frother
first group is the alcohols (aliphatic, cyclic, and

CONTACT Yinfei Liao ruiyin@126.com National Engineering Research Center of Coal Preparation and Purification, China University of Mining and
Technology, No.1 University Road, Xuzhou 221116,Jiangsu, PR China.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lsst.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
536 M. AN ET AL.

characteristics were used to identify the mechanism by Table 2. Particle size and LOI analysis of the sample.
which these frothers affected UC flotation. Size fraction (μm) Weight (%) LOI (%) Distribution of UC (%)
+300 1.33 42.66 3.03
−300 + 125 4.29 33.18 7.60
−125 + 74 22.21 30.08 35.68
Experimental −74 + 45 20.53 19.69 21.59
−45 51.64 11.63 32.09
Total 100.00 18.72 100.00
Materials
Fly ash sample
The fly ash sample used in the study was collected from residue was allowed to cool down in a desiccator and
a coal-fired power plant in Yangcheng, China. Table 1 was weighed. LOI % was calculated using Equation (1):
shows the chemical composition of the fly ash deter-
mined by X-ray fluorescence, and SiO2 and Al2O3 were LOI ð%Þ ¼ ðM0  M1 Þ=M0  100 (1)
found to be the major components of this fly ash.
Figure 1 shows the main mineral phases in the sample where M0 is the weight of the unbaked fly ash and
using X-ray diffraction. As can be seen, quartz and crucible, and M1 is the weight of the baked fly ash
mullite are two major minerals in the fly ash samples. and crucible.
The UC in the fly ash and the flotation products Table 2 shows the results of UC content in each size
were analyzed using Loss On Ignition (LOI) method fraction from −45 μm to +300 μm obtained from wet
which can be found elsewhere.[5,6] LOI analyses were sieving. Approximately 95% of the raw fly ash was below
done with moisture-free fly ash samples, dried in a 125 μm. UC content was found to decrease with decreasing
laboratory furnace. An amount of 1 g of this represen- particle size. In the particle size fraction of +300 μm, LOI
tative in a ceramic crucible was kept at 815°C for was 42.66%, while LOI in the size fraction of −45 μm was
3 hours in a laboratory furnace. After heating, the 11.63%, which was lower than that in the as-received fly
ash. Although this fraction had the highest weight distribu-
tion (51.64%), it contained less than 33% of the UC.
Table 1. Chemical composition and UC content
(LOI) of the sample.
Element Amount (%)
Na2O 0.476 Table 3. List of tested frothers.
MgO 0.421
K2O 0.839 Chemical Molecular Weight fraction
TiO2 1.07 Frother formula weight (g/mol) MIBC DF-250
S 0.382
Fe2O3 4.976 MIBC (CH3)2CHCH2CH 102.17 1.00 0.00
CaO 3.11 (OH)CH3
CO3 14.00 DF-250 CH3(PO)4OH 264.37 0.00 1.00
Al2O3 29.49 Blend 1 - - 0.75 0.25
SiO2 39.95 Blend 2 - - 0.25 0.75
LOI 18.56 *(PO) is an abbreviation for (–OC3H6–).

800
Diffraction intensity (pulses per second)

700
M: Mullite
600 Q: Quartz
M
Me: Merwinite
500

Q
400 M
M
Q Me M
300
M
M
M M
200 M M M

100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Diffraction angle (degrees)

Figure 1. X-ray diffraction (XRD) results of the fly ash sample.


