MT 600 - Carolina Jara G

Profesor(es) Patrocinante(s)
UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓN Prof. Sergio Castro

Facultad de Ingeniería Prof. James Finch
Departamento de Ingeniería Metalúrgica
Supervisor
Dr. Cesar Gomez
BUBBLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS IN FLOTATION: BUBBLE SAMPLING AND IMAGING

REPRESENTATIVENESS
CAROLINA ALEJANDRA JARA GALLEGUILLOS
Informe de Memoria de Título

para optar al Título de
Ingeniero Civil Metalúrgico
Diciembre 2008
ABSTRACT
The performance of flotation machines is closely associated with the characteristics

of the bubble size distribution (BSD) generated in the unit. A technique for measuring BSD
that is growing in use relies on the collection and transport of bubbles to a viewing area
(chamber) where they can be properly imaged. The accuracy of the method depends on
the ability to representatively sample and image bubbles, and to correctly process images.
One of the techniques is the McGill bubble size analyzer (MBSA), which has the following
features: collection of bubbles by buoyancy using a vertical sampling tube filled with water
containing frother; the spreading of the bubbles by an inclined window into approximately
a single layer to provide a focus plane and reduce bubble overlap; and digital imaging using
back illumination. Picture quality permits automatic image processing, which is done off-
line. The experience gathered in the last few years has led to design and operating changes
to improve reliability and accuracy. This work discusses three such issues: dimensions of
the sampling tube, frother concentration in the water used in the viewing chamber, and
selection of the bubble imaging area.
Access to industrial flotation cells often requires tubes with lengths well over 2 m,
and the occurrence of coalescence within the tube becomes a reasonable possibility. For
tube diameter, the choice is a compromise between accurate sampling, for which a large
diameter is favoured and manageable image processing where fewer bubbles and thus a
small diameter is favoured. The common choice is among ½, ¾ and 1 inch internal;
diameter tubes. For frother concentration in the chamber it is added to avoid or minimize
bubble coalescence between the tube entrance and the imaging point. The apparent choice
is to use the same concentration as that in the pulp liquor, but this is usually not known (at
least in industrial tests) so consequently another criterion is required: one possibility is to
add excess frother. The imaging area should be selected to include the whole width of the
bubble layer, but if this is not possible for the magnification in use, then criteria to decide
vertical and horizontal locations are necessary.
ii | P a g e
“BUBBLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS IN FLOTATION: BUBBLE SAMPLING AND IMAGING REPRESENTATIVENESS”
A series of experiments with different tube geometries, chamber frother
concentrations, and imaging area locations were run under controlled conditions in a
laboratory column to establish the effects of these variables and propose criteria and
operating procedures as necessary. It was found that independent of the imaging area
selected the Sb have not an effect on the bubble size that at different Jg and lower frother
concentration, but at higher frother concentration the population of bubbles was increased
and bubble sizes were finer. In this case the imaging areas have an effect on bubbles size;
the different combinations show a trend ascending when the J g is increased and those were
consistent. It can seen a segregation effect, the bubbles are not distributed in natural way;
it is observed than right and left side imaging area, the bubbles took one side(right) and the
bubble distribution was non-uniform.
The tube geometry results indicates that at lower Jg and frother concentration the
tube diameter and the tube length do not have an effect on the S b, which has directs
relationship with both, the ore recovery and the bubble size measurements. In the case
when the Jg is increased and the frother concentration is kept constant, the Sb is affected by
the diameter of the tube but not for the tube length. When the frother concentration was
increased, the same parameters were studied. It can seem that the Sb is affected by the tube
length, behind is increased the length, the bubble size is minor at higher frother
concentration. It is demonstrated that Sb diminishes in both cases at lower and higher air
flow rate.
The investigation of chamber frother concentration reveals that the frother

concentration in the chamber affects coalescence of bubbles and hence the measured BSD.
Increasing frother concentration in the chamber decreases the degree of bubble
coalescence and at a particular concentration, in the region CCC; the coalescence of the
bubbles is prevented.
iii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................... ix
GLOSSARY (SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS)............................................................................. xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Concepts Introduction........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Specific objectives.................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND.......................................……………………………………..... 25
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Bubble – particle relationship
2.2.1 The bubble-particle collision…………….......…………………………………………….
2.2.2 Bubble-particle collision in quiescent condition……………………………………...
2.2.3 Impact of particles on bubble motion…………………………………………………….
2.2.4 Ascending velocity of air bubbles…………………………………………………………..
2.3 Gas dispersion parameters
2.3.1 Gas holdup (εg)……………………………………………………………………………………..
2.3.2 Superficial gas velocity or gas flow rate (Jg)…………………………………….…….
2.3.3 Bubble size (Db)……………………………………………………………………………………
2.3.4 Superficial bubble surface rate (Sb)……………………………………………………….
2.3.5 εg - Jg relationship…………………….…………………………………………………….……...
2.4 Machines Flotation
2.4.1 Forced Air/Mechanically Agitated Machines………………………………………….
CHAPTER 2: BUBBLE SIZE IN FLOTATION............................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 8
3.1 Electroresistivity techniques................................................................................................ 8
iv | P a g e
3.2 Ultrasound techniques............................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Optical techniques..................................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Optical fibers........................................................................................................................ 10
3.3.2 Laser-Doppler anemometry.......................................................................................... 10
3.3.3 Other laser-based techniques....................................................................................... 11
3.3.4 The isokinetic collection probe................................................................................... 11
3.3.5 The sampling-followed-by-isokinetic-collection technique……………............ 13
3.3.6 The imaging technique………………………………………………………….…………….. 14
3.3.7 The sampling-followed-by-imaging technique…………………….………………... 15

CHAPTER 4: DEVELOPMENT OF THE TECHNIQUE………………………………………........ 17
4.1 Equipment……………………………………………………………………………………………...... 17
4.2 Image Collection……………………………………………………………………………………...... 19
4.3 Image processing…………………………………………………………………………………....... 21
4.4 Data correction and management…………………………………………………………........ 23
CHAPTER 5: BUBBLE – PARTICLE RELATIONSHIP……………………………………..... 25

5.1 The bubble-particle collision…………………………………………………………………. 25
5.2 Bubble-particle collision in quiescent condition……………………………………... 26
5.3 Impact of particles on bubble motion……………………………………………………. 28
5.4 Ascending velocity of air bubbles………………………………………………………….. 30
CHAPTER 6: GAS DISPERSION PARAMETERS…………………………………………..….. 32
6.1 Gas holdup (εg)…………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
6.2 Superficial gas velocity or gas flow rate (Jg)…………………………………….……… 34
6.3 Bubble size (Db)…………………………………………………………………………………… 34
6.4 Superficial bubble surface rate (Sb)……………………………………………………….. 35
6.5 εg - Jg relationship…………………….…………………………………………………….……. 36
6.6 Gas dispersion in industrial practice…………………………………………………….. 37
6.7 Bubble generators……………………………………………………………………………….. 38
6.7.1 Microporous –medium type bubble generators………………………….…....... 38
6.7.2 Air- water –jetting type bubble generators……………………………….….…... 38
v|Pag e
6.7.3 Air-jetting type bubble generator…………………………………………………….. 39
6.7.4 Pulp-air-mixing type aerators………………………………………………………….. 41
CHAPTER 7: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………….
7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..…………….
7.2 Experimental Equipment………………………………………………………..……………..
7.2.1 Laboratory Flotation column………………..………………………………………….
7.2.2 Instrument Calibration…………………………………………………………………….
7.2.2.1 Pressure transducers……………………………………………………………….....
7.2.2.2 Sparger porosity characterization…………………………………………….....
7.2.3 Bubble viewer Sensor……………………………………………………………………...
7.3 General Procedures........................................................................................................
7.4 Reliability Measurement...............................................................................................
7.4.1 Experimental system................................................................................................
7.4.2 Results and discussion............................................................................................
7.5 Effect on bubble size measurement of the bubble imaging area.....................
7.5.1 Experimental system.......................................................................................................
7.5.2 Results and discussion.....................................................................................................
7.7 Effect on bubble size of the chamber frother concentration..........................
7.7.1 Experimental system........................................................................................................
7.7.2 Results and discussion....................................................................................................
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................
APPENDIX A: CONCEPTS.....................................................................................................................
APPENDIX B: RAW DATA....................................................................................................................
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................
vi | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to my parents, Juan Jara and Alejandra Galleguillos, my sister and my

brother, have been sources of inspiration all throughout my life and the true reason behind
my achievements. They taught me the importance of a strong education and have always
encouraged me to pursue my education to the highest levels.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor J.A. Finch and Dr. C.O. Gomez for their
invaluable contributions and support of my work, hospitality and especially, for the
opportunity of participating in the McGill mineral processing group.
Thanks must also go to the Jim Finch group members for providing support and
encouragement during the smooth and rough rides of my work. You made my time at
McGill worthwhile and I learned a lot from all of you, especially to Dr. Luis Calzado and
Rodrigo Araya, for their support of my experiments.
vii | P a g e
Finally, most sincere thanks go to my supervisor, Professor S.F. Castro. His calm,
focussed management style is the reason so many chose to study under him. His greatest
asset however, is his unique teaching ability. In spite of his busy schedule, through 6 years
as an undergraduate, Prof. Castro was always ready to dedicate his effort towards my
learning.
For all that, I consider myself fortunate, and am eternally grateful God.
LIST OF TABLES
viii | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 The UCT bubble size analyzer (after Tucker et al., 1994).
Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of equipment components used to measure size of

bubble size.
Figure 4.2 Measurements required for correcting bubble sizes determined from images.
Figure 5.1 Relationship between Pc and Db at different flow regimes for Dp= 11.4 μm
(Yoon, 1991).
Figure 5.2 Interfacial area and surface area flux relation in industrial flotation machines.
Figure 5.3 Terminal velocities of different size air bubbles (Clift et al. 1978).
Figure 6.1 Schematic of the pressure difference at the column.
ix | P a g e
Figure 6.2 Gas hold up as function of the superficial air flow rate (from Finch and
Dobby, 1990).
Figure 6.3(a) Air- water –jetting type bubble generator.
Figure 6.3(b) USBM/ Cominco type bubble generator.
Figure 6.4 Air –jetting type bubble generator.
Figure 6.5 Slit type bubble generator.
Figure 6.6 Pulp air mixing aerator.
Figure 7.1 Sketch of laboratory column.
Figure 7.2 Set up of a DP cell connected to a flotation column.
Figure 7.3 Calibration curve of the DP cell (Bailey Pressure Transducer).
Figure 7.4 Calibration curve of the Wika S-10 (Pressure Transmitter).
Figure 7.5 The setup used to characterize the sparger metal heads’ porosity.
Figure 7.6 The log(DP) vs log(Flow) curves that were used to characterize the sparger
head porosity.
Figure 7.7 Measurement of frequency bubble size ten repetitions.
Figure 7.8 D10 and D32 (mm) as a function number of test.
Figure 7.9 Four different locations of the camera.
Figure 7.10 Bubble size frequency at 5.0 ppm DF-250, Jg = 0.5 cm/s at four different
imaging area.
Figure 7.11 Bubble size frequency at 22.0 ppm DF-250, Jg = 0.5 cm/s for four different
imaging area.
Figure 7.12 Surface area flux as a function of the gas velocity at 5.0 ppm DF-250, intended
for four different imaging areas.
x|P age
Figure 7.13 Surface area flux as a function of the gas velocity at 22.0 ppm DF-250,
intended for four different imaging areas.
Figure 7.14 Average mean as a function of the gas velocity at 22.0 ppm DF-250 and
Jg =0.5 (cm/s), intended for four different imaging areas.
Figure 7.15 Set up of the laboratory column for the three different locations (tubes
length).
Figure 7.16 Surface area flux as a function of the tube length and tube diameters at lower
and higher air flow rate (Jg = 0.51 cm/s and 1.52 cm/s) and 5.0 ppm DF-250.
Figure 7.17 Surface area flux as a function of the tube length and tube diameters at lower
and higher air flow rate (Jg = 0.51 cm/s and 1.52 cm/s) and 22.0 ppm DF-250.
Figure 7.18 Frequency as a function of bubble size distribution for five chamber frother
concentration at column 5.0 ppm DF-250 and an air flow rate (Jg = 1.0 cm/s).
Figure 7.19 Chamber frother concentration addition versus D32 (mm) for three frother
column concentration at air flow rate (Jg = 1.0 cm/s).
Figure B.1 Sampling of gas with dust particles.
Figure B.2 Show an effect of buoyancy force.
xi | P a g e
GLOSSARY (SYMBOLS OR ABREVIATIONS)
Rp = the radius of particles

