215

Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, Vol 46, No 3 pp 215-220, 2007

© Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Published by Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Printed in Canada. All rights reserved

CHARACTERIZING FROTHERS USING WATER

CARRYING RATE
P. MOYO, C.O. GOMEZ and J.A. FINCH

Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering, McGill University,

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B2
Jim.Finch@McGill.ca

(Received in revised form March 2007)

Abstract — The recovery of fine hydrophilic particles in flotation is related to the recovery of water.
Water is carried by bubbles into and through the froth. The amount transported (entrained) depends on
bubble size, gas rate and the subject of this paper, frother type. To isolate the effect of frother type from
that of bubble size, gas holdup is used as the correlating variable. Measurements were made using a
bubble column (no solids) operated continuously with the overflow recycled. Using an automatically
controlled 7 cm foam depth, the overflow rate of water is used as a measure of ‘water carrying rate’.
It is shown that the common frothers can be grouped into four families based on the water carrying rate-
gas holdup relationship.

Résumé — La récupération de la gangue fine hydrophile lors de la flottation est reliée à la récupération de
l’eau. L’eau est transportée par les bulles dans et à travers la mousse. La quantité transportée (entraînée)
dépend de la taille de bulle, du débit de gaz et, le sujet de cet article, du type de mousse. Pour isoler l’effet
du type de mousse de celui de la taille de bulle, on utilise la rétention de gaz comme variable de corrélation.
On a effectué des mesures en utilisant une colonne à bulles (sans solides) opérée en continu avec recyclage
du trop-plein. En utilisant une profondeur de mousse automatiquement contrôlée de 7 cm, le taux de
trop-plein d’eau est utilisé comme mesure du “taux de transport de l’eau”. On montre que l’on peut grouper
les moussants communs en quatre familles basées sur la relation taux de transport de l’eau-rétention de gaz.

INTRODUCTION To determine the role of frother type (or ‘chemistry’) in

Frothers aid the production of fine bubbles which enhances
flotation rate and promotes froth formation. The generally
accepted mechanism is that frothers reduce coalescence [1]
although possible effects on bubble break-up are entertained
[2, 3]. While the primary task is to collect particles, bubbles
also transport water. The transport of water governs the
recovery of hydrophilic particles by entrainment which plays
a large role in controlling grade [4]. Understanding water
recovery is perhaps second only to particle recovery in
predicting and controlling flotation performance.
The interest here is to measure water transport as a
means to characterize frothers. There is a general
understanding that the type of frother does influence water
transport. Frothers such as alcohols are considered to give
‘dry’ froths while polygylcols give ‘wet’ froths [5].
Measurements of water recovery show a dependence on
location of frother type [6-9] as do measurements of liquid
flux in foams [10]. On a more fundamental level, frother
type has been shown to control film thickness on bubbles
blown in air [11].
water transport, it must be isolated from other controlling
factors primarily aeration rate, bubble size, froth depth and
the presence of hydrophilic and hydrophobic solids. The
present work uses an air-water system in a bubble column
with froth (foam) depth and aeration rate controlled. Isolating
a frother chemistry effect from its effect through control of
bubble size is not so straightforward. One approach is to use
concentrations above the critical coalescence concentration
(CCC) [7] on the assumption that different frother types then
yield the same concentration-independent bubble size. It is
not clear how robust this assumption is. In principle, the
problem could be managed by measuring bubble size and
using bubble surface area flux as the correlating parameter
[13]. Although bubble size measurement techniques continue
to evolve, they remain intensive exercises where the selection
of appropriate bubble size metric for the present task is not
immediately clear. A possible alternative to bubble size is to
use gas holdup. The advantages include easy measurement in
air-water systems, an apparent relationship with bubble
surface area flux [14] and it has been used in a related manner
to diagnose the fatty acid system [15].

