See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326976473

A study of bubble size evolution in Jameson flotation cell

Article  in  Chemical Engineering Research and Design · August 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2018.08.005

CITATIONS READS

8 295

6 authors, including:

A. Lopez-Valdivieso Shaoxian Song

Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí Wuhan University of Technology
127 PUBLICATIONS   1,955 CITATIONS    396 PUBLICATIONS   3,877 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fanfei Min Mario Alberto Corona Arroyo

Anhui University of Science and Technology Universidad de Guanajuato
166 PUBLICATIONS   1,119 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   56 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Removal of silica from iron concentrates View project

Minerals flotation and colloidal chemistry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mario Alberto Corona Arroyo on 22 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 3 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 461–466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

A study of bubble size evolution in Jameson

flotation cell

Hongzheng Zhu a,b , Alejandro López Valdivieso b,∗ , Jinbo Zhu a,∗ ,
Shaoxian Song c , Fanfei Min a , Mario Alberto Corona Arroyo d
a School of Materials Science and Engineering, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan, 232001, China
b Surface chemistry lab, Instituto de Metalurgia, Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi, Av. Sierra Leona 550,
San Luis Potosi, SLP 78210, Mexico
c School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, 430000, China
d División de Ingenierías, Departamento de Minas, Metalurgia y Geología, Universidad de Guanajuato, Ex Hacienda

de San Matías S/N, Guanajuato, GTO 36020, Mexico

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

Article history: The Sauter mean diameter (d32 ) of bubbles was characterized for a gas–liquid system in a
Received 31 May 2018 laboratory Jameson-type flotation cell with focus on the size variation in the uprising path
Received in revised form 24 July 2018 of the bubbles in the riser of the flotation cell. Methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) was used as
Accepted 3 August 2018 frother for bubble stability. The effect of MIBC concentration, sampling height in the riser,
Available online 11 August 2018 gas flow rate (Jg ) and liquid flow rate (Jl ) in the downcomer on d32 was investigated. The
d32 significantly decreased with increasing MIBC concentration until the Critical Coales-
Keywords: cence Concentration (CCC), above which the d32 was almost constant at 0.645 mm. CCC95,
Bubble size CCC90 and CCC85 were calculated to be 0.059, 0.046 and 0.038 mmol/L, respectively for a Jg
Sauter mean diameter of 1.32 cm/s and Jl of 11 cm/s. Four frother concentrations covering these three values were
Concentration selected for detailed studies. The size variation of bubbles was related to the Reynolds num-
Reynolds number ber (Re) in the downcomer, where the Re was influenced by Jl and Jg . Bubble size increased
Flotation with the sampling height in the riser at MIBC concentrations below CCC95. This bubble size
Jameson cell decreased with the Re and, for all the MIBC concentrations used in this investigation, it
reached a critical value, even at MIBC concentrations below the CCC85.
© 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Fine minerals are normally considered to be threatening to the envi-
ronment while they cannot be well processed, and flotation is an
efficient and widely-used technology for the treatment of fine miner-
als (Chipfunhu et al., 2012; Dickinson et al., 2015). In this process, fine
minerals with high quality are transferred to the foam by air bubbles,
whose characteristics highly influence the flotation efficiency (Evans
et al., 2008; Li et al., 2017; Park and Wang, 2015). Nevertheless, the size
variation in the motion path of bubbles in the flotation cell is complex
but worthy for investigating.
Jameson cell is a well known and efficient flotation machine owing
to its high efficiency on air dispersion and bubble-mineral contact
(Cowburn et al., 2005; Harbort et al., 2003; Phan et al., 2003). The down-
comer, deemed as the uppermost component in the cell (Corona-Arroyo
et al., 2015), involves a column which receives water mixed with a
surfactant called frother through a nozzle, from which a high-speed
water jet flow forms. Air is self-aspirated and dispersed in the water
resulting in numerous small bubbles flowing down the downcomer and
uniformly distributing throughout a riser (Jameson, 2004).
Critical coalescence concentration (CCC) is widely used for charac-
terizing the ability of frother to prevent bubble coalescence (Cho and
Laskowski, 2002; Kumar and Ghosh, 2006; Zhang et al., 2012), which can
be graphically determined from the plot of Sauter mean diameter (d32 )
vs. concentration or quantitatively calculated through fitting a function
of CCC95, the concentration giving 95% reduction in d32 in comparison