Rb = the radius of air bubbles
vb = the velocity of air bubbles
ρp = the mass of particles
ρl = the mass of water
μ = the viscosity of water
Rb= the air bubble radius, cm
g= the gravity acceleration, cm/s2
ρ and ρl the mass of liquid and air, respectively, g/cm3
μ =the viscosity, poise
v = the ascending velocity of bubble.
xii | P a g e
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Flotation process is commonly used in mineral industry for concentrating valuable

minerals from raw ore, such as gold, silver, zinc and phosphor. Ground ore powder, mixed
with water, frothing reagents and collecting reagents, is fed into the flotation machine,
where air is continuously injected into the pulp through a sparger at the bottom of the
container, forming a large number of air bubbles.
Chemical reagents are added to modify the surface hydrophobicity of the solid
particles. The valuable mineral particles are made to be hydrophobic in order to attach
easily to bubbles. Air bubbles float to the top and form the froth layer on the surface; while
gangue materials are hydrophilic and settle to the bottom. Thus, the concentrate product is
readily collected from the top. The bottom flow is recycled for further treatment.
On otherwise, once the process chemistry has been established, the efficiency is
defined for gas dispersion. The advent of new sensors to characterize gas dispersion
parameters in flotation cells is development that is long overdue. While the chemistry has
been studied since the early 1900’s, it is only now that the significance of bubble size
distributions, gas rate and gas holdup can be meaningfully measured in- plant with robust
and precise sensors. Early researchers like T. Richards (1916) recognized the importance
of understanding the role of air and bubbles in flotation when he wrote in 1916”… we know
that the key to the flotation process is to be found not in the oil, the acid, or the apparatus, but
in the bubbles. The man who understands the mystery of a soap bubble has mastered the chief
mystery of flotation”. In his 1999 review paper on The Froth Flotation Century D. Fuerstenau
laments the fact that due to their “inert nature”, bubbles have never received their due
attention from researchers who tended to focus on the chemical, physical, surface and
colloidal aspects, rather than the physics of the process. It is perhaps fitting that now; 100
years after the inception of industry practice, researchers and industry have turned their
attention towards the importance of truly understanding the role of bubble in flotation.
1|P age
1.1 Concepts Introduction
The gas dispersion can be defined by quantity bubble surface area flux, S b, the
interfacial area generated per unit time and unit area of the machine, (Gorain et al.,1997,
1998) although not without its critics (Heiskanen et al., 2001). Finch et al., 1999 observed
connection between Sb and bubbles population of mean size 𝐷𝑏 at a superficial gas
velocity𝐽𝑔 , or else, the bubble surface area flux can be derived from the geometrics
considerations.
To calculate Sb, the gas velocity and bubble size are required; both variable are
difficult to measure in non-transparent media such as mineral pulps.
Over the past ten years have seen significant advances in the measurements of so
called gas dispersion properties of flotation machines, namely: gas superficial velocity (or
simply gas rate), ( 𝐽𝑔 ), gas holdup (εg), bubble size (diameter, 𝐷𝑏 ). From these can be
deriving the bubble surface area flux (𝑆𝑏 = 6 ∗ 𝐽𝑔 𝐷𝑏 )(1.1), where 𝐷𝑏 is usually the Sauter
mean diameter (𝐷32 ). Each measurement carries information that helps characterize gas
dispersion.
The sensors and set-up, are those described in Gomez and Finch,. 2002. Designed for
plant work, they are robust and provide automated data acquisition, and increasingly, on –
line data analysis. There are other devices at varying levels of sophistication (Powell et al,
2000; Yianatos et al, 2001; Grau and Heiskanen, 2003).
Size of bubbles populations, although crucial to understand performance and guide

operation of flotation machines, has been elusive because of the difficulties in developing a
measuring technique capable of performing in industrial installations.
For several years, the Mineral Processing Group at McGill University has been
embarked on an effort to develop a bubble size measuring technique that functions not
only in laboratory but also in industrial flotation machines. The approach selected was the
collection of images from bubbles exposed to analog or digital camera. In the initial trials
bubbles were espoused “in-situ”, by photographing the side of an expanded flat- top of the
laboratory flotation column (Escudero, 1998), or sampled using a bubble collection
2|P age
tube(Chen et al.,2001) as originally proposed by Jameson and Allum (1984). It was clear in
both cases that images were difficult to process because many bubbles were overlapping
and out of focus. The use of an inclined window was the response to this problem, as
picture quality for image analysis purposes increased dramatically when bubbles spread
into the single layer while sliding up the windows( bubble overlapping was virtually
eliminated and the windows defined a precise focus plane). Plant testing of the inclined
windows approach produced images as good as those obtained in the laboratory; bubble
discrimination was further enhanced by using rear illumination (Hernandez- Aguilar et al.,
2002). Efforts to validate two important aspects of the technique, selection of the
inclination angle for the windows and the bubbles sampling tube diameter, were limited by
the inability to produce bubble swarms of known size (Hernandez- Aguilar et al., 2004). At
the stage, however, the most significant aspect was image processing, as the user was
required to input threshold (gray level value) for distinguishing between objects and
background, and to set limiting values for filters to determine which objects were accepted
and counted (Gomez et al., 2003). These selections became more significant as the bubble
size distribution widened (Bailey et al., 2005b). In spite of some unresolved issues, the
results follow trends which are consistent with changes in operating conditions, and link
with changes in operating conditions, and link with variations in metallurgical performance
( Gomez et al., 2003; Nesset et al., 2005 a; 2005b; Pyecha et al., 2005).
The measurement involves three steps: image collection, image processing, and data
analysis; progress in each area has been substantial in the last couple of years. In image
collection for example, new designs for the bubble viewer and its supporting structure
make integration with the camera and light source automatic and facilities installation and
cleaning of the unit between measurements. However, the major contributions are: i) a
sensor installation protocol that integrates this technique with other gas dispersion
sensors (gas velocity and gas holdup) and, at the same time, provides the data required to
correct the measurement to cell conditions (e.g. pressure corrections), and ii), software
developed at McGill to drive cameras for collecting, naming and storing images at a selected
rate and directly in the format necessary for image processing ( lengthy image transfer and
digitization are no longer required). Software, also developed at McGill, automates image
3|P age
processing and facilities manipulation of the massive amount of information collected in
cell characterization studies and surveys.
These developments have simplified the measurement and reduced the time
required; operations can have results in time to examine and learn the effect of operating
changes on the same day. An additional advantage is that standardization has taken the
technique to a stage where it can be effectively transferred to operations. Nevertheless, it is
still a “work in progress” and the technique continues to evolve as improvements dictated
by use are implemented.
The experience gathered in the last few years has led to design and operating
changes to improve reliability and accuracy. This paper discusses three such issues:
dimensions of the sampling tube, frother concentration in the water used in the viewing
chamber, and selection of the bubble imaging area.
small diameter is favoured. The common choice is among ½, ¾ and 1 inch internal
diameter tubes. For frother concentration in the chamber it is added to avoid or minimize
bubble coalescence between the tube entrance and the imaging point. The apparent choice
is to use is use the same concentration as that in the pulp liquor, but this is usually not
known (at least in industrial tests) so consequently another criterion is required: one
possibility is to add excess frother. The imaging area should be selected to include the
whole width of the bubble layer, but if this is not possible for the magnification in use, then
criteria to decide vertical and horizontal locations are necessary.
A series of experiments with different tube geometries, chamber frother

concentrations, and imaging area locations were run under controlled conditions in a
laboratory column to establish the effects of these variables and propose criteria and
operating procedures as necessary. The results of these tests are discussed.
4|P age
1.2 Objectives
There are two main objectives
 Validate the MBSA by characterizing bubble sampling errors and
 Establishing the effect of imaging area, tube geometry and frother concentration in
the viewer chamber.
1.3 Specific Objectives
 Learn BV operation and image collection and processing.
 Commission and assemble a laboratory bubble column for the task.
 Run tests with different sampling tube diameters and lengths at laboratory scale.
 Run tests with different frother concentrations in the viewer chamber (in laboratory
and plant).
5|P age
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 BUBBLE – PARTICLE RELATIONSHIP
2.2.1 The bubble-particle collision
Regarding the physicochemical aspect of the bubble-particle collision process, two

models are considered today as the most important.
1. The electrostatic model. According to this model, the energy for the coupling of the
particle with the bubbles is due to electrostatic attraction between the particle and
an interfacial surface carrying opposite charge.
2. The hydrophobic model. According to this model, the particles become hydrophobic
after the adsorption of the surfactant, and this allows their adhesion with bubbles.
There are three mechanisms mainly by which bubbles can assist the suspend solids
in raising them to the surface:
I. Adhesion of a gas bubble to a suspended or solid phase.
II. Trapping of a gas bubble in a floc structure as the gas bubble rises.
III. The adsorption of gas bubbles in a floc structure, as the floc structure is formed.
Collision occurs for all the particles in the flotation pulp, this is the first step of
particle-bubble interaction. Collision is followed by adhesion which occurs selectively. Only
those particles, which are naturally or rendered hydrophobic by surfactant, are expected to
adhere onto bubbles during collision. Furthermore, the form particle – bubble aggregates
must be stable enough to resist the disruption of the fluid flow during the aggregate
uprising from pulp to foam. Hence, the probability (P) of particles capable of being
collected by air bubbles in flotation can be expressed by (Sutherland, 1984).
6|P age
𝑃 = 𝑃𝑐 𝑃𝑎 (1 − 𝑃𝑑 ) (2.1)
Pc is the probability of bubble-particle collision, Pa the probability of adhesion, and

Pd the probability of detachment.
2.2.2 Bubble-particle collision in quiescent condition
Many studies have been conducted on particle –bubble collision under quiescent
condition (Sutherland, 1948; Gaudin, 1957; Derjaguin and Dukhin, 1961; 1979; Flint and
Howarth, 1971; Reay and Ratcliff, 1973; Weber, 1981; Yoon and Luttrel, 1989; Yoon 1991).
From analyzing the motion trajectory of particle around the bubble, Flint and
Howarth (1971) have adopted the Stokes dimension number K, for characterizing the
relationship between inertial and viscous forces for particle motion,
2
2 𝜌𝑝 𝑣𝑏 𝑅𝑝2 1 𝜌𝑝 𝑅𝑝 (2.2)
𝐾= ∗ = 𝑅𝑒
9 𝜇𝑅𝑏 9 𝜌𝑏 𝑅𝑏
2𝜌 𝑙 𝑣𝑏 𝑅𝑏
Where Re is the Reynolds number of air bubbles, 𝑅𝑒 = (2.3)
𝜇
The relationship shows that the Stokes parameter K is dependent on the size of
particles and air bubbles and on the Reynolds number of the air bubbles. Stokes number
can serve as a criterion to determine the type of particle –bubble collision according to the
calculation of Levin (1961), the critical value of K for an inertial collision is less than 0.1, or
more exactly, K=1/24. If K> 1/24 the particle inertia will dominate its motion trajectory
and particle will deviate from streamlines and hence, inertially impact with bubble. If
K<1/24, the particle motion will be controlled by the viscous drag force of the fluid, in such
cases, just sliding contact may occur between particle and bubble.
A summarized collision model under quiescent condition has been given by Yoon
(1991) in the following form:
7|P age
𝑛
𝑑𝑝 (2.4)
𝑃𝑐 = 𝐴
𝑑𝑏
Where, A is a function of the Reynolds number of the bubble, n is a coefficient.

Table 2.1 gives the values of A and n for three different flow regimes, i.e., Stokes,
intermediate and potential flows.
Table 2.1 Values of A and n of Eq 2.4 for different flow conditions (Yoon, 1991).
Flow conditions A n
Stokes 2/3 2
Intermediate 3 4𝑅𝑒 0.72 2
+
2 15
Intermediate 3 (3 16)𝑅𝑒 2
1+
2 1 + 0.249𝑅𝑒 0.56
Potential 3 1
Source: Interfacial Separation of Particles book, By Shouci Lu, Robert J. Pugh, K. S. Eric Forssberg
Figure 2.1 shows the relationship of Pc with the bubbles diameters, calculated for d p =11.4
𝜇𝑚 using the expressions given in the Table 2.1.
8|P age
Figure 2.1 Relationship between Pc and db at different flow regimes for dp= 11.4 μm (Yoon, 1991)
While figure 2.1 shows the relationship of collision efficiency, Pc with the particle
size at different Re numbers. It can be seen from the figure that there is a minimum of the
curves at the particle size range between 10-1 μm. This finding is consistent with the
studies of Reay and Ratliff (1973).
In general, the probability of non-inertial contact is very low, smaller than 0.2%.
However, when the particle size is below 1-2 μm, the probability of the particle –bubble
collision rises again, that was caused by two reasons (Samygin, 1979).
When the Re number is greater than 20, the stream around the base of air bubble
will break-off and vortex formed. In this case, the finer particles may be entrained with the
vortex and then, may make random contact with the bottom part of air bubbles. This is
known as “turbulent diffusion contact”.
9|P age
2.2.3 Impact of particles on bubble motion
Flotation can be modeled as a kinetic or mass transfer process. In the kinetic

approach, the rate constant for particle collection (k) has been related to the bubble surface
area flux (Sb).
𝑘 = 𝑃 ∗ 𝑆𝑏 (2.5)
Where P is particle floatability (reflecting mainly size and hydrophobicity).