CANADIAN METALLURGICAL QUARTERLY, VOL 46, NO 3

216 P. MOYO, C.O. GOMEZ and J.A. FINCH

EXPERIMENTAL
Water
overflow
Apparatus collection
point
A column 10 cm internal diameter and 105 cm high was
employed (Figure 1). It was equipped with eleven 2.5 cm
wide stainless steel ring electrodes flush mounted to make
ten conductivity cells which were used to control foam
depth and to estimate gas holdup. (The term ‘foam’ is used Electrode
rather than ‘froth’ to distinguish it is a two-phase system, rings

i.e., no solids are present.) The cell constant was determined

for each cell to convert conductance to conductivity. The
cells were connected to a computer and conductivity was
recorded automatically. Operation was continuous with the Feed pump
feed (frother solution) controlled by a pump (Cole Palmer
model 7520-25) with overflow water recycled to the feed
tank (not shown). Feed entry Porous
point sparger
The conductivity readings were used to detect the
foam/solution interface and the feed rate was manipulated to Air
control its position (i.e., control foam depth). The electrodes
were separated by acrylic sections 7.5 cm wide below the Fig. 1. The bubble column set-up showing the electrodes, overflow and feed
pump
foam and 5 cm wide across the foam zone to provide tighter
depth control. A series of foam depths were employed; for the
current purpose, a depth of 7 cm was used. where kd is the dispersion conductivity (aerated solution) and
A calibrated mass flow meter was used to control the air kw the continuous medium conductivity (un-aerated solution).
flow rate and a vertical porous sparger was used to generate
bubbles. A temperature sensor (Thermopar type K) was used Water Carrying Rate (Jwo): At steady state, the overflow was
to monitor temperature to correct the conductivity values to measured by collecting and weighing over known periods of
the standard temperature of 25 °C. time. The value was checked against a pump calibration (at
steady state feed and overflow rates are equal). The mass was
converted to volume (density assumed 1 g/cm3) and divided by
Measurements the column cross-section area to give the water carrying rate.
Gas Holdup: Gas holdup is estimated from conductivity using
Maxwell’s model [16] for a non-conducting dispersed phase Procedure
(bubbles in this context) in a conducting continuous medium:
Table I summarizes the frothers examined and test
k conditions. The frothers were used as supplied. (The
1- d inclusion of n-pentanol, not a frother used industrially, was
kw
eg = (1) partly because short chain alcohols can be present in
k
1 + 0.5 d commercial supplies of other flotation reagents notably
kw xanthate collectors.) Salt (potassium chloride) was added to

Table I – Summary of frothers, suppliers and test conditions

Concentration range
Frother Supplier Jg, cm/s
ppm mol/L (x10-3)
n-pentanol Sigma Aldrich 100-150 1.1 –1.7 1.25-2.5
n-hexanol Sigma Aldrich 30-80 0.29-0.78 1.0-2.5
n-heptanol Fischer Scientific 30-80 0.25-0.69 1.0-1.75
n-octanol Sigma Aldrich 30-80 0.23-0.61 0.75-1.75
MIBC Sigma Aldrich 30-80 0.29-0.78 1.0-2.5
Ethoxylated C6 alcohol Flottec 20-50 0.14-0.34 0.75-2.0
Dowfroth 200 Flottec 50-100 0.25-0.5 1.0-2.0
Dowfroth 250 Flottec 50-80 0.2-0.32 0.75-1.75
F-150 Flottec 30-50 0.075-0.125 0.75-1.50

CANADIAN METALLURGICAL QUARTERLY, VOL 46, NO 3

 CHARACTERIZING FROTHERS USING WATER CARRYING RATE 217

raise the conductivity of the solution to about 0.40 mS/cm to 0.3

increase measurement sensitivity. For each condition, the 30ppm
conductivity of the unaerated solution (kw) was obtained 0.25 50ppm
prior to and at the end of the test. To start, the height of 80ppm
solution in the column was adjusted to leave about 25 cm at 0.2
the top for foam to build. The level was then adjusted to the

Jwo, cm/s
target foam depth (7 cm) and controlled automatically by
0.15
manipulation of the feed rate. At steady state, the dispersion
conductivity values (kd) were logged and water overflow
was collected for 3 to 5 minutes depending on the flow rate 0.1
and weighed and water carrying rate (Jwo) was determined.
The gas holdup value reported is the mean of all the cells 0.05
below the foam zone. The Jwo - eg trend was then
determined for the range of frother types. 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Jg, cm/s
RESULTS