∗
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: alopez@uaslp.mx (A.L. Valdivieso), zhujinbo1000@gmail.com (J. Zhu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.08.005
0263-8762/© 2018 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
462 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 3 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 461–466
Fig. 1 – Schematic diagram of the downcomer experimental
system.
to water only (Finch et al., 2008; Finch and Zhang, 2014). CCC is usually
used to represent the concentration at which coalescence is completely
prevented and exceed which bubble size is constant at the minimum
value (Besagni and Inzoli, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2012).
Methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) is widely used in flotation of copper,
molybdenum, talc, coal, etc due to its excellent solubility and transient
stability (Park and Wang, 2015). MIBC dissolves in water and adsorbs
on the bubble surface (Xie et al., 2017). The MIBC layer at the bub-
ble/water interface provides flexibility for fine tuning surface properties
of the air bubbles, and it plays an important role in controlling bubble
size (Ravichandran et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2017). Laskowski (2003) has
reported a CCC of 0.11 mmol/L for upflow systems like the mechani-
cal flotation cell, while Corona-Arroyo et al. (2015) has given a CCC of
0.08 mmol/L.
This study aimed to provide a better understand of the bubble size
evolution in a downflow flotation system like the Jameson cell. Thus,
the effects of MIBC concentration, superficial liquid velocity (Jl ) and
superficial air velocity (Jg ) on bubble size in the downcomer were inves-
tigated, and the effects of concentration and pressure on bubble size in
the riser was attempted to be discussed through the bubble size mea-
surements under different concentrations during the rising process.
2. Experimental
2.1. System
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the experimental system used
in this study. The main components are: (1) a feed tank for tap
water mixed with frother MIBC and receiving the underflow
and overflow of the flotation cell, (2) a pump for pressurizing
aqueous solutions to downcomer, (3) a flowmeter for mea-
suring and controlling the water flow rate, (4) a downcomer
for mixing the water with air, (5) a riser of constant water
level, (6) a groove for collecting the overflow, (7) a sampling
tube for collecting bubbles coming out of the downcomer, (8)
a bubble measurement system for capturing images of bubbles
(Corona-Arroyo et al., 2015).
The downcomer with 13 mm inner diameter and 600 mm
length extended 250 mm below the surface of the constant
water level in the riser. A plexiglass cylinder of 56 mm inner
diameter and 1 L volume was used as the riser. A conical-type
nozzle of 1 mm inner diameter was fixed at the top of the
downcomer where was sealed from the atmosphere. Under
the effect of the nozzle, the water became high-speed stream
and the pressure around the nozzle decreased greatly, thus air
can be self-aspirated through the air inlet and mixed with the
solution in the downcomer. In this work, Jl and Jg are referred
to volumetric liquid flow rate and volumetric air flow rate per
unit cross section of the downcomer, respectively (Majumder
et al., 2005).
2.2. Measurements and reagent
A cylindrical pipe of 5 mm inner diameter as the sampling
tube was placed closed to the downcomer, 10 mm away. A
vertical coordinate axis marked as H was established for show-
ing the sampling height away from the downcomer discharge
as shown in Fig. 1. Through this sampling tube the mix-
ture of solution and bubbles was transported straight to a
viewing chamber with a diffused backlighting, where the bub-
bles dispersed sufficiently (Gomez and Finch, 2007; Grau and
Heiskanen, 2003, 2002). Images of the bubble shadows and
a ruler clinging to the viewing chamber were photographed
by i-SPEED 3 type high-speed video camera (Olympus UK
Ltd., England) of 47.62 pixels/mm resolution and 4000 frames
per second, which meant that the time between consecutive
images was 0.25 ms. The area for collecting images is 45 mm
depth × 36 mm width. To prevent counting bubbles twice, one
image was extracted from every 360 frames, and these bubble