Considered as amass transfer problem, rather than Sb the interfacial area (av), is employed.
𝑎𝑣 = 6 ∗ 𝜀𝑔 𝐷32 (2.6)
Where εg is gas holdup.
Figure 2.2 shows there is a range in av - Sb relationships observed in our field data.
Since D32 is common to both parameters, this is equivalent to plotting εg vs. Jg which for a
given D32 should yield a unique relationship according to drift flux analysis. This is
evidently not the case. An explanation may lie in an effect of the bubble swarm velocity, ubs.
This controls bubble residence time and consequently contributes to εg and thus av but
does not influence Sb. The hypothesis tested therefore is that ubs depends on the conditions
in some unanticipated manner.
10 | P a g e
Figure 2.2 Interfacial area and surface area flux relation in industrial flotation machines.
The conditions in figure 2.2 cover possible machine and slurry effects. By testing in a
bubble column, emphasis is placed on a possible particle/slurry effect. There are some
findings in the literature suggesting a particle effect.
A common observation is that the presence of solids above a certain concentration

(relevant to those typical in flotation) reduces gas holdup. The mechanism remains obscure
(Mena et al. discuss eight possibilities) but a common explanation is coalescence causing an
increase in bubble size and hence velocity. Most of these studies, however, are not relevant
to flotation, notably surfactant (frother) is absent, a reagent added specifically to retard
coalescence.
In one case where frother was present the gas holdup again was observed to
decrease when solids were present but evidence was presented that bubble size had not
changed. The explanation offered was a combined role of solids in altering the flow
patterns and stabilizing the bubble wake which together increased the average bubble
velocity in the swarm. Some experimental evidence in support was offered. However, there
is no consensus on the action of solids, making this an area ripe for experimentation.
11 | P a g e
Nearly all these studies suffer a common deficiency: the bubble size is usually not
measured but inferred from gas holdup. Thus to advance the investigation bubble size, and
gas holdup need to be measured simultaneously. In addition, since the hypothesis
considers changes in swarm velocity, a way to measure this is also required.
2.2.4 Ascending velocity of air bubbles
Due to its complexity, the mass air bubble movement in pulp has not been analyzed
or described theoretically. However, the ascending velocity of a single air bubble in
quiescent liquid has been investigated (Glembotskii et al., 1961, Prandtl et al 1969, Clift et
al., 1978. Figure 5.3 shows the general curve of terminal ascending velocity as a function of
the volume- equivalent diameter (dc) of air bubbles in pure and contaminated water and
various theoretic relationships.
When the bubbles size is small (e.g. dc less than 1 mm in water), surface tension
forces exceed dynamic pressure forces and the bubbles shape is approximately spherical
(Fan and Tsuchiya, 1990). Small single bubbles (d c < 1.4 mm) ascend in a straight line
(rectilinear). Observations proved that bubbles in the range 1.4 mm < dc< 4.6 mm
oscillation may be either a zigzag or a helix (Saffman, 1956).
12 | P a g e
Figure 2.3. Terminal velocity of different size air bubbles (Clift et al. 1978).
Detailed description of bubble motion in liquid was given by Levich (1962) and
Prandel et al (1969). Generally, in the case of air bubbles smaller than 0.4 mm, their
velocity can be calculated by Stokes formula:
2 𝑔(𝜌 − 𝜌𝑙 )𝑅𝑏2
𝑣= (2.6)
9 𝜇
Where Rb is the air bubble radius, g is the gravity acceleration, ρ and ρ l are the mass
of liquid and air, respectively, μ is the viscosity; v is the ascending velocity of bubble.
13 | P a g e
2.3 GAS DISPERSION PARAMETERS
In flotation the hydrodynamic variables that characterize gas dispersion in the pulp
and correlate to metallurgical performance are superficial gas velocity (Jg) bubble size
distribution (Db), gas holdup (εg) and bubble surface area flux (Sb). In mechanical cells the
power number and airflow number should also be included (Harris, 1976).
2.3.1 Gas holdup (εg).
When gas is introduced into a column, the continuous phase (liquid or slurry) is
displaced. The volumetric fraction displaced is called the gas holdup.
Depending on the way εg is measured; it can represent the fraction of gas for the
whole vessel (overall holdup) or the fraction of gas for a given section of the vessel (local
holdup) (Finch and Dobby, 1990).
An example of measuring overall and local gas holdup is the pressure method. Here,
pressure is measured between two points (A and B), a known distance apart (ΔL) The gas
holdup is calculated as follows:
Figure 2.4 Schematic of the pressure difference at the column.
𝑃𝐴 − 𝑃𝐵 ∆𝑝 (2.7)
𝜀𝑔 = 1 − =1−
∆𝐿 ∆𝐿
14 | P a g e
Where pA, and pb, are the pressure at the points A and B respectively. Multiplying
Eq.(2.7) by 100 gives the gas holdup in percent. Water manometers can replace pressure
transducers.
Local gas holdup can be measured using conductivity-based techniques (Uribe and
Finch, 1991; Tavera et al, 1996). These techniques require measurement of the
conductivity of the continuous phase, and that of the dispersion. The above authors found
Maxwell's model suitable in the form:
1−𝛾 (2.8)
𝜀𝑔 =
1 + 0.5𝛾
where
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑕𝑎𝑠𝑒 (𝑘𝑠−𝑙−𝑔 ) (2.8.a)
𝛾=
𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑕𝑎𝑠𝑒 (𝑘𝑠−𝑙 )
2.3.2 Superficial gas velocity or gas flow rate (Jg).
Superficial gas rate is the volumetric flow rate of gas (Q) divided by the column
cross sectional area (AC):
𝑄 (2.9)
𝐽𝑔 =
𝐴𝐶
Where Jg, is frequently expressed in cm/s (or m/s). The use of a superficial rate is
useful since it can be compared for columns of different diameter. By analogy, other
superficial rates can be introduced such as Jsp, the volumetric gas rate per unit surface area
of the sparger (AS):
𝑄 (2.10.a)
𝐽𝑠𝑝 =
𝐴𝑆
𝑄𝑖
or in general for any fluid flow: 𝐽𝑖 = (2.10.b)
𝐴𝑐
Where i represents the fluid in question.
15 | P a g e
2.3.2 Bubble size (Db)
The importance of bubble size in controlling flotation efficiency has long been
recognized and summarized in various reviews (Ahmed and Jameson, 1985; Dobby and
Finch, 1986; Yoon and Luttrell, 1986; Fuerstanau, 1999). A key factor controlling bubble
size is the presence of frother (Harris, 1976). Frothers function by retarding coalescence.
Coalescence determines the final size of bubbles and occurs virtually coincident with
bubble production (Espinosa-Gomez et al., 1987; Hofineier et al., 1995; Comely et al.,
2002).
The rate of transport of solid particles and water depend on size, velocity of rise and
interaction of individual bubbles with each other and with particles. Bubble size
distribution is an important factor determining how well air is dispersed in a liquid (slurry)
phase. Coalescence is one mechanism that reduces the dispersion efficiency of a flotation
system (Cho and Laskowski, 2002). The Sauter mean diameter (D32) is commonly used to
quote bubble size. The typical bubble size in flotation is 0.5-2.5mm (Gorain et al., 1995).
Frothers have a pronounced impact on reducing bubble size up to a certain

concentration above which further addition of frother appears to have no effect [Finch and
Dobby,1990). Figure 3.22 illustrates the effect of frother concentration on bubble size. A
decrease in coalescence is the accepted explanation of the decrease in bubble size with
increasing frother concentration. After a certain concentration, recently tagged the critical
coalescence concentration (CCC), a constant bubble size is obtained implying that
coalescence is now minimal. Different frothers reach CCC at different concentration (Sweet
et al., 1997; Laskowski et al., 1998). A number of investigators have tried to link the ability
to reduce bubble size to surface tension. Lower surface tension values are usually
associated with higher frother concentrations that result in smaller bubbles.
Aldrich and Feng (2000) found that MIBC solutions with higher surface tension
values than Dowfroth 200 nevertheless produced smaller bubbles. Over the concentration
ranges used in flotation surface tension hardly changes even though bubble size reduction
is taking place. In the case of salts, above a certain concentration, coalescence is also
16 | P a g e
retarded (Klassen and Mokrousov, 1963) but here solution surface tension increases.
Prevention of coalescence is not related simply to surface tension.
2.3.4 Superficial bubble surface rate (Sb)
There is a need to characterize gas dispersion in flotation devices. A new concept

has been introduced, the bubble surface area rate (or bubble surface flux) (Finch and
Dobby, 1990; Luttrell et al., 1993; Gorain et al., 1996).
Bubble surface area rate is defined as the total surface area of bubbles moving
across unit cross-sectional area per unit time. Assuming uniform-sized bubbles of diameter
Db, then Sb, is given by (Finch and Dobby. 1990) such as eq.1.1.
2.3.5 εg - Jg relationship
The εg - Jg relationship shows the change in gas holdup resulting from an increment
in air flow rate. This relationship has been used to establish the changes in flow regimen in
a column (Shah et al., 1982; Xu et al.. 1991). A typical ε g - Jg relationship is shown in figure
2.5, four regimens are recognized: a) Perfect bubbly flow occurs when same size bubbles
rise (at the same velocity) and distribute homogeneously throughout the cross sectional
area of the machine. This regime is the most effective for particle collection (therefore for
flotation); b) Imperfect bubbly flow occurs when bubbles are not of the same but similar
size and they still rise at about the same velocity, c) churn turbulent, when there are large
differences in bubble size the gas flow pattern go from bubbly to churn-turbulent. Large
bubbles rise faster than small ones generating zones with different air content. An upward
water flow is created by the faster movement of large bubbles; therefore, a downward flow
of water, in most cases capable of entraining small bubbles, develops. Particle collection
efficiency diminishes substantially for a machine operating in this regime; d) slug flow is a
special case of churn-turbulent flow occurring in machines with small diameter (columns)
17 | P a g e
when large bubbles have a size similar to the diameter of the column. Gas flow rate is too
large for the column dimensions.
Gas flow regimes

Homogeneous Heterogeneous
a)Bubbly flow b)Bubbly flow c)churn-turbulent d) Slug
[Perfect] [imperfect] flow flow
Figure 2.5 Gas hold up as function of the superficial air flow rate (from Finch and Dobby, 1990).
The rule-of-thumb for scale-up is that the sparger surface area should
increase in proportion with the column cross-sectional area, to try to preserve a similar Db,
and εg - Jg relationship (Finch and Dobby, 1990).
18 | P a g e
2.4 FLOTATION MACHINES
A wide variety of machine designs are available for flotation. The variables available
for manipulation of gas dispersion parameters depend on the type of flotation machine.
The machines can be grouped into the following four categories: forced air/mechanically
agitated, self-aerated/mechanically agitated, forced air/self-agitated, self-aerated/self-
agitated. As implied by the names, the categories are formed by two key features of the
flotation machines, the source of aeration and the mechanism of slurry and slurry/air
mixing.
Flotation equipment for industrial applications includes many different techniques

and devices to disperse air:
 Shear action of a metallic surface moving at high speed in a relatively stationary

liquid (rotor in mechanical cells).
 Shear action of a high velocity liquid striking a stationary metallic surface (in-line
mixers and contact cells).
 Jetting of air through small holes in a porous material (internal spargers in flotation
columns).
 Jetting of air through a single hole (jetting spargers).
 Jetting of liquid into a liquid surface (Jameson cell).
The properties of these categories of machine are reviewed briefly.
19 | P a g e
2.4.1 Forced Air/Mechanically Agitated Machines
Forced air/mechanically agitated flotation machines are used in almost every