Reagents
Table 3 lists the frothers used in the study. MIBC,
DF-250, and their blends of different composition
were used for experiments. Diesel oil was used as
collector.
Methods
Surface tension measurement
The surface tension measurements were performed
with a Kruss Digital Tensiometer K100 coupled with a
Du Nouy ring method. Surface tensions were measured
for different concentrations of frother aqueous solu-
tions at normal pH at a room temperature of 25°C.
Bubble size measurements
An experimental setup was designed for the bubble size
measurement, as shown in Figure 2. The experimental
setup is composed of a 1.5-L flotation cell, a bubble
viewer, a Charge Coupled Devices (CCD) camera, and
a lamp. The bubble viewer consists of a sampling tube
attached to a viewing chamber.[11,19,20] The sampling
tube was first closed and filled with the same solution
as present in the cell. Then the sampling tube was
immersed below the froth to the middle of the cell.
After opening the valve, bubbles rise into the sampling
tube and enter the viewing chamber where they spread
into a near single plane after contact with the inclined
window. The bubble images in the viewing chamber
Figure 2. Experimental setup for bubble size measurement: 1.
Flotation cell; 2. bubble viewer; 3. CCD camera; 4. lamp.
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 537
were captured using a CCD camera, which was con-
nected to a personal computer where the visual infor-
mation was stored and processed. The images were
analyzed off-line using image software. In this study,
bubble images of the frothers used were captured and
analyzed in gas–liquid two phases at different frother
concentrations of 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, and 100
ppm, respectively. The impeller speed was 1800 rpm
and the air flow rate was 2 L/min. All bubble size
measurements were conducted at the room tempera-
ture. Three runs were carried out for each concentra-
tion of tested frothers, and the average was reported.
The calculated relative mean error of the three runs was
within 5%.
Froth stability measurements
A modified flotation cell, which was proposed by
Barbian et al.,[21] was used to measure dynamic froth
stability (refer to Figure 3). The cell was twice the
height of the original flotation cell that was used for
the flotation experiments. One side of the cell was made
up of weir bars, each about 5 cm high. These bars could
be removed or replaced for the adjustment of the over-
flow weir heights. The materials used in this measure-
ment and operating conditions were the same as those
in the flotation experiments. However, no concentrates
were collected in the froth stability measurement. The
froth height was recorded after aeration. When the
froth height reached its maximum and did not change
(for 2 min), the aeration was stopped. The froth height
during the froth collapse process was also recorded.
Figure 3. Modified flotation cell for froth stability measurement.
538 M. AN ET AL.

Flotation experiments active. The presence of DF-250 in the blends increased

The flotation tests were conducted in a 1.5-L flotation cell
at a pulp density of 20% solids. Slurry was agitated in the
flotation cell at an impeller speed of 1800 rpm for 3 min.
Then diesel oil at a concentration of 1000 g/ton was added
for conditioning for another 3 min. After that, the frother
of different types required for each experiment at a con-
centration of 100 ppm was added, followed by 1 min
conditioning time. After conditioning, air flow rate
(superficial velocity) was set to 0.83 cm/s. After air was
introduced to the cell, concentrates were collected after
30, 60, 120, and 180 s of flotation. Flotation products were
filtered, dried, weighed, and analyzed for LOI and UC
recovery was calculated using Equation (2):
UC recovery ð%Þ ¼ ðMC  LOIC Þ=ðMF  LOIF Þ
 100
where MC is the weight of the concentrate (%), MF is
the weight of the feed (%), LOIC is the LOI of the
concentrate (%), and LOIF is the LOI of the feed (%).
Results
Equilibrium surface tension
The equilibrium surface tension for the frothers used in
this study was measured and the results are shown in
Figure 4. It was found that the surface tension
decreased with increasing frother concentrations. The
frother molecules were believed to disrupt the hydro-
gen bonding between water molecules which lowered
surface tension.[22] Figure 4 also shows that the
the reducing rate of interfacial tension compared to
MIBC. Dey et al.[13] attributed this phenomenon to
the high surface tension gradient caused by the differ-
ent adsorption densities of the frother molecules at the
air–water interface. Reduction in surface tension of
water among the four types of frothers, in an increasing
order, is given: MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250.
Bubble size
Figure 5 shows the effect of frother concentration on
the Sauter mean diameter (d32) for the four types of
frothers. A similar trend was found for all frothers,
which shows that the bubble size decreased with
(2)
increasing frother concentration and then became
steady when reaching a particular concentration,
namely the critical coalescence concentration
(CCC).[23,24] It was known that there is a complete
prevention of bubble coalescence in the frother solution
when frother concentration reaches CCC.[11,25–27]
Different experimental determined CCC values were
obtained for the frothers used in this study, and the
results are presented in Table 4. The CCC value for
MIBC was found to be the highest, while that for DF-
250 was lowest. The CCC values for the blends were
between that for MIBC and DF-250.
2.0
Sauter mean diameter (mm)

MIBC
decrease in surface tension using DF-250 was greater 1.5 Blend 1
than MIBC, indicating that DF-250 is more surface- Blend 2
DF-250

75 1.0

MIBC
70 Blend 1 0.5
Surface Tension (Nm/m)

Blend 2
MIBC
DF-250

Blend 1

65 DF-250
Blend 2

0.0
60 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration (ppm)
55 Figure 5. Bubble size versus frother concentration for the four
frothers. The typical error bars represent the 95% confidence
50 limit of the measurements.