images were processed using the free ImageJ 1.48b software.
To increase the accuracy of BSD, at least 4000 bubbles were
processed of each test. The data was transferred to an Excel
worksheet to determinate the bubble size distribution (BSD)
and d32 , which was determined using Eq. (1):
n 3
di
d32 = i=1
n (1)
2d
i=1 i
where di is the diameter of the ith bubble and n is the number
of the overall sample (Kadam et al., 2009).
A 3-parameter model was used to fit d32 -frother concentra-
tion (C) data for estimating CCC as follows,
d32 = dL + A · Exp (−B · C) (2)
where dL is the limiting d32 as the frother concentration tends
to infinity, A is the difference between dL and the initial bub-
ble size with water only, B is the decay constant, and C is the
frother concentration (Nesset et al., 2007). CCCx represents a
concentration, at which d32 is reduced by x% from that with
water only to dL . CCC95, CCC90 and CCC85 were determined
in this study (Nassif et al., 2013), as follows,
ln (1 − x%)
CCCx = − (3)
B
A capillary tube of 1 mm inner diameter, connecting to
a injection syringe, was fixed at the bottom of a cuboid
for generating a discontinuous single bubble, wherein the
dimension of the glass cuboid is 80 mm × 80 mm × 350 mm
(width × depth × height). A measuring tape was pasted on the
cuboid to show the position of the bubble (Tan and Finch,
2016a, 2016b), and the bubble motions under different MIBC
concentrations were recorded using the bubble measurement
system.
MIBC [(CH3 )2 CHCH2 CH(OH)CH3 ] from Shanghai Zhanyun
Chemical Co., Ltd, China was used for this investigation, its
molecular weight is 102. All the experiments were carried out
at pH 7.0 and 10 ◦ C.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 3 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 461–466
Fig. 2 – D32 as a function of MIBC concentration in the
downcomer for a Jg = 1.32 cm/s and Jl = 11 cm/s.
Fig. 3 – Bubble size distributions at different MIBC
concentrations for 0.032, 0.043, 0.054 and 0.065 mmol/L.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of MIBC concentration on bubble size
D32 as a function of MIBC concentration for a Jg = 1.32 cm/s,
Jl = 11 cm/s, H = 0 cm and pH 7.0 is shown in Fig. 2.
The d32 values decreased with the increase of MIBC concen-
tration until the CCC, above which the d32 was almost constant
at about 0.645 mm. This general behavior of frothers has been
amply explained by Grau and Laskowski (2006). Eq. (2) was
used to fit the data of Fig. 2 and became:
d32 = 0.645 + 1.45 · Exp (−50.49 · C)
Using Eq. (3), the CCC95, CCC90 and CCC85 were
respectively calculated and found to be 0.059, 0.046 and
0.038 mmol/L. These values are indicated by the vertical lines
in Fig. 2. Corona-Arroyo et al. (2015) reported a CCC value of
0.08 mmol/L, which is close to our CCC95 value. Four MIBC con-
centrations (0.032, 0.043, 0.054 and 0.065 mmol/L) covering the
above three values were selected for the further comparative
investigation.
The bubble size distributions for these four frother con-
centrations are presented in Fig. 3. As noted, the distributions
were similar in that most of the bubbles had a size around
0.2 mm, and the percent of small bubbles increased with
frother concentration. Moreover, the curve of 0.054 mmol/L
approached to that of 0.065 mmol/L, which indicates that the
MIBC concentration tends to produce bubbles of similar size.
463
Fig. 4 – D32 as a function of Jg for Jl = 11 cm/s at various
MIBC concentrations, namely 0.032, 0.043, 0.054 and
0.065 mmol/L.
Fig. 5 – D32 as a function of Jl for Jg = 1.32 cm/s at various
MIBC concentrations, namely 0.032, 0.043, 0.054 and
0.065 mmol/L.
3.2. Effect of Re on d32 of bubbles at the outlet of the
downcomer
Fig. 4 presents the d32 values as a function of Jg at Jl = 11 cm/s.
With the increase of Jg , d32 increased at each frother con-
centration, especially at the lower concentration, and the
difference between two random curves also increased. At
lower addition of MIBC, adsorption on the bubble surface
is lower. Hence the shape and size of the bubble were eas-
ily changed by external conditions. Conversely, the curve
of 0.054 mmol/L was close and almost parallel to that of
0.065 mmol/L, and their variations with Jg were small.
Fig. 5 presents the d32 values as a function of Jl at
Jg = 1.32 cm/s. As noted, d32 of every frother concentration