Chilean flotation operation. The term 'forced air' derives from air being delivered in a
controllable manner from a compressor through a rotating impeller and 'mechanical'
derives from the driven impeller used to suspend solids and disperse air into bubbles. The
shear induced by the impeller forms small bubbles and spreads them throughout the
machine, creating the gas dispersion. In these machines, gas rate can be manipulated
through the plant control system (or manually using local valves in older plants). By
varying gas rate, other properties of the gas dispersion are manipulated (Gorain et al.,
1996). It should be noted that in addition to changing gas dispersion parameters, changes
in gas rate will have an impact on froth behavior. In these machines, there is potential for
manipulation of gas dispersion parameters via impeller speed, however, at an industrial
scale, this is rarely done.
2.4.2 Self-Aerated / Mechanically Agitated Machines
Self-aerated/ mechanically agitated flotation machines are widespread throughout

world. The most popular example is the Wemco machine. In these, the rotation of the
impeller aspirates air into the machine, eliminating the need for a compressor/blower. Air
has drawn in to the centre of the rotor forms a 'pocket' and the shear at the surface of the
pocket forms small bubbles. Without an independent blower, manipulation of operating
variables is difficult. Gas rate, and therefore the gas dispersion, in self-aerated machines
depend on an interaction of several factors, e.g., froth depth, slurry density, impeller speed,
impeller submergence (Weber et al., 2005). However, manipulations of these parameters
impacts more than just the gas dispersion, e.g., froth behaviour and retention time are also
influenced.
20 | P a g e
2.4.3 Forced Air / Self Agitated Machines
Another group of flotation machines commonly used in Chile are designed for gas
delivery from a compressor, while the agitation takes place through interaction of the air
and liquid flows. This class of flotation machine includes flotation columns and contact
cells. In these examples, bubbles are generated by a variety of mechanisms including
MinnovEx Jetting Spargers and Metso's Microcel.
Typically, bubbles enter the machine towards the bottom, while slurry is introduced
in the upper portion. The slurry flows downward, counter current to the bubbles, inducing
bubble-particle collisions. The gas dispersion can be manipulated by varying gas rate and,
depending on the method of bubble generation; other variables can be used to manipulate
the gas dispersion (e.g., gap size in the jetting sparger).
2.4.4 Self-Aerated / Self Agitated Machines
The final class of flotation machine requires neither air blower nor impeller. In these
machines (e.g., Jameson Cells), air is entrained into a plunging slurry jet in a downcomer.
The resulting high gas holdups in the downcomer facilitate bubble/particle

collisions, eliminating the need for mechanical mixing. However, manipulation of gas
dispersion parameters is difficult given the sensitivity to changes in operating variables
(Summers, 1995).
21 | P a g e
2.5 BUBBLE SIZE MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
To understand the physical interactions that govern the flotation process, accurate
information of a number of pulp phase gas dispersion parameters is required among which
bubble size is one of the key. Bubble size governs the surface area over which solid
particles and bubbles interact, and contribute significantly to system hydrodynamics,
which impacts process performance. Notwithstanding this, few techniques are available to
measure bubble size which can operate at any scale from laboratory to plant. Furthermore,
validation studies of these techniques are rare in the literature. Sizing bubbles in the pulp
phase is difficult because of the high concentration of bubbles and solid (dark) particles the
latter reaching 40% by weight in industrial systems (Nelson et al., 2002). This, for example,
renders the system opaque impeding visualization methods. The techniques have to be
robust to perform in the concentrating plant environment where flotation cells may be
difficult to access, dusty and vibrating, as well as to survive the erosive/corrosive
conditions prevailing in a three-phase agitated system.
Measuring bubble size has been the subject of extensive scientific and engineering
research. A high degree of sophistication has been achieved in the development of non-
invasive techniques including: ultrasound, tomography and radiography imaging, nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging (NMR), and velocimetric techniques (laser-doppler
anemometry (LDA), particle image velocimetry (PIV), etc.). However, they are usually too
complex and involve rather expensive equipment to be implemented in industrial flotation
systems.
Two methods have been used successfully in plant, the sampling-followed-by

imaging technique pioneered by Jameson and Allum (1984) and the capillary technique of
Tucker et al. (1994).
Techniques of measuring bubble size are the following:
22 | P a g e
2.5.1 Electroresistivity techniques
A commonly used method for bubble size measurement is the two-electrode

conductivity probe (Hewitt, 1978; Thang and Davis, 1979). Such a probe consists of two
needles which are fixed a small vertical distance apart. Each of the sensors has a binary
output signal depending on which phase is in contact with the tip. As a bubble passes, the
time delay t between signals from the two sensors measures the time for the bubble to
proceed from one probe tip to the other. The distance L between the tips being known, the
velocity component of bubble i along the direction defined by the line joining the tips can
be estimated as:
𝑢𝑖 = 𝐿 𝑡𝑖 (2.11)
This velocity along with knowledge of the mean residence time of the bubble at one
of the probe tips t, can be used to estimate the pierced chord length of the bubble as:
𝐼𝑖 = 𝑢𝑖 𝑡𝑟𝑖 (2.12)
With this method there are variations in bubbles frequency and the corresponding
chord lengths obtained using the measurements from the upper and lower sensor. If such
variations are statistically significant, this is indicative of problems of cross-talk and
capacitive effects. This implies that the sensors are too closely spaced. The optimum
separation between the sensors is unfortunately a function of the bubble frequency, the
range of bubble chord lengths intercepted by the sensors as well as the sensor size and
geometry.
There are potential problems in applying this method to multiphase flow. Bubbles
that are rising in a direction not aligned with the two probes lead to major errors, since it is
possible that there is no delay in the signal from the two sensors. This seriously limits their
use in turbulent flow fields. To overcome this difficulty some researchers have developed
multi-point probes (Burgess and Calderbank, 1975; Raper et al., 1982).
However, these probes can be utilized only in flows where the bubble size is at least
6 mm (Buchholz et al., 1981). The velocity, as calculated by Equation 2.11, is applicable
only if the bubble is centrally pierced. Steinemann and Buchholz (1984) provide an
23 | P a g e
alternative procedure for calculating the rise of bubbles that are not centrally pierced. This
is based on assuming a probability density function for the bubble chord distribution, the
parameters for which are fitted to the measured chord distribution. If the bubbles are small
(< 1 mm), there is the possibility that a bubble never gets pierced but goes around the
sensing probe tips. Svendsen et al. (1998) have used this method to measure axial and
radial bubble size and bubble velocity variations in columns for air-water and
C02/N2/aqueous MDEA (Methyldiethanolamine) systems. In order to eliminate the effects
of cross-talk between two closely positioned sensors an alternative method of acquiring
the mean time delay between the signals from the two tips is to obtain it from the cross-
correlation function between the signals (Zun and Saje, 1982).
In summary, the two-point probe is an acceptable instrument for measuring bubble

characteristics only if the bubbles are spherical and not too small.
2.5.2 Ultrasound techniques
Ultrasound reflection techniques offer a way to determine bubble size distribution

in multiphase flows. It is known that bubbles have a resonance frequency that is inversely
proportional to the radius of the bubble. This fact has been exploited for detection and
estimation of bubble size (Hilgert and Hofmann, 1986; Luebbert et al., 1987; Broering et al.,
1991). Bubbles are excellent sound scatters and have a characteristic resonant frequency
dependent on their sizes (Cathignol et al., 1988).
2.5.3 Optical techniques
2.5.3.1 Optical fibers
Optical fibers exploit differences in the index of refraction of air/liquid phases and
rely on the application of Snell's law at the probe-fluid interface. Depending on which phase
is present at the probe tip the light from the tip is reflected or refracted. The most common
optical probe consists of two optical fibers fused and ground to a 45° angle with respect to
24 | P a g e
the probe axis. The other ends of the fibers are free with one of them serving as an emitter
and the other as a receiver. Light detection can be achieved with a phototransistor. The
principle of detecting bubble size and velocity is identical to that of the two-point
conductivity probe described above. Measurement of bubble size using optical probes is
reported by De Lasa et al. (1984), Saxena et al. (1990) and Saberi et al. (1995). In general,
an optical probe can be used only in transparent systems and at low gas holdup (volume
fraction of gas). The success of the probe in discriminating between the phases depends on
good contact between the probe tip and the bubble. Thus, if the bubble size was too small
the probe would be unable to detect variations. The use of optical probes in a three-phase
system is also considered problematic (Euzen, 1993).
2.5.3.2 Laser-Doppler anemometry
There are basically four distinct varieties of laser-doppler anemometry (LDA). The
first utilizes a relationship between bubble size and a characteristic signal such as doppler
amplitude or modulation depth. The technique is most readily applied to bubble sizes up to
a few hundred micrometers (Yule et al., 1977; Ungut et al., 1978; Lee and Srinivasan, 1978)
although Martin et al. (1981) obtained a unique relationship between signal visibility and
bubble size for diameters up to one millimeter. At its best, this approach is therefore
restricted to rather small bubbles.
The second variant of LDA is that described by Durst and Zare (1975). In their
technique the two light beams, either reflecting off or refracting through the bubble,
generate interference fringes in the surrounding space. Bubble size can then be calculated
from the fringe spacing. The main difficulty with this method appears to be the
measurement of moving fringes as bubbles pass though the beam. In the third variant, Lee
and Srinivasan (1982) combine LDA determined bubble velocities with reference beam
blockage times to yield diameters. This technique appears capable of yielding high quality
size information, but it requires rather involved signal processing.
25 | P a g e
The fourth variant is that of Semiat and Dukler (1981). In their work, the light
fringes required for LDA are generated by Ronchi gratings rather than crossed beams.
This serves to simplify the optics and make the overall approach more workable. Their
work shows size distributions with relatively large bubbles (diameter up to several
millimeters). Even so, the approach is still fairly complex to be implemented in practical
mineral processing conditions and its use was only demonstrated in bubbly flows of low
bubble number density.
2.5.3.3 Other laser-based techniques
Meernik and Yuen (1988a, 1988b) reported a technique to determine the size
distribution of bubbles in two- and three-phase systems. This method involved passing a
narrow laser beam through the system and monitoring the transmitted light intensity. In
this case, the light beam diameter should be less than the diameter of the smallest bubbles
for which data are desired. By assuming the distance of closest approach between any
bubble center and beam axis to be random, a statistical analysis of the data collected
yielded size distributions. As in the case of LDA, this technique does not appear suitable for
implementation in plant-scale reactors.
2.5.3.4 The isokinetic collection probe
Another optical technique to measure bubble size is the isokinetic sampling probe
(the term isokinetic refers to the condition in which bubbles are collected at uniform
velocity regardless of their size). Its measurement principle is based on sampling
(suctioning) bubbles from the dispersion into a capillary tube. The end of the capillary is
funnel shaped with an expansion such that it provides a uniform acceleration as the
bubbles become converted into cylinders (slugs) filling the capillary cross-section. A
narrow collimated beam of light from an optical switch is directed through the glass wall of
the capillary tube. The measured signal consists of the variation in intensity of the
transmitted light due to the passage sequentially of gas and liquid slugs. These signals are
similar to those of the conductivity or optical probes (i.e., are binary). The time elapsed
26 | P a g e
between the detection of the two ends of a bubble is inferred from the signal. This, along
with the known cross-sectional area of the capillary, can be used to estimate the bubble
volume (Equation 2.13):
𝑡𝑟𝑖 (2.13)
𝑉𝑖 = 𝐿𝐴
𝑡𝑖
Where, A is the cross-sectional area of the capillary; L is the distance between the
optical detectors; ti is the time elapsed between the detection of the two ends of bubble i; tri
is the bubble period (or residence time) of bubble i.
Assuming that the bubble is a sphere an equivalent spherical bubble diameter can
be computed. Employment of this technique in two-phase (air-water) dispersions is
reported (Greaves and Kobbacy, 1984; Barigou and Greaves, 1991 ; Barigou and Greaves,
1992; Larnrners, 1994); in three-phase (air-water-paper) pilot-scale flotation deinking
cells (Hunold et al., 1997); in flotation columns with air-water-coal systems (Reddy et
al.,1988; Biswal et al., 1994).
The choice of a suitable capillary size is a function of the smallest bubble to be

detected. Bubbles smaller than the capillary diameter are not optimally transformed into
slugs and, therefore, give rise to signal pulses which are not of sufficient amplitude and
width to be reliably measured. On the other hand, reducing the capillary size further may
cause bubble breakup inside the tube, in addition to it becoming prone to blockage from
particulates in the dispersion. The minimum bubble size detected by this technique
appears to be ca. 0.3 mm. Another limitation is that any significant blockage of the capillary
may cause a reduction in slug velocity. Under conditions of severe contamination, as likely
in the case of slurries of high solids concentration, the effect of reduction in slug velocity
can be important.
A variant to the isokinetic sampling probe is that introduced by Randall et al.

(1989). This method is often referred to as the University of Cape Town (UCT) bubble size
analyzer. The difference is that in the UCT method individual bubble volumes are
calculated indirectly as fractions of the total sampled volume, otherwise stated:
27 | P a g e
𝑡𝑟𝑖 𝑡𝑖 (2.14)
𝑉𝑖 = 𝑉𝑖
𝑖 𝑡𝑟𝑖 𝑡𝑖
𝑖
Where, 𝑖 𝑉𝑖 represents the total sampled gas volume which is measured with a
burette. As inferred from Equation 2.14, the determination of L and A is obviated. The
approach was intended for two- and three-phase systems; however, its use was limited to
low solids concentration due to capillary blockage.
2.5.3.5 The sampling-followed-by-isokinetic-collection technique
The need to size bubbles in industrial flotation systems where solids concentrations
can be high motivated the development of a modification to the UCT bubble size analyzer.
The modification (Tucker et al., 1994) consisted in directing a sample of bubbles into a
chamber (reservoir) filled with a non-coalescing liquid (frother containing water) in which
bubbles, now "clear" of solids, were readily suctioned by the capillary. In the present work,
this approach is referred to as the sampling-followed-by isokinetic-collection technique
(Figure 2.6).
Figure 2.6. The UCT bubble size analyzer (after Tucker et al., 1994).
28 | P a g e
The UCT bubble sizing method has been used in a number of laboratory and
industrial-scale studies, e.g., Aldrich and Feng (2000); Gorain et al. (1995); Gorain et al.
(1997); Gorain (1997); Deglon et al. (2000); Steinmuller (1999). A deterrent is that it
contains a significant number of components which combine to render the system
cumbersome for industrial use. It has also been observed that, under inappropriate
conditions (e.g., capillary size, suction rate, etc.), bubble breakup may occur (Grau and
Heiskanen, 2002). Studies directed to establish the optimum conditions are scarce in the
literature.
2.5.3.6 The imaging technique
The simplest approach would seem to be the imaging technique. Studies in which
images are used to size bubbles proliferate in the literature. In the most common setup,
pictures of the dispersion are taken through windows installed in the vessel wall while real
sizes are obtained by placing an object of known size (usually a ruler) in the focus plane.
Automatic sizing through image analysis routines have not been extensively implemented
due to the common practical and fundamental problems associated with this method. For
example, a fundamental problem that is not frequently discussed is the impact of the
"inherently variant" distance between the focus plane and the bubble (i.e., the oscillating
nature of the bubble motion causes the distance between the bubble and the focus plane to
vary), which is particularly problematic as the bubble path depends on bubble size. Other
fundamental problems include the influence of optical conditions, e.g., optical system
quality (aberrations, non-linear response, lighting characteristics, etc.).
Practical problems are well documented: overlapping, blurring, bubble clustering,