45
0 100 200 300 400 500 Table 4. CCC values of frothers.
Concentration (ppm) Frother CCC, ppm CCC, ppm (literature)
MIBC 11.3 11.2
Figure 4. Equilibrium surface tension versus frother concentra- Blend 1 9.6 -
tion for the four frothers. The typical error bars represent the Blend 2 8.2 -
95% confidence limit of the measurements. DF-250 7.1 8.7
 SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 539

However, the minimum bubble sizes obtained using 35

these frothers were inversely correlated to their CCC
values. Cho and Laskowski[23,24] reported that at a 30
frother concentration above CCC, the bubble size was

Number Frequency (%)

no longer determined by coalescence. Recent research
indicated that the presence of frother not only hindered
coalescence but also had an effect on breakup.[25,28] The
proposed breakup mechanism was that frothers
induced surface tension gradients which increased the
instabilities along the air–water interface.[29] Compared
to DF-250, MIBC molecule is smaller and has a fewer
hydrophilic sites for its H-bonding with water mole-
cules. This means the MIBC molecules on the bubble
surface are closer, forming a smaller bulge, and thus the
breakaway bubble will be correspondingly smaller. At
the same concentration (ppm), more MIBC molecules
will also result in more surface perturbations (‘‘rough-
ness”) increasing bubble instability. The different
trends for CCC and minimum bubble size may be
due to the fact that the bubble size is strongly affected
by breakup at frother concentrations higher than CCC.
In addition, the sparger’s geometry and hydrodynamic
conditions also somehow affect bubble size.
Figure 6 shows the bubble images captured in this
study when the concentration of the frothers exceeded
their CCC value. There was a clear difference in bubble
size produced using MIBC and DF-250. Figure 7 shows
the corresponding bubble size distributions. The mea-
sured bubble size conformed to a Gaussian distribution.
The bubble sizes of the maximum frequency for MIBC
and DF-250 are about 0.60 and 0.90 mm, respectively.
The bubble size distribution using the frother blends,
namely Blend 1 and Blend 2, shows a shift to inter-
mediate sizes, with the maximum frequency bubble size
of 0.70 and 0.80 mm, respectively. The results indicate
that MIBC is the most effective frother in terms of
bubble size reduction and the least effective one is
DF-250. These results also suggest that frothers not
25
MIBC
20 Blend 1
Blend 2
15 DF-250
10
5
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Concentration (ppm)
Figure 7. Bubble size distribution at concentration (50 ppm)
exceeding the CCC values for the four frothers. The typical error
bars represent the 95% confidence limit of the measurements.
only hinder coalescence but also somehow affect bubble
breakup under turbulent conditions.
Froth stability
Figure 8 shows the froth formation and froth decay profiles
of the frothers used in the current study. When each of
these frothers was used, froth height increased with the
time and reached a plateau. DF-250 and MIBC led to the
highest and the lowest maximum froth heights, respec-
tively. The maximum froth height obtained when using
Blend 1 was much higher than that when using MIBC,
indicating that 25% of DF-250 increased froth height sig-
nificantly. On the other hand, the maximum froth height
decreased slightly when adding 25% of MIBC to DF-250.
In the froth decay process, the froth height decreased with
the time and became nil for all the frothers. The decay
speed of froth in the presence of MIBC was the fastest and
DF-250 resulted in a more stable froth evidenced by the

MIBC Blend 1 Blend 2 DF-250

Figure 6. Bubble images at concentration (50 ppm) exceeding the CCC values for the four frothers.
540 M. AN ET AL.