Establishing Gas Holdup As Correlating Variable Fig. 2a. Water carrying rate as a function of gas rate for three concentrations
of n-hexanol
The water carrying rate, Jwo, as a function of gas rate, Jg, for
n-hexanol at three concentrations is shown in Figure 2a. 30
Linear trends are evident which depend on frother concen- 30ppm
tration. Figure 2b shows the corresponding gas holdup, eg, 50ppm
vs Jg data and Figure 2c shows the results of combining and 25
80ppm
plotting Jwo as a function of eg. There is now a single
effectively linear trend. Figure 3 likewise shows that Jwo vs
eg, %

Jg for two spargers of different porosity becomes a unique 20

function of eg. From this point, all tests used the 5 mm
porosity sparger. Both plots show an intercept between an eg
of 15 to 20% which means foam could not reach the 15
required 7 cm at gas holdups below this point. The trends in
Figures 2c and 3b establish gas holdup as the correlating
variable. 10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Jg, cm/s
Frother Characterization
Fig. 2b. Gas holdup as a function of gas rate (same system as Figure 2a)
A comparison of straight chain alcohols (n-alcohols) is shown
in Figure 4. An increase in the water carrying rate with carbon
chain length (C5-C8) is observed. Combining all data on 0.5
alcohols, they classify into three groups (Figure 5). The result
30ppm
for the two C6 alcohols, MIBC and n-hexanol were similar,
0.4 50ppm
but the ethoxylated C6 alcohol was different, being similar to
n-octanol. 80ppm
Jwo, cm/s

Figure 6 shows a comparison of polyglycol frothers. The 0.3

two Dowfroths show an increase in Jwo with molecular
weight. The F150 gave the highest Jwo of the frothers tested. 0.2
Figure 7 combines all of the results showing the frothers
classify into four major groups (or families).
0.1

DISCUSSION 0
10 15 20 25 30 35

The measurement task was to isolate an effect of frother eg, %

chemistry on the water carrying rate independent of the role
frother plays through control of bubble size. A direct route Fig. 2c. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup (same system as
was considered, using bubble surface area flux, but excluded Figure 2a)

CANADIAN METALLURGICAL QUARTERLY, VOL 46, NO 3

218 P. MOYO, C.O. GOMEZ and J.A. FINCH

0.5 0.5
Pentanol
5 mm
Hept, Hex, MIBC
20 mm
0.4 0.4
Octanol, Ethoxy
Jwo, cm/s

Jwo, cm/s
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Jg, cm/s eg, %

Fig. 3a. Water carrying rate as a function of gas rate for two sparger porosi- Fig. 5. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup for all alcohols
ties (50 ppm n-octanol) tested

0.5 0.5
5 mm
DF200
20 mm
0.4 0.4 DF250
F150
Jwo, cm/s

0.3 0.3
Jwo, cm/s

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35

eg, % eg, %

Fig. 3b. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup (same system as in Fig. 6. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup for polyglycols
Figure 3a) tested

0.5 0.5
Pentanol Pentanol
Hept, Hex, MIBC, DF200
Hexanol
0.4 0.4 Octanol, Ethoxy, DF250
Heptanol F150
Octanol 0.3
Jwo, cm/s

Jwo, cm/s

0.3

0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1

0
0 10 15 20 25 30 35
10 15 20 25 30 35
eg, %
eg, %

Fig. 4. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup for n-alcohols Fig. 7. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup for all frothers
tested tested