poor contrast, etc.
Also, the technique is limited to measurements close to the vessel wall impeding the
establishment of spatial (point) distributions. In addition, the system needs to be
transparent with low bubble concentration otherwise the optical path can become
obscured. Therefore, this is not a straightforward approach in an industrial-scale system.
29 | P a g e
Most of the studies reported have been carried out in the laboratory (Reynolds, 1992;
Takahashi et al., 1992; Vigneault et al., 1992; Orsat et al., 1993; Miyahara and Hayahino,
1995; Lin et al., 1994; Pamperin and Rath, 1995; Varley, 1995; Tsuge et al., 1997; Humeres
et al., 1999; Lage and Esposito, 1999).
2.5.3.7 The sampling-followed-by-imaging technique
A variant of the imaging technique is to direct a sample of the bubbles into a viewing
chamber to expose them for imaging. In some cases, liquid (bearing bubbles) is withdrawn
from the dispersion (Parthasarathy et al., 1991; Parthasarathy and Ahmed, 1994; Ahmed
and Jameson, 1995; Parthasarathy and Ahmed, 1996; Deglon, 1998; Hui, 2000). However,
this approach is applicable only when the liquid-phase is translucent.
An alternative to size in systems with high solids concentration is to allow the

bubbles to ascend into the viewing chamber by their natural buoyancy. Jameson and Allum
(1984) first described this concept. Their work appears to be the first attempt to conduct a
systematic survey of bubble sizes in industrial flotation cells. Indeed, the bubble sampling
procedure of Tucker et al. (1994) (i.e., the UCT bubble sizing technique) was inspired by
the approach of Jameson and Allum. The approach has been used for sizing bubbles in coal
flotation (Yoon and Luttrell, 1986), for the visualization of bubble-particle (Zhou et al.,
2000) and bubble-bitumen aggregates (Malysa et al., 1999), in a laboratory-scale flotation
cell (Grau and Heiskanen, 2002), in a pilot-scale cell processing a sulphide ore (Chen et al.,
2001), and in an industrial-scale cell (Yianatos et al., 2001). However, the same difficulties
associated with the imaging method (overlapping, blurring, bubble clustering, contrast,
etc.) were present. Hernandez-Aguilar et al. (2002) introduced a concept consisting in
angling the viewing chamber. This simple expedient along with a proper configuration of
diffuse backlighting provided high contrast, while bubble overlapping and bubble blurring
were reduced. The quality of the images was such that a simple computational routine
could be applied to analyze the images automatically. In this thesis, the technique is
described in detail and the sizing and sampling procedures are validated against
independent measurements.
30 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL PART
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the technique is explained and the work completed in the laboratory,
the set-up for the bubble measurements will be detailed such as:
 A description of the laboratory flotation column used in the experiments and

calibrations results of the associated instruments and
 A description of the bubble viewer sensor and its operation and calibration.
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE TECHNIQUE
The bubble size measurement technique is detailed; the sampling- followed- by-
imaging technique by angling the viewing chamber. The angle reduces bubble overlapping,
and concentrates bubbles along the focal plane which reduces bubble blurring and, along
with appropriate arrangement of diffuse backlighting, provides high contrast. Figure 3.1
illustrates a typical design. Examples of images are given in Figure 3.3.
3.2.1 Equipment
The McGill Bubble Size Analyzer (“Bubble Viewer”) used to measure the size of
bubble distributions includes a bubble collection tube and viewing chamber, a
photographic camera, and a computer to drive image collection and processing.
The bubble viewer (31.7 x 22.1 x 13.0 cm) is made of plastic (PVC) with two facing
glass windows. An aluminum frame along with an o-ring joint is used to seal the windows
against the chamber. It uses the vertical tube to collect and direct bubbles, by natural
buoyancy, into the chamber where bubbles are imaged after they spread into the single
31 | P a g e
layer (Figure 1). Spreading occurs as collected bubbles are forced to rise below the inclined
windows (15° to vertical normally), an action that produces two important results: no or
minimal bubbles overlap, and a well- defined focus plane for the camera (underside of
window).
Figure 3.1. Schematic representation of equipment components used to measure size of bubble
size.
Operation follows a sequence of steps to create a continuous flow of rising bubbles

through the chamber. The unit is installed on top of the cell with the sampling tube
(diameter 1.2 -2.5 m typically) at the desired location and closed at its bottom end by
32 | P a g e
means of a rubber stopper. Camera and lamp, attached to supporting aluminum structure,
are powered. Once camera settings are selected and with the bubble still empty, a
calibration picture is obtained by collecting a single image of ruler positioned on the
underside of the window. The unit is filled with water (normally with plant process water
or, if fresh water, with added frother to prevent bubble coalescence and break-up) and
closed. Image collection is initiated by pulling the string to remove the rubber stopper.
Water rapidly leaves the chamber through the collection tube until the column of water
within the bubble collection tube and the viewing chamber hydrostatically equilibrates
with the external fluid above the tube entrance (Figure 3.2); then, a continuous bubble
rises flow through the tube to the imaging area. During the measurement the pressure
inside the viewing chamber remains below atmospheric.
3.2.2 Image Collection
In- house developed software drives image collection. Experience has demonstrated
that the most effective way of operating the camera is combined a fixed shutter speed
(1/1000 or 1/2000) of a second, depending on the intensity of the light) in auto –iris mode.
Lenses and the distance of the camera to the bubble viewer windows should be adjusted to
have the desired magnification (pixels per mm). The selection of the magnification involves
a compromise between the minimum bubble size that needs to be measured and having a
large number in the image. The value normally used in plant work is around 70 pixels per
mm of bubbles from around 0.1 mm (smallest circular object is considered to be 7 pixels in
diameter) and the examination of an area of about 5x4 cm. The magnification is determined
from the calibration image initially collected. If camera installation and settings are
maintained no calibration images are necessary in subsequent measurements.
33 | P a g e
Bubble viewer chamber height from the pipe
H1 :
connector (cm).
Distance from pipe connector to the entrance of the

H2 :
bubbles (cm). (Length of the sampling tube).
H3 : Liquid level at equilibrium conditions (cm).
Distance from froth surface to the sampling tube

L : entrance (immersed pipe in the froth and pulp zone)
(cm).
Absolute pressure in the top of the chamber

PBV :
(cm H2O).
Absolute pressure at the entrance point of the

Preference :
bubbles (cm H2O).
Manometric Pressure in the pulp zone H3 cm below

P3 : from the top of the froth (cm H2O).
PAtm : Atmospheric pressure ((cm H2O) absolute).
Figure 3.2 Measurements required for correcting bubble sizes determined from images.
Once a steady flow of bubble within the viewing chamber has been established
images are collected (normally one hundred and fifty at rate of one second). Although the
cameras can collect images at a far higher rate, 1/s is selected to give enough time for
bubbles to leave the field of view before the next image is collected, thus ensuring that the
same bubbles is not imaged in consecutive frames. Images are stored in the computer
driving the digital cameras Jpg files, with the name assigned automatically, and corrected
when pixel aspects ratios are different from one (square pixel), as occurs when images are
collected with cameras functioning with PAL or NTSC formats.
3.2.3 Image processing
Image processing is based on a commercial image analysis program (Northern

Eclipse, from Empix Imaging). This program measures properties such as area, perimeter,
and minor and major axes (in pixels) for every object discriminated in binary image using a
34 | P a g e
segmentation process. The operation requires the selection of some parameters in order to
proceed: i) threshold, defined as the maximum intensity (grayscale) value of a pixel to be
considered as part of an object and not background; and ii), up to seven bubble selection
criteria (e.g., minimum major and minor axes size, aspect ratio range, or shape factor
interval) to sort what objects are accepted as bubbles.
The shape factor criterion used to select single bubbles is defined as:
4𝜋𝐴
𝑆𝐹 = (3.1)
𝑃2
Where A and P are the area and the perimeter of the object (bubble), respectively. A
SF of one indicates a circle. As the value approaches zero, it indicates an increasingly
elongated polygon. Therefore a single bubble will have a value close to one whereas a
cluster will deviate from unity: all objects with a SF < 0.6 are rejected.
The software outputs a number of parameters (area, perimeter, maximum diameter,

minimum diameter, etc.). For each bubble, the maximum and minimum axis is computed
and an equivalent spherical bubble diameter is obtained from:
3
𝐷𝑏 = 2
𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 (3.2)
Where Dmax,, and Dmin are the maximum and minimum diameters, respectively.
Equation 4.2 makes the common assumption that the bubble is an oblate spheroid (Polli et
al., 2002). Usually between 3000 and 10 000 bubbles are sized.
Two mean diameters are routinely calculated: (1) the number mean D10, (2) the
Sauter mean D32, which are defined by Equation 3.3:
𝑖=𝑛 𝑡 𝑚
𝑖=1 𝐷𝑏𝑖
𝐷𝑚𝑛 = 𝑖=𝑛 𝑡 (3.3)
𝑛
𝑖=1 𝐷𝑏𝑖
Where, m = 1 and n = 0 for the number mean; m = 3 and n = 2 for the Sauter mean;
m = 4 and n = 3 for the volume moment; Dbi is the size of bubble i, and nt, is the sample size.
35 | P a g e
The software developed automates the handling of many images by driving
Northern Eclipse to process all images collected in one measurement. In general, values for
threshold and bubble selection criteria are applicable to all images in one measurement,
except in some industrial situations. In these cases, as the collection of images advances,
solid particles released when the bubbles burst at the top of the viewing chamber
progressively reduce the background light intensity, and the threshold needs continuous
adjustment. The software includes an option to process with a threshold automatically
calculated for every image utilizing an algorithm based on the picture intensity histogram.
A bubble image is a set of positioned pixels (in a matrix of 2592x3888 pixels) each
representing light intensity through a grayscale value going from lowest 0 (black) to the
highest 255 (white). As backlighting is used, bubbles appear as black circles with white
centres or as black discs in some cases when solids coat the bubbles. Processing starts by
creating a binary image comparing the threshold to the pixel intensities in the grayscale
image; all pixels with grayscale values below or equal to the threshold are given a value of
1, while pixels with lower are given a value of 0. Groups of bordering “1” pixels
arrangement (area, perimeter, major axis, minor axis, etc) and converted to an equivalent
size using the known magnification (pixel per mm). Objects complying with all selection
criteria are accepted as bubbles; then, the two –dimensional parameters are determined.
An unexpected consequence of the bubbles viewer operating under vacuum is the

occasional formation of stationary small bubbles on the viewer window when the rubber
stopper is removed to start the collection of the bubbles (the window glass provides
numerous nucleation spots for the dissolved air in the water). These bubbles show in every
image and to resolve the software includes automatics masking to define areas of the
images that need to be subtracted from every image before processing.
36 | P a g e
DF -250 2.5 ppm DF – 250 20pmm
Figure 3.3 shown examples of pictures at different frother concentrations
3.2.4 Data correction and management
As noted, the pressure within the bubble viewer is below atmospheric during image
collection. Bubbles are thus expanded relative to their size within the cell at the collection
point and a correction for the effect of pressure on the volume of a mass of gas (Boyle’s
law) is applied. Knowing the absolute pressure in the bubble viewer (𝑃 𝐵𝑉 ) and the
collection point (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ), bubble sizes in the cell can be calculated from:
3 𝑃 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑇 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝐷𝑏, 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝐷𝑏, 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 ∗ (3.4)
𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑇 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒
Pressure in the bubble viewer can be measured or calculated from the following
equations, if the pressure at the collection point and distances between the collection and
imaging points are known (figure 3.2):
𝑃𝐵𝑉 = 𝑃𝐴𝑡𝑚 + 𝑃3 −𝜌𝐻2𝑂 ∗ 𝐻1 + 𝐻2 + 𝐻3 (3.5)
𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 𝑃 𝐵𝑉 + 𝜌𝐻2𝑂 𝐻3 (3.6)
37 | P a g e
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑃𝐴𝑡𝑚 + 𝑃3 (3.7)
Pressure ratios 𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 around 0.95 and 0.75 are common in lab and
industrial work (volume correction factors of 0.98 and 0.91), respectively.
As plant measurement to characterize gas dispersion include gas velocity

simultaneous to bubble size, the pressure at the collection point is measured as part of the
exercise, and bubble size corrections are then straightforward. The distances 𝐻1 and 𝐻2
are fixed once on the unit is installed, but 𝐻3 decreases as image collection progresses and
the water level is pushed down as more air accumulates at the top. However, the change is
small (a few cm) during the measurement and this parameter is simplified in the
equilibrium of hydrostatic pressure.
The information generated in a single test is massive; the number of bubbles