6 content. On the other hand, the two major minerals

(a) in fly ash namely quartz and mullite had little effect on
5 the froth stability due to the property changes in the
combustion process.[16] Li[16] found that a frother pro-
Froth height (cm)

4 ducing a more stable and viscous foam was suitable for

UC flotation from fly ash. Therefore, it was expected
3 that the frother giving excellent froth stability would be
beneficial for fly ash flotation and DF-250 would be
2 more efficient in recovering UC from fly ash compared
to MIBC.
1

0 Flotation performance
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s) In this study, both concentrates and tailings were ana-
lyzed. The LOI of tailings as building material was
1.0
commonly required to be less than 5%. The concen-
(b)
MIBC three phase trates could be added into the fuel coal in power plants
Blend 1 three phase and hence their calorific value (i.e., LOI) should be as
0.8 Blend 2 three phase
Froth height / Hmax

DF-250 three phase

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Figure 8. Froth stability results of the four frothers: (a) froth
formation; (b) froth decay. The typical error bars represent the
95% confidence limit of the measurements.
slowest decay speed. When 25% of DF-250 was added to
MIBC, the decay time, defined as the time taken by the
foam to become nil, increased dramatically. Meanwhile,
the decay time decreased slightly when adding 25% of
MIBC to DF-250. This indicates that the frothing property
of the blends mainly depended on DF-250, though MIBC
also played a role.
The maximum froth height and decay time in the
three phases were just a little higher than those mea-
sured in the two phases for all the frothers. This indi-
cates that the fly ash may have little effect on the froth
stability which was mainly determined by frothers. The
froth stability measured in terms of maximum froth
height and froth decay time in this study was less
than that in the coal flotation reported by Liang et al.[30]
This means that the effect of fly ash on froth stability
was inferior to that of coal. One reason was that the
hydrophobicity of UC in fly ash was weaker than the
combustible materials in traditional coal and the UC
content (i.e., LOI) was less than the combustible
high as possible. In the flotation experiments, the LOI
MIBC two phase of the tailings was less than 5% when using each of the
Blend 1 two phase examined frothers, and even the MIBC produced the
Blend 2 two phase highest LOI tails of 3.83%. Under this circumstance, the
DF-250 two phase
LOI of concentrate was of much interest. Consequently,
the flotation performance using the four frothers in
terms of UC recovery and the LOI of the concentrate
was compared.
Figure 9 shows the results of the UC flotation using the
35 40 45 50
four frothers. UC recovery increased with an increase in
the flotation time and then reached a maximum value
using each of the frothers. The UC recovery for DF-250
was higher than MIBC at the same flotation time, indicat-
ing that the DF-250 had a greater increasing rate. The
increasing rates using the blends were situated in between
those resulted from MIBC and DF-250. Moreover, the
relative order of UC recovery of the concentrate among
the four frothers is given: MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 <
DF-250, while the LOI of the concentrate shows the
opposite relative order. MIBC produced higher LOI con-
centrate, while DF-250 gave higher UC recovery. This
appears that DF-250 was a more powerful frother and
MIBC was a more selective frother. The powerful frother
shows faster flotation kinetics and the selective frother
produces higher grade concentrate.[13,14,25,31] Compared
to MIBC, the UC recovery increased rapidly with the
presence of DF-250 in the blends, whereas the LOI
decreased slightly until it becomes the pure DF-250.
When the amount of DF-250 in the blend was 75%, the
optimal flotation performance was obtained, where the
UC recovery significantly increased to 92.84% at an LOI
of 51.57%. These results clearly show the synergistic effect
of frother blends on UC flotation performance.
Figure 10 shows the UC recovery and LOI of the
different size fractions of the concentrate using four
 SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 541

100
(a)
95

90
UC recovery (%)

85

80
MIBC
Blend 1
75
Blend 2
DF-250
70

65
0 50 100 150 200
Time (s)
100 60
UC recovery (b)
LOI
90
55
UC recovery (%)

80
50 LOI (%)

70

45
60

50 40
MIBC Blend 1 Blend 2 DF-250

Figure 9. UC flotation performance of the four frothers: (a)

kinetics; (b) UC recovery and LOI. The typical error bars repre-
sent the 95% confidence limit of the measurements.