CANADIAN METALLURGICAL QUARTERLY, VOL 46, NO 3

 CHARACTERIZING FROTHERS USING WATER CARRYING RATE
Table II – Water carrying rate and thickness of film on bubble blown in air1
Frother Water carrying rate, Jwo (cm/s)
(at eg = 25%, Figure 7)
n-pentanol 0.07
MIBC 0.18
DF 250 0.25
F 150 0.35
1
The film comprises two parts; the one recorded here is the inner bound layer [3].
in favour of gas holdup on the basis of simplicity. The result
was a unique dependence of Jwo on eg for a given frother
which established gas holdup as a useful correlating variable.
The Jwo - eg relationship was treated as linear (above a
minimum gas holdup required to establish the target foam
depth) and showed essentially the same slope for each frother
type. (As a note in passing, at greater depths linearity was
approximately preserved but slopes were no longer similar
among frother types.) The frothers tested were grouped into
four families. The classification fits the qualitative
assessment that alcohols transport less water (give ‘drier’
froths) than polyglycols. The two categories overlap with
MIBC showing similar rates as DF200. Among the alcohols,
the two C6 alcohols, MIBC and n-hexanol, gave a similar
response and the ethoxylated C6 alcohol (i.e., now a C8) gave
a similar result to n-octanol. This suggests that as far as the
water carrying rate is concerned, the number of carbons is
important but not whether the chain is branched. This
observation has led directly to the development of new
frothers based on alkoxylation [17].
The concentration range used here (Table I) is higher
than relevant to plant practice where 10 ppm may be
considered ‘average’ [18]. High concentration is needed in
the absence of the stabilizing effect of hydrophobic particles.
Most frothers are not foaming agents in the strict sense
requiring solids to complete that task. The presence of solids
can be expected to influence the overflow water rate. Melo
and Laskowski [7], for example, note that MIBC switched
from giving the lowest water recovery in two-phase
experiments to the highest when floating coal. This is
probably related to the impact solid particles exert on water
flow in the froth.
It is unlikely that a standard solid can be agreed on for
frother characterization making the two-phase system a
practical starting point. Selecting frother equivalents on the
basis of two-phase testing has proved viable [17]. The
possibility of using talc as a model hydrophobic solid is being
explored [19].
The measurement of Jwo is a combination of water
transport into and through the froth. There is currently consid-
erable focus on modelling water transport in the froth [20-22]
which will need to include a parameter for frother chemistry.
There may be a role of frother type on transport into the froth.
Bascur and Herbst [23] modelled this by introducing a film
thickness on the bubble which could be related to frother
properties. Table II shows that direct measurements of film
219
Water film thickness (nm)
< 160
< 160
600
1100
thickness (on a bubble blown in air) do appear to correlate
with water carrying rate [3].
CONCLUSIONS
Characterizing frothers using the water carrying rate, Jwo, as
a function of gas holdup eg, was explored. The main findings
were:
1. For the conditions used, the Jwo - eg relationship for
each frother was linear with an intercept on the axis
indicating the minimum eg capable of supporting the
required foam depth (7 cm).
2. For the frothers tested, the Jwo - eg relationship
identified four classes (families), the order being, from
lowest to highest Jwo (at a given eg)
pentanol < heptanol, hexanol, MIBC, DF200 < octanol,
ethoxylated C6 alcohol, DF250 < F150
3. For alcohols, the water carrying rate appeared to depend
on chain length but not on branching.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding was through the Chair in Mineral Processing at
McGill University, under the Collaborative Research and
Development Program of NSERC (Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada) with industrial
sponsorship from (using the original names, 2001) INCO,
Falconbridge, Noranda, Teck Cominco, COREM and SGS
Lakefield Research. Extensive discussions with Jan Nesset,
Stéphanie Gélinas and especially Frank Cappuccitti (Flottec)