counted is normally between three and ten thousand, and the number of parameter
reported are eighteen. Therefore, every test yields an excel file with as many rows as
bubbles counted in eighteen columns.
The facilitate examination of the files, software was developed to calculate, analyze
and display size distributions from a list stored a windows subdirectory. The program
retrieves the data and based on the equivalent diameter (diameter of a circle with the same
area as that exposed in the image), sorts the bubbles into frequency distributions with bin
sizes defined by the user. Average diameters such as mean diameter 𝐷10 or Sauter mean
are calculated. Results are displayed as regular and cumulative size distributions in plots
with both linear and logarithmic size scales.
38 | P a g e
3.3 Experimental Setup
3.3.1 Laboratory Flotation column
A 175 cm high 10.2 cm diameter acrylic column (Figure 3.4) was assembly to
accomplish the laboratory work. Bubble generation was through the desired porous
sparger metal head (10 cm diameter) was installed on the sparger and was tightly inserted
into the bottom of the column
The unit was operated using forced air; gas delivered from compressed air line and
measured using a high-pressure mass flow meter (MKS, Instruments Inc., model 1163B
range0 to 30 LPM, 0 to 5V flow signal and 0 to +5V set point). The gas superficial was
𝐽𝑔 was calculated by dividing the gas flow rate by the cell cross-sectional area. To keep a
homogeneous frother concentration at the column the solution was recycled by a
peristaltic pump (Masterflex, "Easy Load" Pump Head, Part # J004-063A), the pump was
connecting at the column by ½” wire mesh tubing.
39 | P a g e
Figure 3.4 Sketch of the laboratory column
40 | P a g e
In order to calculate the reference pressure at the bubble collection point, two
pressure transducers were installed within the column, it was necessary to utilize a
differential pressure cell (DP cell, “Bailey”, range 0 to 360 inch water, 4-20 mA input))
which was connected to the test column at two selected points, and Wika S-10 (range 0 to
50 inch water, 4-20 mA input) was installed at the same location that one of the pressure
hose. Water temperature was monitored using an ICT temperature and was set at the
collection point on the column.
A computer running Intellution iFIX software version 3.5 was interfaced to

electronic boxes contain 16 input and 22 output OPTO 22 modules. The OPTO 22 output
modules convert the digital signal from the software to an analog signal (a signal that
carries information as changes in amplitude and/or frequency) from the instruments to
digital numbers read by the software to an analog signal of the instrument. Intellution iFIX
software collects processes and distributes real-time data with unparalleled flexibility and
scalability which one to be continuously displayed for further analysis.
It should be that laboratory experiments were conducted on the two –phase’s water
– gas system only, while the reported plant results are for three phase water-solids-air and
five different frother concentrations (5, 10, 20, 40 ppm of Dowfroth -250C). The tank where
was prepared the frother solution, it was filled with Montreal tap water one day before a
test to allow the water to equilibrate to the room temperature, typically around 18 -22°C.
3.3.2 Instrument Calibration
3.3.2.1 Pressure transducers
Two types of pressure transducers were used in this work: Wika S-10 (range 0 to 50
inch water), and Bailey (range 0 to 360 inch water).
A differential pressure cell (DP cell) was connected to the test column at two
selected points. The calibration procedure starts with the column filled with water. Air is
delivered and water is displaced to have a selected level displacement.
41 | P a g e
The following figure is a sketch of a typical setup in which a DP cell is connected to a
flotation column:
Figure 3.5 Set up of a DP cell connected to a flotation column.
Examining figure 3.5, it can be seen that the pressure exerted on connection 1 of the
DP cell (P1) is equivalent to the bulk fluid head above the hose connected to 1 (denoted as
h) plus the fluid height inside the hose that is above the connection (denoted as x).
Similarly, the pressure detected at connection 2 (P2) is equivalent to the bulk fluid head
represented by the addition of the lengths h, x and y minus the height of the hose fluid
under the connection.
It should be noted that (x+y) is the height between the two holes in the column to
which the DP cell hoses are connected and therefore this value is readily obtained for any
column.
The difference of level between two height from the lower pressure point
correspond to the pressure measured using a ruler fixed to column external wall.
42 | P a g e
In appendix A, Table A.1 is presented calibration data for each pressure transducer.
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show calibration result, the data was fitted at a liner trend.
80
70
PRESSURE BY DP CELL, (cm H2O)
60
50
40
30 y = 1.0049x + 1.1301
R² = 0.9999
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PRESSURE READING, (cmH2O)
Figure 3.6 Calibration curve of the DP cell (Bailey Pressure Transducer).
80
PRESSURE BY TRANSMITTER, (cm H2O)
70
60
50
40
30 y = 0.9931x - 0.3243
R² = 0.9999
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PRESSURE READING, (cmH2O)
Figure 3.7 Calibration curve of the Wika S-10 (Pressure Transmitter).
43 | P a g e
3.3.2.2 Sparger porosity characterization
The sparger metal head had to be differentiated by its permeability. The principle
on which Darcy's theory is based is that the pressure drop within the sparger is directly
proportional to the volume rate of flow of fluid passing through. Then, for a particular
porous material, a given pressure drop corresponds to a given flow rate of fluid. Darcy's
model was tested on a stainless steel sparger with a given nominal pore diameter (quoted
by the manufacturer). The experimental setup is shown in Figure 3.8.
A given sparger was supported using a specially designed base. This base allows the
installation of cylindrical sparger with fittings to measure the static pressure inside the
sparger. The sparger was fixed and sealed at its top end once a cover (nut) was in the place.
The characterization involved connecting the air source to two ‘T’ junctions which are
connected to the sparger and to the Wika S-10(range 0 to 15 psi) transmitter’s high
pressure-receiving is readied and ICT temperature sensor; In the case of air, it was
measured and controlled using a mass flow meter/controller (MKS instruments model
1562A-400L-SV). Corrections to the air flow rate for temperature were made. Pressure
readings’ data were collected from the Wika pressure transmitter at multiple air flows. In
compressed air as test fluid, the sparger was open to the atmosphere.
For test fluid, the variables monitored were fluid flow rate (q, L/min), pressure drop
across the sparger (P, cm H20), and temperature (T, °C).
All the above instruments were connected to an interface and signal conditioner
(Transduction Ltd. model Opto22). Outputs were monitored and collected every 1 second
through a software package, iFIX (Intellution, type MMI version 3.1) installed in a PC. Once
the pressure was judged to be at steady state, an average of 5minutes readings was taken
for each condition and for each variable.
44 | P a g e
ICT Temperature Air source
Porous metal head sensor
Sparger
Pressure transmitter
Wika S-10
Figure 3.8 Experimental Set up used to characterize the sparger metal heads’ porosity.
The slope of the curve represents sparger permeability. The data was plotted in
Excel as shown in the following figure:
0.8
0.6
0.4
y = 0.915x + 0.090
R² = 0.999
log(DP)
0.2
0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.2
-0.4
log(flow)
Figure 3.9 The log(DP) vs log(Flow) curves that were used to characterize the sparger
head porosity.
45 | P a g e
3.3.2.3 Bubble viewer Sensor
A technique for measuring BSD that is growing in use relies on the collection and
transport of bubbles to a viewing area (chamber) where they can be properly imaged (See
details Chapter 3.2). The accuracy of the method depends on the ability to representatively
sample and image bubbles, and to correctly process images. One of the techniques is the
McGill bubble size analyzer (MBSA), which has the following features: collection of bubbles
by buoyancy using a vertical sampling tube filled with water containing frother; the
spreading of the bubbles by an inclined window into approximately a single layer to
provide a focus plane and reduce bubble overlap; and digital imaging using back
illumination. Picture quality permits automatic image processing, which is done off-line.
The experience gathered in the last few years has led to design and operating changes to
improve reliability and accuracy. This chapter discusses three such issues: dimensions of
the sampling tube, frother concentration in the water used in the viewing chamber, and
selection of the bubble imaging area.
46 | P a g e
3.4 General Procedures
The steps that were used during the experiments are described:
I. The tank was filled with tap water and the desired frother amount was added to it.
The water volume that was typically used was around 30 L and the frother
concentrations that were used were 0, 5, 10, 20 and 40 ppm (DF -250).
II. Once the solution was thoroughly shaken, the solution was pumped into the column
until it reached the top and it overflowed back into the tank through the return hose.
III. The pump speed was then reduced to 10% output in order to slow down the suction
of the solution into the column. This speed was selected simply because the
readings of the pressure transducers did not fluctuate as erratically as they did
when a higher pump speed was used.
IV. The frother solution was continuously pumped into the column at a steady rate
(already mentioned as 10% pump speed) throughout the entire length of the
experiment in order to simulate the conditions present in a continuously running
industrial flotation cell.
V. The air flow was then activated by using the iFIX program controller. Data was then
collected for different Jg. The data collected was basically the pressure transducers’
readings, the temperature sensor and the DP cell readings.
VI. The bubble viewer was installed at the top of the column having the bottom end of
the bubble collection tube at the middle point of the test section. Make sure you
record lengths and dimensions required in the correction of the bubble size.
VII. The resolution of the image was established, which depends on the selected camera
position and settings.
VIII. After setting a gas flow rate and once steady state has been reached, register
average values for gas flow rate, water temperature, and pressure values reported
by the two pressure transducers.
IX. Operate the bubble viewer and collect 150 images, one every second.
X. The images were processed in the computerized system available. No less than
2000 bubbles should be sized.
47 | P a g e
XI. When an experiment was completed, the column and the tank were emptied and
washed from any remaining frother solution and the DP cell was also washed.
All tests were run under batch conditions.
3.5 Reliability Measurement
3.5.1 Experimental system
Measurements of bubbles size were running at laboratory scale. Experiments were

conducted at two phase water–air system in the laboratory flotation column at room
temperature (18 -20 °C). The frother used at laboratory, was Dow Froth-250
(polypropylene glycol ether, molecular weight = 148.20014 [g/mol]). The aim of this
experimental work was to determinate the reliability of MBSA technique at laboratory
scale, for DF-250 at 20 ppm frother concentration; ten repeats test were conducted at
selected conditions.
3.5.2 Results and discussion
Figure 3.10 shown technique reproducibility at 20 ppm where the bubble size as a
function of the frequency (%). The pooled standard deviations for D10 and D32 were
0.01339 mm and 0.02136 mm, at 20 ppm, respectively.
48 | P a g e
Reproducibility DF-250 (20 ppm)
60
Test 1
50 Test 2
Test 3
40 Test 4
Frecuency ,(%)
Test 5
30 Test 6
Test 7
Test 8
20
Test 9
Test 10
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Db, (mm)
Figure 3.10 Measurement of frequency bubble size ten repetitions .
DF -250 , 20 ppm
3.0
D10 Average, st dev = 0.0134 mm

2.5
D32 Average, st dev = 0.0214 mm
2.0
D10 & D32, (mm)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Test Number
Figure 3.11 D10 and D32 (mm) as a function number of test.
49 | P a g e
Figure 3.10 and 3.11 show that the standard deviation was low for ten repetitions
and high reproducibility was obtained for the bubble size measurements.
3.6 Effect on bubble size measurement of the bubble imaging area
3.6.1 Experimental set-up.
The imaging area effect was studied on the bubble size sampling. Experiments were
conducted at two phase water–air system in the laboratory flotation column at room
temperature (18 -20 °C).The camera was located in four different locations (figure 3.12),
where size imaging area and left versus right imaging area effects were evaluated. Two
parameters were modified: Jg (0.50 cm/s, 1.0 cm/s and 1.50 cm/s) and frother
concentration (5.0 and 22.0 ppm). Those four imaging area measurements carried out with
the bubble viewer filled once time, for each arrangement.
Figure 3.12 Four different locations of the camera.
50 | P a g e
Effect on bubbles size measurement of the imaging area was measured at different
conditions of the air flow rate and at two frother concentrations (see Table A.3). Figure
3.13 illustrates results for the same sampling for four different imaging areas at frother
concentration 5.0 ppm, it can be seen that the bubble size distributions were bimodal for
small area, left and right side and mono-modal at large area. It was observed that small
bubbles were not measured for lower magnification (pixel/mm). That is a typically
distribution at low frother concentration and low Jg. The biggest bubbles ascending for the
middle of the viewing chamber and the smallest were displaced to the border.
45
40
35
30
Frecuency, (%)
25
20
15
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Db, (mm)
Large area Jg= 0.5_DF-250=5_ppm Left side_Jg=0.5_DF-250=5_ppm

Small area_Jg=0.5_DF-250=5_ppm Right side_Jg=0.5_DF-250=5_ppm
Figure 3.13 Bubble size frequency at 5.0 ppm DF-250, Jg = 0.5 cm/s at four different imaging area.
51 | P a g e
Figure 3.14 shown that when was increased the frother concentration at the same
operation conditions, the bubble size distributions not only move to finer sizes, but also
become significantly narrower and more closely approximate each, e.g. were mono-modal
distributions. The effect on bubble size of the imaging area was less pronounces than for
lower frother concentration.
60
50
40
Number Frecuency, (%)
30
20
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Db, (mm)
Large area_Jg= 0.5_DF-250=22_ppm Left side_Jg=0.5_DF-250=22_ppm