frothers. It can be seen that the UC recovery and LOI
using DF-250 were higher in the size fraction of +125
μm, but MIBC was very effective for the ultrafine frac-
tion (+45 μm) in terms of recovery and LOI. This may
be attributed to the bubble size differences caused by
DF-250 and MIBC. It was reported[25,32] that there has
been a matching relationship between particle size and
bubble size and the best recovery. For the intermediate
size fraction (−125 + 45 μm), DF-250 led to a higher
UC recovery and MIBC produced a higher LOI con-
centrate. In each size fraction, the UC recovery and LOI
for the blends were situated in between the values for
the two blend constituents, where Blend 2 resulted in a
higher UC recovery and Blend 1 produced a higher LOI
concentrate.
Discussion
Table 5 shows the summary of characterization parameters
measured for the four frothers. As can be seen, the order of
frothers in terms of CCC was contrary to those with respect
to surface tension in a reduced effect. There was a force
associated with the surface tension gradient, which was
Figure 10. Comparison of the four frothers on the basis of
recovery (a) and LOI (b) for different particle size fractions in
concentrate. The typical error bars represent the 95% confi-
dence limit of the measurements.
generated by varying surface frother concentration caused
by the transient deformation of the air–water interface. This
reveals that a small concentration of more surface-active
frother is enough to inhibit the bubble coalescence as
enough elastic strength is gained. Reduction in surface
tension of water is an indication how active a frother is.
Hence, frother that greatly reduces the surface tension
could completely prevent bubble coalescence at a lower
concentration (i.e., lower CCC). Moreover, it was interest-
ing to find that the bubble size at the concentration exceed-
ing CCC showed the same order as reduction in surface
tension. MIBC produced finer bubbles than DF-250,
though the latter was more surface-active. This phenom-
enon may be attributed to the breakup as well as the
sparger’s geometry and hydrodynamic conditions. Similar
conclusions can also be found in studies of frothers such as
MIBC/DF-200 and MIBC/DF-1012.[25–27] The presence of
DF-250 in the blends increased the surface activity and
bubble size and decreased the CCC compared to MIBC.
542 M. AN ET AL.
Table 5. Comparison of the frother characterization parameters.
Criterion Parameters
Surface activity Reduction in surface tension of water
Bubble size CCC
Bubble size at the concentration exceeding CCC
Froth stability Maximum froth height
Froth decay time
Flotation performance Flotation rate
UC recovery of concentrate
LOI of concentrate
Higher recovery and LOI for ultrafine fraction
Higher recovery and LOI for oversize fraction
Blend 2 with a larger amount of DF-250 in the frother
mixture was more surface-active than Blend 1, and showed
a lower CCC and relatively large bubble sizes.
The order of the four frothers in terms of maximum
froth height and froth decay time was identical to that of
reduction in surface tension. As a bubble expands in foam,
surface tension gradients occur between the region of the
bubble in contact with the plateau border and the region
located in the lamellar film.[14] DF-250 reduced the surface
tension greater than MIBC, so DF-250 caused a higher
surface tension gradient at the air–water interface during
the froth formation and decay process. Therefore, DF-250
was more efficient in preventing bubble coalescence as well
as producing a more stable and viscous foam compared to
MIBC. The presence of DF-250 in the blends significantly
improved the frothing property of MIBC. Blend 2 with a
larger amount of DF-250 in the frother mixture showed a
higher froth height and froth decay time compared to
Blend 1.
The UC flotation performance was well correlated with
the bubble size and froth stability. A frother that enabled a
more stable three-phase froth to form resulted in a higher
flotation rate and UC recovery and a lower LOI concen-
trate. A greater amount of water was also recovered using
such a frother. More other mineral particles entrained to
the concentrate with the floating UC, leading LOI decrease
in UC flotation. As is evidenced in Figure 9, frother blends
improved the frothing property and selectivity, combining
the effect of each frother. It is necessary to screen flotation
frothers through a comprehensive analysis of frothing
property and selectivity. Blend 2 was a better frother for
this sample compared to other frothers, which produced a
product with an LOI of 51.57% and UC recovery of
92.84%. The synergistic effect of frother blend may be
responsible for the result. In addition, the results also
indicate that froth stability may be more important than
bubble size in UC flotation from fly ash due to the weak
and dry froth during the flotation process.
MIBC was selective and appropriate for the flotation of
ultrafine particles, and DF-250 was efficient in terms of
recovery and selectivity for coarse particles. MIBC pro-
duced finer bubbles that were beneficial for floating
Order of the frother
MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250
DF-250 < Blend 2 < Blend 1 < MIBC
MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250
MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250
MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250
MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250
MIBC < Blend 1 < Blend 2 < DF-250
DF-250 < Blend 2 < Blend 1 < MIBC
MIBC
DF-250
ultrafine particles. Frother with lower froth stability also
resulted in a lower entrainability. Hence, MIBC showed
better flotation selectivity which was good for a high LOI
production and ultrafine particle size fraction treatment.
DF-250 was more efficient in preventing bubble coales-
cence and providing more stable and viscous foams, so DF-
250 was more effective for recovering UC, especially, for
high UC recovery and floating coarse particles. In addition,
frother blends showed balanced effect for each size fraction
in terms of UC recovery and LOI. It indicates that frother
blend can get a good overall flotation performance for a
wide size distributed feed.
Conclusions
(1) The fly ash flotation performance correlated well
with the fundamental frother characterization
indices such as bubble size and froth stability.
MIBC that produced smaller bubbles was efficient
in floating ultrafine particles and producing high
LOI concentrates. DF-250 that had higher froth
stability was effective for recovering coarse parti-
cles and giving high UC recovery.
(2) The synergistic effect of frother blends presented
significant response in bubble size, froth stability,
and fly ash flotation performance. The presence of
DF-250 in the frother blend increased bubble sizes
and showed a significant improvement in froth
stability. The amount of DF-250 with MIBC at a
ratio of 75:25 in the blend achieved the optimal
flotation performance. Frother blend showed a
balanced effect for each size fraction in terms of
UC recovery and LOI.
(3) The results from this study also suggest that froth
stability was more important than bubble size in
influencing UC flotation recovery due to the weak
and dry froth during the flotation process. Fly ash
had little effect on the froth stability but the frother
played the major part. Hence, a frother which
enables a more stable form is expected to yield
better flotation results.