are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. SME Handbook of Mineral Processing, 1985, N.L. Weiss, ed.,
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers,
Inc., Kingsport Press, Kingsport, TN, pp 5-85 – 5-87.
2. R.A. Grau, J.S. Laskowski and K. Heiskanen, “Effects of Frothers on
Bubble Size”, Minerals Engineering, article in press.
3. J.A. Finch, S. Gélinas and P. Moyo, “Frother-Related Research at
McGill University”, Minerals Engineering, 2006, vol. 19,pp. 726-733.
4. J. Lynch, N.W. Johnson, E.V. Manlapig and C.G. Thorne, “Mineral and
Coal Flotation Circuits”, vol 3, Developments in Mineral Processing,
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, pp 21-43.
5. Cytec Mining Chemicals Handbook, 2002, 75-78.
CANADIAN METALLURGICAL QUARTERLY, VOL 46, NO 3
220 P. MOYO, C.O. GOMEZ and J.A. FINCH
6. Z. Ekmekci, D.J. Bradshaw, S.A Allison, P.J. Harris, “Effects of Frother
Type and Froth Height on the Flotation Behaviour of Chromite in UG2
Ore”, Minerals Engineering, 2003, vol. 16, pp. 941-949.
7. F. Melo and J.S. Laskowski, “Fundamental Properties of Flotation
Frothers and Their Effect on Flotation”, Minerals Engineering, 2006,
vol. 19, pp. 766-773.
8. K. Rahal, E. Manlapig, J-P. Franzidis, “Effect of Frother Type and
Concentration on the Water Recovery and Entrainment Recovery
Relationship”, Mineral & Metallurgical Processing, 2001, vol. 18,
pp. 138-141.
9. T.V. Subrahmanyam, E. Forssberg, “Frother Performance in Flotation
of Copper and Lead-Zinc Ores”, Transactions of the Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, Section C: Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy, 1988, vol. 97, pp. 134-42.
10. A.V. Nguyen, P.A. Harvey, G.J. Jameson, “Influence of Gas Flow Rate
and Frothers on Water Recovery in a Froth Column”, Minerals
Engineering, 2003, vol. 16, pp. 1143-1147.
11. S. Gélinas, M. Gouet-Kaplan and J.A. Finch, “Comparative Real-time
Characterization of Frother Bubble Thin Films”, Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science, 2005, vol. 291, pp. 187-191.
12. J.A. Engelbrecht and E.T. Woodburn, “The Effects of Froth Height,
Aeration Rate and Gas Precipitation on Flotation, J. Sth. Afr. Inst. Min.
Metall., 1975, vol. 76, pp. 125-132.
13. M. Xu, J.A. Finch and A. Uribe-Salas, “Maximum Gas and Bubble
Surface Rates in Flotation Columns”, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 1991, vol. 32, pp. 233-250.
14. J.A. Finch, J. Xiao, J.C. Hardie and C.O. Gomez, “Gas Dispersion
Properties: Bubble Surface Area Flux and Gas Holdup”, Minerals
CANADIAN METALLURGICAL QUARTERLY, VOL 46, NO 3
Engineering, 2000, vol. 13, pp. 365-372.
15. R. Espinosa-Gomez, J.A. Finch and W. Bernett, “Coalescence and
Froth Collapse in the Fatty Acid System”, Colloids & Surfaces, 1988,
vol. 32, pp. 197-209.
16. J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise of Electricity and Magnetism, 1892, 3rd ed.,
Vol. 1, Part II, Chapter 9: 435-449.
17. F. Capuccitti, J.A. Finch, “Development of New Frothers through
Hydrodynamic Characterization of Frother Chemistry”, Proceedings
39th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors of CIM, 2007,
compiled by J. Folinsbee, pp. 399-412.
18. S. Gélinas, J.A. Finch and F. Cappuccitti, “Frother Analysis: Procedure
and Plant Experience”, Proceedings 37th Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Mineral Processors of CIM, 2005, compiled by J. Starkey,
pp. 569-576.
19. J. Quinn, “Exploring the Role of Salts on Gas Dispersion and Froth
Properties”, 2006, Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal.
20. A.V. Nguyen, S.I. Karakashev, G.J. Jameson, “Effect of Interfacial
Properties on Water Drainage and Recovery in a Froth Column”, XXIII.
International Mineral Processing Congress, 3-8 September 2006,
Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 756-761.
21. S.J. Neethling, J.J. Cilliers, “Modeling Flotation Froths”, Inter. J. Min.
Proc., 2003, vol. 72, pp. 267-287.
22. P. Stevenson, “Hydrodynamic Theory of Rising Foam”, Minerals
Engineering, Article in Press.
23. O.A. Bascur and J.A. Herbst, “Dynamic Modeling of a Flotation Cell
with a View Toward Automatic Control”, 14th International Mineral
Processing Congress, Toronto, 1982, pp III-II.1 – III-II.22.