Small area_Jg=0.5_DF-250=22_ppm Right side_Jg=0.5_DF-250=22_ppm
Figure 3.14 Bubble size versus Number frequency at 22.0 ppm DF-250, Jg = 0.5 cm/s for four
different imaging area.
The mean purpose of bubble size distribution measurement is to calculate the

surface area flux; Sb which has directs relation with the ore recovery. The Sb was calculated
at two frother concentrations (5.0 and 20 ppm) and two tube diameters (1/2” and ¾”).
52 | P a g e
Figure 3.15 suggests that independent of the imaging area selected the S b have not
an effect on the bubble size that at different Jg and lower frother concentration.
SURFACE AREA FLUX vs GAS VELOCITY PLOT

DF -250_5.0 ppm _Tube diameter _3/4 "
70.0
60.0
SURFACE AREA FLUX Sb, 1/s
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
GAS VELOCITY Jg, (cm/s)
Large area small area left side right side
Figure 3.15 Surface area fluxes as a function of the gas velocity at 5.0 ppm DF-250, intended for
four different imaging areas.
At higher frother concentration the population of bubbles was increased and bubble
sizes were finer. Figure 3.16 represent a comparison between four imaging area, Sb and Jg
at higher frother concentration. In this case, the imaging areas have an effect on bubbles
size; the different combinations shown a trend ascending when the Jg is increased and
these were consistent. It can seen a segregation effect, the bubbles are not distributed in
natural way; it is observed than right and left side imaging area, the bubbles took one
side(right) and the bubble distribution was non-uniform. In the figure before at lower
53 | P a g e
frother concentrations, the case is different, small and big bubbles are part of the
distribution and these went the middle because their velocities faster than the smaller
bubbles (Clift et al.1978), the big bubbles displace to small bubbles at the border and the
imaging area was not have an effect on the bubble size, because the big bubbles help to get
a better distribution.
SURFACE AREA FLUX vs GAS VELOCITY PLOT

DF -250_22.0 ppm _Tube diameter _1/2 "
70.0
60.0
SURFACE AREA FLUX Sb, 1/s
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
GAS VELOCITY Jg, (cm/s)
Figure 3.16 surface area fluxes as a function of the gas velocity at 22.0 ppm DF-250, intended for
four different imaging areas.
Figure 3.17 illustrate that tube diameter has an effect on the D10 for the large
imaging area at higher frother concentration and lower J g. In others cases, the tube
diameter had not an effect on the imaging area. It can seem the bubbles number counted
should be explained this effect, (tube diameter ½” =50246 and tube diameter ¾” = 21015).
54 | P a g e
AVERAGE MEAN VS. TUBE DIAMETER
DF -250_22.0 ppm and Jg = 0.5 cm/s
1.0
AVERAGE DIAMETER D10, (mm)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1/2"
3/4"
TUBE DIAMETER (mm)
Figure 3.17 Average mean as a function of the gas velocity at 22.0 ppm DF-250 and Jg = 0.5 (cm/s),
intended for four different imaging areas.
55 | P a g e
3.7 Effect on bubble size of the sampling tube geometry
small diameter is favoured. The common choice is among ½, ¾ and 1 inch internal
diameter tubes.
3.7.1 Experimental set-up
Effect on bubble size of the sampling tube geometry was studied for three different
tube lengths (141.0 cm, 235.2 cm and 415.7 cm) and at two tube diameter (1/2” and ¾”).
Two parameters were modified for the water solution: frother concentration (5.0 and 20
ppm) and Jg (0.51 cm/s and 1.52 cm/s).
Experiments were conducted at two phase water–air system in the laboratory

flotation column at room temperature (18 -20 °C). A sketch of the set-up is shown in figure
3.18. The Bubble viewer was installed in three different locations, the length and diameter
tubes were changed.
The results are showed as function the Sb, which has direct relationship with the ore
recovery.
56 | P a g e
Figure 3.18 Set -up of the laboratory column for the three different locations (tubes length).
57 | P a g e
Figure 3.19 indicated that at lower Jg and lower frother concentration, tube diameter
and tube length had not an effect on the Sb, which is associated directly with the ore
recovery and the bubble size measurements. In the case when the Jg is increased and the
frother concentration was constant, the Sb was affected by tube diameter but not for the
tube length.
LABORATORY FLOTATION COLUMN (AF)

Effect on bubble size of tube length (DF -250 = 5 ppm)
45.0
40.0
35.0
SURFACE AREA FLUX Sb, (1/s)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0
TUBE LENGTH, (mm)
Jg=0.51 cm/s_Tube diameter=1_2_inch Jg=1.52 cm/s_Tube Diameter=1_2_inch
Jg=0.51 cm/s_Tube Diameter=3_4_inch Jg=1.52 cm/s_Tube Diameter=3_4_inch
Figure 3.19 Surface area flux as a function of the tube length and tube diameters at lower and
higher air flow rate (Jg = 0.51 cm/s and 1.52 cm/s) and 5.0 ppm DF-250.
58 | P a g e
Frother concentration was increased, the same parameters were studied. Figure
3.20 shown that the Sb was affected by tube length, when is increased the length the bubble
size is minor at higher frother concentration and the Sb diminishes in both cases at lower
and higher air flow rate (Jg = 0.51 cm/s and 1.52 cm/s, respectively).

Effect on bubble size of tube length (DF -250 = 20 ppm)
70.0
60.0
SURFACE AREA FLUX Sb, (1/s)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0
TUBE LENGTH, (mm)
Figure 3.20 Surface area flux as a function of the tube length and tube diameters at lower and
higher air flow rate (Jg = 0.51 cm/s and 1.52 cm/s) and 22.0 ppm DF-250.
59 | P a g e
3.8 Effect on bubble size of the chamber frother concentration
The frother concentration in the chamber it is added to avoid or minimize bubble

coalescence between the tube entrance and the imaging point. The apparent choice is to
use is use the same concentration as that in the pulp liquor, but this is usually not known
(at least in industrial tests) so consequently another criterion is required: one possibility is
to add excess frother.(Nesset et al. 2007)
A series of experiments were carried out with the objective to evaluate if the
chamber frother concentration has an effect on the bubble size measurements when the
frother concentration on the column is constant.
Experiments were conducted at two phase water–air system in the laboratory

flotation column at room temperature (18 -20 °C). The bubble viewer was installed at 31.0
cm over to the top of the column with a tube length 141.0cm. The chamber concentration
was changed and the column frother concentration was the same (The column was filled
with the same frother concentration every time that the chamber concentration was
increased).
Three were frother concentration on the column (5.0 ppm, 10 ppm and 40 ppm) and
five were chamber frother concentration (0.0 ppm, 5.0 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm and 40 ppm).
The air flow rate was constant (Jg = 1.0 cm/s) for the all experiments.
Figure 3.21 give detailed results as chamber frother concentration was increased
and the D10 (average mean) decreased from 2.6 mm to a minimum size ca. 1.8 mm. The
results can be interpreted such as the bubble size is decreased behind the chamber frother
was increased. All show similar trends although the frother concentration. The
distributions were mono-modal in all the cases. It is clear that bubble size was affected by
chamber frother concentration.
60 | P a g e
Effect on bubble size of water chamber frother concentration
At column frother concentration 5.0 ppm DF-250 (Jg = 1.0 cm/s)
30.0
25.0
20.0
Number Frecuency , (%)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
CHAMBER FROTHER CONCENTRATION, (pmm)
Chamber frother concentration DF-250= 0_ppm Chamber frother concentration DF-250= 5 _ppm
Chamber frother concentration DF-250=10_ppm Chamber frother concentration DF-250= 20_ppm
Chamber frother concentration DF-250= 40_ppm
Figure 3.21 Number Frequency as a function of bubble size distribution for five chamber frother
concentration at column 5.0 ppm DF-250 and an air flow rate (Jg = 1.0 cm/s).
Figure 3.21 illustrates that D32 is less affected and tends to reflect than changing
proportion of larger bubbles and thus becomes a more truthful single metric measure of
the role of chamber concentration. It can seen as chamber frother concentration was
increased, D32 decreased from 2.82 mm to a minimum bubble size 1.80 mm at 5.0 ppm in
the column. It is clearly a significant effect of chamber frother concentration. The bubble
size decrease the manner exponential after the occurrence of coalescence within the tube
61 | P a g e
becomes a reasonable possibility is the CCC (critical concentration coalescence). Those
results are an indicator that shown bubble size is modified for the frother concentration
but the objective is to measure the true bubble size at the sampling point, the criteria
should be add in excess, because does not matter how much frother is added the bubble
size did not change.

Effect on bubble size of water chamber frother concentration
(Jg = 1.0 cm/s)
3.0
2.5
SAUTER MEAN D32, (mm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
CHAMBER FROTHER CONCENTRATION, (pmm)
Column frother concentration DF-250= 5 ppm Column frother concentration DF-250=10 ppm
Column frother concentration DF-250=40 ppm
Figure 3.22 Chamber frother concentration addition versus D32 (mm); for three frother column
concentration at air flow rate constant (Jg = 1.0 cm/s).
62 | P a g e
3.9 PLANT EXPERIENCE
3.9.1 Troilus Campaign
The role of the frother in preventing bubble coalescence during flotation has long
been established. To evaluate the performance of a frother, an apparatus to measure the
bubble size is a basic necessity. McGill University’s Mineral Processing Group during the
last decade has developed a unique instrument, the bubble viewer to serve this purpose.
As part of the continuing evaluation of the device a field trial was undertaken at
Troilus Mine, May 2008.
Troilus is a gold/copper mine located 120 km North of Chibougamau, Quebec,

Canada, owned by Inmet Mining Corp. Construction of this open pit mine commenced in
1994 and by the start of 1997 Troilus was in production. In 2004, Troilus completed a mill
expansion to increases average throughput to 18,500 tonnes per day.
The main objective of the study was measure bubble size under these industrial
conditions; specifically to run tests to determine effect on BSD of chamber frother
concentration.
Experiments were carried out in the copper rougher circuit. The rougher circuit
includes a circular cross section rougher column manufactured by MinnovEx technologies.
The dimensions of the unit are 4 m*11 m (width x height) for a total volume of 125 m 3, it is
equipped with 20 jet spargers (20mm x 60 mm). The throughput is ca. 900 tph. The column
is ahead of a parallel bank of seven GL&V/Dorr Oliver model DO-1550 UT mechanical cells.
The rougher column has an individual airflow meter and the airflow can be manipulated
from the control room. The cells are connected to a common airline via a manual valve. The
airflow rate to individual cells is regulated by the operator using a manual valve.
The frother used is F-150(polypropylene glycol), molecular weight 410 - 440,

supplied by Flottec. For our tests the frother solution was prepared at 1% v/v. Frother
concentration in the chamber of the bubble viewer was increased while the frother
63 | P a g e
concentration in the cell was constant; the operators controlled frother dosage as function
of feed tonnage.
Tests were conducted on the mechanical cell at three phase water-air-solids

(rougher cell 3 bank 1); tap water and process water were tested as chamber water with
various frother additions. It was considered that the operating conditions in the remained
constant during the test; the bubble viewer was always located at the same position.
Figure 3.23 shows the results for D10 suggest an effect of the chamber concentration
is small, at ½” tube diameter. This effect can be explained by the impact on the bubble size
(number) distribution: The exchange between the large number of small bubbles at low
concentration and narrowing distribution as concentration is increased reduces the impact
on D10.
Figure 3.24 gives the results for D32. As chamber frother concentration was
increased the D32 decreased from ca 2.6 mm at zero frother addition to a minimum bubble
size ca 1.3 mm, a result independent of tube diameters (ø= ½” or ø= ¾”) or the water type
used. This shown the similar exponential decay like at laboratory scale, a significant effect
of chamber frother concentration can be seen at industrial scale.
It shown similar results to tests run on 0.8 m3 the Metso cell at McGill’s Laboratory.
For all conditions, the D32 seemed to stabilize at a chamber frother concentration between
2 and 4 ppm.
64 | P a g e
3.0
ø=1/2"_Tap_Water
ø=1/2"_Process_Water
2.5
ø=3/4"_Tap_Water
2.0
D10, (mm)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Chamber F -150 , (ppm)
Figure 3.23: Chamber frother addition versus average D 10 with different water quality and
tube diameter at cell 2ppm.
3.0
ø=1/2"_Tap_Water
2.5
ø=3/4"_Tap_Water
2.0
D32, (mm)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Chamber F -150, (ppm)
Figure 3.24: Chamber frother addition versus average D32 with different water quality
and tube diameter at cell 2ppm.
65 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
The image validation study evidenced that the MBVA technique, have some issues
that may affect the accuracy of the measurement. The following and those were studied
such as: since the imaging area selection exhibited that at lower or higher air flow rates and
lower frother concentration was not found an effect on the bubble size measurements, but
when the frother concentration was increased the bubble size measurements were
affected. It can see a segregation effect; the bubbles were not distributed in natural way;
and collected bubbles spread into a single layer when they leave the tube and strike the
inclined window. The distribution of bubbles in this rising layer is not uniform with large
bubbles concentrating at the centre of the window, while smaller bubbles move to the
edges. As only a small area and large of the window were imaged, the location of this areas
have to be carefully selected to avoid preferential imaging of large or small bubbles.
The tube sampling geometry (diameter and length) was found to have an impact on
the bubble size measurements. Over a certain range of frother concentration higher (DF-
250) and air flow rate have an effect on the Sb. Those conditions of the operations have to
be well-chosen at the moment of the measuring of the bubble size.
The chamber frother concentration have found an effect on BSM, independent how
much frother concentration was at the flotation system, D32 was decreasing behind the
frother concentration was increased, that was evaluated at laboratory and industrial scale,
in both cases was obtained the similar trend. In fact, the objective is measure the truth
bubble size at the sampling point, in base of the results, the criteria should be add frother at
the chamber in excess, over to the CCC, such as is varied for the different type of frother.
In conclusion, the McGill bubble size analyzer technology is robust, easy to transfer
to the plant operators and many studies before has prove the ability to determinate bubble
size distributions in flotation machines. There are issues requiring attention for their
impact on the bubble size measurements. Future work is need, the characteristic and
66 | P a g e
evolution of the bubble size distributions, measured in flotation units under operating
conditions, reveal real phenomena.
67 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation machines. C.O. Gomez, J.A. Finch,

2002. CIM Bulletin volume N°95, p. 73 -78.
2. The link between pulp zone hydrodynamic characteristics and froth stability
in a 125 m3 flotation column. G.Bartolacci, M.Ourriban, D. Knuutila, A. Lockhart,
J.A. Finch, Chi Ho Lau, A. Fortin and G. Goyette., 2008 Paper 20, 40 th Annual meeting
of the Canadian mineral processors, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
3. Bubble coalescence investigation in McGill Bubble Viewer. M. Kolahdoozan, J.A.