decreased with the increase of Jl . Lower frother concentra-
tion led to more decrease of d32 . Meanwhile, the difference
between two random curves also decreased with the increase
of Jl .
As shown above, Jg increased d32 at constant Jl , while Jl
decreased d32 at constant Jg . The adjustment on both Jg and
Jl reflects the rate of air and solution into the downcomer.
This actually causes the variation of the Reynolds number (Re)
in the downcomer, where shear, dispersion, adsorption, etc
464 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 3 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 461–466
Fig. 6 – Relationship between Reynolds number (Re) with Jg
and Jl .
Fig. 7 – Relationship between d32 and Reynolds number
(Re) different various MIBC concentrations (0.032, 0.043,
0.054 and 0.065 mmol/L).
have been proved to happen. The Re in the downcomer can be
calculated using Eq. (4) (Le Thanh et al., 2015).
vL
Re = (4)
 slopes. Higher concentration resulted in smaller slope, which
where  is the density of the bubbles-water mixture, which can
be calculated using the constant proportion of air and water in
the downcomer, v is the velocity of the mixture, which can be
calculated using momentum conservation equation, L is the
characteristic length, which is equal to the diameter of the
downcomer, and  is the dynamic viscosity of the mixture,
which can be taken as the water viscosity due to much lower
air viscosity and air proportion in the bubbles-water mixture
(Delgado, 2007; Guo et al., 2013). Re was calculated for the Jg
values reported in Fig. 4 with a constant value of Jl of 11 cm/s
and also for the Jl values reported in Fig. 5 with a constant
value of Jg of 1.32 cm/s.
The relationship between Re with Jl and Jg is shown in Fig. 6.
Increasing Jl leads to an increase in , v and ␮ of the solution,
and as a result, Re increases. However, increasing Jg leads to
an increase in v but a decrease in  and ␮ of the solution, thus
as a result Re decreases. As noted, Re linearly increased with Jl
and decreased with Jg . Within the region studied in this work,
Jl affected more on Re than Jg . The relationship between Re and
d32 for the various Jl , Jg and MIBC concentrations is shown in
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8 – D32 as a function of height for a Jl = 11 cm/s and
Jg = 1.32 cm/s at various MIBC concentrations, namely 0.032,
0.043, 0.054 and 0.065 mmol/L.
Jl and Jg presents opposite effects on Re and bubble size,
thus the change trends of bubble size vs. Re for Jl and Jg were
similar. As noted in Fig. 7, d32 depended on both Re and MIBC
concentration. At a constant Re value, d32 decreased with the
MIBC concentration and tended to reach a minimum value
as is well known. On the other hand, for each MIBC concen-
tration, d32 decreased as the Re increased until a constant
minimum d32 value is achieved even for the lowest MIBC con-
centrations. This minimum d32 value of 0.593 mm is indicated
as the dashed line in Fig. 7.
3.3. Evaluation of coalescence degree in the rising
process of bubbles in the riser
Bubbles discharged from the downcomer coalesce and rise up
in the riser, where the turbulence is much lower and lesser
influenced by Jg and Jl , thus concentration and hydrostatic
pressure play important roles in coalescence. The bubble size
distribution as a function of the height in the riser is presented
in Fig. 8.
The d32 of every MIBC concentration showed an approx-
imate linear correlation with the height revealing different
represents smaller variation on bubble size. Actually, here the
bubble size distribution is deemed to be mainly influenced
by pressure and coalescence. The contribution of hydrostatic
pressure on bubble size was evaluated by the size mea-
surement of single bubbles at identical MIBC concentrations.
Hence, the bubble coalescence degree can be analyzed by sub-
tracting the pressure impact from bubble size distribution in
the column as shown in Fig. 9. For comparison purposes, the
origin of the size line of single bubble was coincided with that
of the bubble group line.
Fig. 9 showed that there is almost no variation on the slopes
of the lines of single bubbles, which indicates that tiny size
change happened during the rising process of single bubbles.
Furthermore, the difference between the bubble group line