Funding
This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation
of Jiangsu Province (BK20150192) and the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (2015QNB16).
References
[1] Li, G.S.; Deng, L.J.; Liu, J.T.; Cao, Y.J.; Zang, H.J.; Ran,
J.C. (2015) A new technique for removing unburned
carbon from coal fly ash at an industrial scale.
International Journal of Coal Preparation and
Utilization, 35 (5): 273–279.
[2] Mangat, P.S.; Molloy, B. (1991) Influence of fly ash,
slag and micro silica and chloride induced corrosion of
reinforcement in concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research, 21 (5): 819–834.
[3] Muralidharan, S.; Saraswathy, V.; Thangavel, K.;
Srinivasan, S. (2000) Competitive role of inhibitive
and aggressive ions in the corrosion of steel in con-
crete. Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 30 (11):
1255–1259.
[4] Ucurum, M.; (2009) Influences of Jameson flotation
operation variables on the kinetics and recovery of
unburned carbon. Powder Technology, 191: 240–246.
[5] Altun, N.E.; Xiao, C.F.; Hwang, J.Y. (2009) Separation of
unburned carbon from fly ash using a concurrent flota-
tion column. Fuel Processing Technology, 90: 1464–1470.
[6] Zhang, W.C.; Honaker, R. (2015) Studies on carbon flota-
tion from fly ash. Fuel Processing Technology, 139: 236–241.
[7] Emin, C.C.; Sevgi, K. (2015) Effect of nanoparticles on
froth stability and bubble size distribution in flotation.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 138: 6–14.
[8] Saeed, F. (2011) The significance of froth stability in
mineral flotation: A review. Advances in Colloid and
Interface Science, 166: 1–7.
[9] Saeed, F.; Massimiliano, Z. (2012) An investigation into
the effect of water quality on froth stability. Advanced
Powder Technology, 23: 493–497.
[10] Rao, S.R.; Leja, J. (2004) Surface Chemistry of Froth
Flotation; Second edition: Kluwer Academic, New York.
[11] Elmahdy, A.M. (2011) Frother blends in flotation:
Polyglycols and alcohols, Doctor Thesis, McGill
University.
[12] Tan, S.N.; Pugh, R.J.; Fornasiero, D.; Sedev, R.; Ralston,
J. (2005) Foaming of polypropylene glycols and glycol/
MIBC mixtures. Minerals Engineering, 18: 179–188.
[13] Dey, S.; Pani, S.; Singh, R. (2014) Study of interactions
of frother blends and its effect on coal flotation.
Powder Technology, 260: 78–83.
[14] McFadzean, B.; Marozva, T.; Wiese, J. (2016) Flotation
frother mixtures: Decoupling the sub-processes of froth
stability, froth recovery and entrainment. Minerals
Engineering, 85: 72–79.
[15] Laskowski, J.S.; Tlhone, T.; Williams, P.; Ding, K. (2002)
Fundamental properties of the polyoxypropylene alkyl
ether flotation frothers. International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 72 (1): 289–299.
[16] Li, G.S. (2013) Regulation of flotation froth stability
and removal of unburned-carbon from coal fly ash,
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 543
Doctor Thesis, China University Mining and
Technology. (In Chinese.)