and single bubble line decreased with the increase of the MIBC
concentration, which clearly shows size change during the
rising process of bubble group in the riser. Thereinto, the dif-
ference in the lines in Fig. 9(a)–(c), where the concentrations
are lower than CCC95, was caused by bubble coalescence dur-
ing the rising process. This bubble coalescence also happened
in the sampling tube. The difference in the lines in Fig. 9(d),
where the concentration was larger than CCC95, was tiny,
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 3 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 461–466
Fig. 9 – Comparison between single bubble size and bubble size evolution in the riser at various MIBC concentrations: (a)
0.032 mmol/L, (b) 0.043 mmol/L, (c) 0.054 mmol/L and (d) 0.065 mmol/L.
which indicates that MIBC effectively prevented bubble coa-
lescence during the rising process of the bubbles in the riser.
Overall, bubble coalescence in the flotation system is reduced
with the addition of frother, and does not happen when the
frother concentration is above CCC.
4. Conclusion
A bubble measurement system was used to explore the bubble
size evolution in the downcomer and riser of a Jameson-type
flotation cell, and the size of single bubble during its rise
was measured for discussing the effects of concentration and
hydrostatic pressure on bubble size in the riser. Some conclu-
sions can be drawn as following:
(1) Bubble size decreased with the increase in MIBC con-
centration until CCC, above which the bubble size was
almost constant at 0.645 mm. CCC95, CCC90 and CCC85
are respectively calculated and found to be 0.059, 0.046 and
0.038 mmol/L for a Jg of 1.32 cm/s and Jl of 11 cm/s.
(2) The size variation of the bubbles was closely related to
the Re in the downcomer, which depended on Jl and Jg . A
minimum bubble size was achieved at high Re even for low
MIBC concentrations.
(3) During the bubble rising process in the riser, bubble size
increased with the sampling height, and more bubble
465
coalescence happened at lower MIBC concentrations and
higher sampling heights.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Provincial University
Natural Science Foundation of Anhui (Grant No. KJ2016A188),
the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico
(CONACyT) for the fellowship (Grant No.742903) and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51374015) for supporting this work.
References
Besagni, G., Inzoli, F., 2017. The effect of electrolyte concentration
on counter-current gas–liquid bubble column fluid dynamics:
gas holdup, flow regime transition and bubble size
distributions. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 118, 170–193.
Chipfunhu, D., Zanin, M., Grano, S., 2012. Flotation behaviour of
fine particles with respect to contact angle. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 90, 26–32.
Cho, Y.-S., Laskowski, J.S., 2002. Effect of flotation frothers on
bubble size and foam stability. Int. J. Miner. Process. 64, 69–80.
Corona-Arroyo, M.A., López-Valdivieso, A., Laskowski, J.S.,
Encinas-Oropesa, A., 2015. Effect of frothers and
dodecylamine on bubble size and gas holdup in a downflow
column. Miner. Eng. 81, 109–115.
 466 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 3 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 461–466
Cowburn, J., Stone, R., Bourke, S., Hill, B., 2005. Design
developments of the Jameson cell. In: Centenary of Flotation
Symposium, Brisbane, pp. 193–199.
Delgado, J., 2007. Longitudinal and transverse dispersion in
porous media. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85, 1245–1252.
Dickinson, J.E., Jiang, K., Galvin, K.P., 2015. Fast flotation of coal at
low pulp density using the Reflux Flotation Cell. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 101, 74–81.
Evans, G.M., Doroodchi, E., Lane, G.L., Koh, P.T.L., Schwarz, M.P.,
2008. Mixing and gas dispersion in mineral flotation cells.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 86, 1350–1362.
Finch, J.A., Nesset, J.E., Acuña, C., 2008. Role of frother on bubble
production and behaviour in flotation. Miner. Eng. 21, 949–957.
Finch, J.A., Zhang, W., 2014. Frother function–structure
relationship: dependence of CCC95 on HLB and the H-ratio.
Miner. Eng. 61, 1–8.
Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2007. Gas dispersion measurements in
flotation cells. Int. J. Miner. Process. 84, 51–58.
Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2003. Gas dispersion measurements in
a flotation cell. Miner. Eng. 16, 1081–1089.
Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2002. Visual technique for measuring
bubble size in flotation machines. Miner. Eng. 15, 507–513.
Grau, R.A., Laskowski, J.S., 2006. Role of frothers in bubble
generation and coalescence in a mechanical flotation cell.
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 84, 170–182.
Guo, B.Y., Hou, Q.F., Yu, A.B., Li, L.F., Guo, J., 2013. Numerical
modelling of the gas flow through perforated plates. Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 91, 403–408.
Harbort, G., Manlapig, E.V., De Bono, S.K., Monaghan, A.J., 2003.
Air and fluid dynamics within a Jameson Cell downcomer and
its implications for bubble-particle contact in flotation. XXII
Int. Miner. Process. Cong. Proc., 715–724.
Jameson, G.J., 2004. Application of the Jameson cell technology
for algae and phosphorus removal from maturation ponds.
Int. J. Miner. Process. 73, 23–28.
Kadam, B.D., Joshi, J.B., Koganti, S.B., Patil, R.N., 2009. Dispersed
phase hold-up, effective interfacial area and Sauter mean
drop diameter in annular centrifugal extractors. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 87, 1379–1389.
Kumar, M.K., Ghosh, P., 2006. Coalescence of air bubbles in
aqueous solutions of ionic surfactants in presence of
inorganic salt. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84, 703–710.
Laskowski, J.S., 2003. Fundamental properties of flotation
frothers. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Mineral
Processing Congress, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 788–797.
View publication stats
Le Thanh, H., Dong, T., Ta, B.Q., Tran-Minh, N., Karlsen, F., 2015.
An effective passive micromixer with shifted trapezoidal
blades using wide Reynolds number range. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 93, 1–11.
Li, E., Zhang, Y., Du, Z., Li, D., Cheng, F., 2017. Bubbles facilitate
ODA adsorption and improve flotation recovery at low
temperature during KCl flotation. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 117,
557–563.
Majumder, S.K., Kundu, G., Mukherjee, D., 2005. Mixing
mechanism in a modified co-current downflow bubble
column. Chem. Eng. J. 112, 45–55.
Nassif, M., Finch, J.A., Waters, K.E., 2013. Developing critical
coalescence concentration curves for industrial process
waters using dilution. Miner. Eng. 50, 64–68.
Nesset, J.E., Finch, J.A., Gomez, C.O., 2007. Operating variables
affecting the bubble size in forced-air mechanical flotation
machines. In: Proceedings AusIMM 9th Mill Operators’
Conference, Fremantle, Australia, pp. 66–75.
Nguyen, P.T., Hampton, M.A., Nguyen, A.V., Birkett, G.R., 2012.
The influence of gas velocity, salt type and concentration on
transition concentration for bubble coalescence inhibition
and gas holdup. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 90, 33–39.
Park, H., Wang, L., 2015. Experimental studies and modeling of
surface bubble behaviour in froth flotation. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 101, 98–106.
Phan, C.M., Nguyen, A.V., Miller, J.D., Evans, G.M., Jameson, G.J.,
2003. Investigations of bubble–particle interactions. Int. J.
Miner. Process. 72, 239–254.
Ravichandran, V., Eswaraiah, C., Sakthivel, R., Biswal, S.K.,
Manisankar, P., 2013. Gas dispersion characteristics of
flotation reagents. Powder Technol. 235, 329–335.
Tan, Y.H., Finch, J.A., 2016a. Frother structure–property
relationship: effect of alkyl chain length in alcohols and
polyglycol ethers on bubble rise velocity. Miner. Eng. 95, 14–20.
Tan, Y.H., Finch, J.A., 2016b. Frother structure–property
relationship: aliphatic alcohols and bubble rise velocity.
Miner. Eng. 96, 33–38.
Xie, L., Wang, J., Yuan, D., Shi, C., Cui, X., Zhang, H., Liu, Q., Liu,
Q., Zeng, H., 2017. Interaction mechanisms between air bubble
and molybdenite surface: impact of solution salinity and
polymer adsorption. Langmuir 33, 2353–2361.
Zhang, W., Nesset, J.E., Rao, R., Finch, J.A., 2012. Characterizing
frothers through critical coalescence concentration (CCC)
95-hydrophile-lipophile balance (HLB) relationship. Minerals
2, 208–227.