[17] Harris, T.; Wheelock, D.T. (2008) Process conditions
for the separation of carbon from fly ash by froth
flotation. International Journal of Coal Preparation
and Utilization, 28 (3): 133–152.
[18] Walker, A.; Wheelock, D.T. (2006) Separation of car-
bon from fly ash using froth flotation. Coal
Preparation, 26 (4): 235–250.
[19] Gomez, C.O.; Finch, J.A. (2007) Gas dispersion mea-
surements in flotation cells. International Journal of
Mineral Processing, 84: 51–58.
[20] Lopez, S.F.; Pecina, T.E.; Garza, R.D.L.; Ramos, M.K.;
Camacho, O.L.; Equihua, G.F. (2016) Effect of KI, NaCl,
MgCl2 and Na2SO4 solutions in bubble size distribution
and its relationship with flotation of coal. Revista
Mexicana De Ingeniería Química, 15 (1): 221–229.
[21] Barbian, N.; Ventura-Medina, E.; Cilliers, J.J. (2003)
Dynamic froth stability in froth flotation. Minerals
Engineering, 16: 1111–1116.
[22] Gelinas, S.; Finch, J.A.; Gouet-Kaplan, M. (2005)
Comparative real-time characterization of frother bubble
thin films. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 291:
187–191.
[23] Cho, Y.S.; Laskowski, J.S. (2002) Effect of flotation
frothers on bubble size and foam stability.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 64: 69–80.
[24] Cho, Y.S.; Laskowski, J.S. (2002) Bubble coalescence and
its effect on dynamic foam stability. The Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 80: 299–305.
[25] Gupta, A.K.; Banerjee, P.K.; Mishra, A.; Satish, P. (2007)
Effect of alcohol and polyglycol ether frothers on foam
stability, bubble size and coal flotation. International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 82 (3): 126–137.
[26] Aldrich, C.; Feng, C. (2000) The effect of mothers on
bubble size distribution in flotation pulp phase and sur-
face froths. Minerals Engineering, 13 (10–11): 1049–1057.
[27] Castro, S.; Miranda, C.; Toledo, P.; Laskowski, J.S.
(2013) Effect of frothers on bubble coalescence and
foaming in electrolyte solutions and seawater.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 124: 8–14.
[28] Finch, J.A.; Nesst, J.E.; Acuna, C. (2008) Role of frother
on bubble production and behaviour in flotation.
Minerals Engineering, 21: 949–957.
[29] Chu, P.B.; Waters, K.E.; Finch, J.A. (2016) Break-up in
formation of small bubbles: Break-up in a confined
volume. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 503: 88–93.
[30] Liang, L.; Li, Z.Y.; Peng, Y.L.; Tan, J.K.; Xie, G.Y. (2015)
Influence of coal particles on froth stability and flotation
performance. Minerals Engineering, 81: 96–102.
[31] Liao, Y.F.; Cao, Y.J.; Huang, S.M.; He, J.; Zhang, X.B.;
Li, S.L.; Shao, S.G. (2015) Water carrying property of
flotation frothers and its effect on fine coal flotation.
International Journal of Coal Preparation and
Utilization, 35 (2): 88–98.
[32] Ren, L.Y.; Zhang, Y.M.; Qin, W.Q.; Bao, S.X.; Wang, J.
(2014) Collision and attachment behavior between fine
cassiterite particles and H2 bubbles. Transactions of
Nonferrous Metals Society of China, 24: 520–527.