Finch, J.E. Nesset, W. Zhang, 2008.
4. Characterization of rigid spargers and their selection for flotation columns

Ramiro Escudero Garcia. Thesis Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research Doctor of
Philosophy, Department of Materials and Mining Engineering, McGill University,
Montreal,1998.
5. The Effect of Bubble Surface Area Flux on the Kinetics of Flotation and its
Relevance to Scale-Up. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia, 1 997, pp.
59- 144.
6. Continuous Gas Holdup Measurements in Flotation Columns. Finch, J.A. and

Dobby, G.S., Column Flotation, Pergamon Press, 1990.
7. Proc. IV Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral technology. Gomez,

C.O., Tavera, F., Finch, J.A., Perez, R. and del Villar, R., 1995(b). Castro S. and Alvarez
J. Editors. Vol. 1, Concepcion, Chile, 1994; pp.123- 136.
68 | P a g e
8. Flow Cells to Measure Electrical Conductivity: Use in Estimating Gas Holdup in
Flotation Systems. Tavera, F., Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University. Canada. 1996.
9. The Effect of Gas Dispersion Properties on the Kinetics of Flotation ,Gorain,

B.K., Manlapig. E.V. and Franzidis, J.P., Proc. of the international Symposium on
Column Flotation (Gomez. C.O. and Finch,J.A. ed.), the Metallurgical Society of the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Montreal, Canada, 1996, pp.
299-313.
10. Analysis of Bubble Generating Devices in a De-inking Column, Leichtle, G.F.,

Master Thesis, McGill University, Canada, 1998.
11. Development and Calibration of a Flotation Bubble Size Sensor, Yianatos, J.B.
and Puelle, P.C. , Proc. IV Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral
technology, Castro S. and Alvarez J. Editors. Vol. 4, Concepcion, Chile. 1994, pp. 157-
164.
12. Hydrodynamics of flotation machines; Arbiter, N., Steininger, J., In: E. Roberts
(Editor), Mineral Processing, Pergamon, New York, pp. 595 - 608, 1965.
13. The air flow number in flotation machine scale-up. Arbiter, N., Harris, C.C., Yap,
R.F.; International Journal of Mineral Processing, 3, pp. 257 - 280, 1976.
14. Impact of air distribution profile on banks in a Zn cleaning circuit . Cooper, M.,
Scott, D., Dahlke, R., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A.; CIM Bulletin, 97, 1083, pp. 761 - 765,
October, 2004.
15. Design of a gas holdup sensor for flotation diagnosis; Cortes-Lopez, F.; Masters
Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1999.
69 | P a g e
16. Troubleshooting flotation cell operation using gas velocity measurements,
Dahlke, R., Scott, D., Leroux, D., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A.; Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 359 - 370,
2001.
17. Review of hydrodynamics and gas dispersion in flotation cells on South

African platinum concentrators, Deglon, D.A., Egya-Mensah, D., Franzidis, J.P.,:
Minerals Engineering, 13,3, pp. 235 - 244,2000.
18. The dynamic behaviour and automation control of the chalcopyrite flotation
circuit at Mount Isa Mines, Fewings, J.H., Slaughter P. J., Manlapig, E.V., Lynch, A. J.,
Limited; Developments in Mineral Processing, pp. 154 1 - 1575, 1981.
19. Measurement of gas velocity in industrial flotation cells Gomez, C.O., Torrealba-
Vargas, J.A., Dahlke, R., Finch, J.A., ""; International Mineral Processing Conference, 3,
pp.1703 - 1713,2003.
20. Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial
scale flotation cell. Part 1: Effect on bubble size distribution, Gorain, B.K.,
Franzidis, J.P., Manlapig, E.V.; Minerals Engineering, 8,6, pp. 615-635, 1995a.
21. Flotation machines in Flotation, Harris, C.C., A.M. Gaudin Memoprial Volume,
Vol.2, Ed. M.C. Fuerstenau, AIME, New York, pp. 753 - 8 15, 1976.
22. A comparison between capillary and imaging techniques for sizing bubbles in
flotation systems Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Coleman, R.G., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A.,
Minerals Engineering, 17, pp. 53 - 6 1,2004.
23. A survey of bubbles sizes in industrial flotation cells, Jameson, G.J., Allum, P.,;
Reportto AMIRA Ltd, 22 August, 1984.
70 | P a g e
24. Continuous air rate measurement in flotation cells: a steps towards gas
distribution management , Torrealba-Vargas, J.A., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A.,;
Minerals Engineering, 17,pp. 761 - 765,2004.
25. Hydrodynamic and metallurgical characterization of industrial flotation

banks for control purposes, Yianatos, J.B., Bergh, L., Condori, P., Aguilera, J.,;
Minerals Engineering, 14 (9), pp. 1033 - 1046,2001.
26. An imaging technique for sizing bubbles in flotation systems, Jose Ramon
Hernandez Aguilar, Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering McGill
University, Montreal October 2004.
27. Addlesee, A.J., Kew, P.A. "Development of the liquid film above a sliding bubble.",
Trans. I. Chem. E., 80, Part A, 2002: 272-277.
28. Ahmed, N., Jameson, G.J. "The effect of bubble size on the rate of flotation of fine
particles." International Journal of Mineral Processing, 14, 1985: 195-2 15.
29. Aldrich, C., Feng, D. "Effect of frothers on bubble size distributions in flotation pulp
phases and surface froths." Minerals Engineering, 13,2000: 1049- 1057.
30. Barigou M., Greaves M. "A capillary suction prove for bubble size measurement."
Measurement Science & Technology, 2, 1991 : 3 18-26.
31. Barigou, M., Greaves, M. "Bubble-size distributions in a mechanically agitated gas-

liquid contactor." Chemical Engineering Science, 47, 1992: 2009-2025.
32. Biswal, S.K., Reddy, P.S.R., Bhaumik, S.K. "Bubble size distribution in a flotation
column." Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 72, 1994: 148-1 52.
71 | P a g e
33. Bongiovanni, C., Chevaillier, J.Ph., Fabre, J. "Sizing of bubbles by incoherent imaging:
defocus bias." Experiments in Fluids, 23, 1997: 209-2 16.
34. Broering, S., Fischer, J., Korte, T., Sollinger, S., Luebbert, A. "Flow structure of the
dispersed gas-phase in real multiphase chemical reactors investigated by a new
utlrasound-Doppler technique." Can. J. Chem. Eng., 69, 1991 : 1247- 1256.
35. Buchholz R., Zakrzewski, W., Schugerl, K. "Techniques for determining the
properties of bubbles in bubble columns." Int. Chem. Eng., 21, 1981: 180- 187.
36. Burgess, J.M., Calderbank, P.H. "The measurement of bubble parameters in two-
phase dispersions. I. The development of an improved probe technique." Chemical
Engineering Science, 30, 1975: 743-750.
37. Cathignol, D., Chapelon, J.Y., Newhouse, V.L., Shankar, M. "Bubble sizing with a high
spatial resolution." Ultrason. Symp. Proc. '88,2, 1988: 933-936.
38. Chen, F., Gomez, C.O., and Finch, J.A. "Technical note: bubble size measurement in
flotation machines." Minerals Engineering, 14,2001 : 427-432.
39. Cheng, Y.H., Mikhail, M.W., Salarna, A.I.A., A1 Taweel, A.M. "Bubble generation by a
two-phase ejector." COLUMN '96, Proc. Int. Symp. Column Flotation. Editors: C.O.
Gomez, C.O. and J.A. Finch, 1996: 3-11.
40. Cho, Y.S., Laskowski, J.S. "Effect of flotation frothers on bubble size and foam
stability". Int. J. Miner. Process., 64,2002: 69-80.
41. Clift, R., Grace, J.R., Weber, M.E. "Bubbles, Drops and Particles", Academic Press, New
York, 1978, pp. 97-1 41.
72 | P a g e
42. De Lasa, H., Lee, S.L.P., Bergougnou, M.A. "Bubble measurement in three-phase
fluidized beds using a U-shaped optical fiber." Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, 62, 1984: 165-169.
43. Deglon, D.A., Egya-Mensah, D., Franzidis, J.P. "Review of hydrodynamics and gas
dispersion in flotation cells on South African Platinum concentrators." Minerals
Engineering, 13,2000: 235-244.
44. Deglon, D.A. "A hydrodynamic investigation of fine particle flotation in a batch
flotation cell." Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cape Town, 1998.
45. Duraiswarni, R., Prabhukumar, S., Chahine, G.L. "Bubble counting using an inverse
acoustic scattering method," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 104, (1998).
46. Durst, F., Zare, M. "Laser Doppler measurements in two-phase flows." In

proceedings of the LDA Symposium, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1975 : 403 -429.
47. Euzen, J.P. "Scale-up Methodology for Chemical Processes." Paris, Editions
Technip,1993.
48. Fuerstenau, D.W., Metzer, P.H., Seele, G.D. "How to use modified tube for better
flotation testing?', Eng. & Mining J., 158, 1957: 93-95.
49. Gorain B.K., Napier-Munn, T.J., Franzidis J.P., Manlapig, E.V. "Studies on impeller
type, impeller speed and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 5:
Validation of k-Sb relationship and effect of froth depth." Minerals Engineering, 11,
1998: 615-626.
50. Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook by Gregory L. Morris, Jiahua Fan (chapter

8.10- 8.12).
73 | P a g e
51. Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles by Clayton T. Crowe, Martin
Sommerfeld, Yutaka Tsuji (312 -314).
52. Interfacial Separation of Particles By Shouci Lu, Robert J. Pugh, K. S. Eric

Forssberg(563-604).
53. Air Pollution Control Technology Handbook by Karl B. Schnelle, Charles Arnold
Brown (64 -66).
74 | P a g e
APPENDIX A
RAW DATA
Table A1 : Data Calibration of pressure transducers.
Day 10/8/2008
Atmospheric
Pressure 1004 Hpa
Temperature 21 ºC
Measuring
Time Start Time End Wika DP tape
15:46 15:50 0
15:54 15:58 61.81 9.45 10
16:00 16:05 51.98 19.32 20
16:06 16:11 42.24 29.35 30
16:12 16:17 32.1 39.29 40
16:18 16:23 21.2 49.55 50
16:26 16:32 11.88 59.39 60
16:34 16:39 0.93 70.62 71.5
Table A2 : Data calibration of sparger permeability.
Day 10/9/2008
Time Start Time End P Q Patm T
19:54 20:01 14.42 10 999 22
20:06 20:11 16.99 12 999 22
20:12 20:17 19.56 14 999 22
20:24 20:29 22.39 16 999 22
20:37 20:42 25.23 18 9999 22
20:58 21:03 27.8 20 1000 22
21:08 21:14 27.8 22 1000 22
21:16 21:25 30.37 24 1000 22
21:26 21:32 33.21 26 1000 22
21:33 21:39 36.04 28 1000 22
21:41 21:47 41.44 30 1000 22
21:48 21:53 10.04 6 1000 22
21:54 22:00 6.69 3 1000 22
22:03 22:10 3.86 0 1000 22
75 | P a g e
Table B.3.a Raw Data of test run - September to October 2008.
chamber
Shutter
DF-250 frother Calibration Sparger Tube Tube Intensity Camera Atmospheri Temeperatu
Speed
Test nº Conc. Conc. folder Porosity Diameter Length Light Bucb Jg Location Folder c Presume re BV Time Start Time End
ppm Inch cm Watts (cm/s) L-R-M Hpa ºC hh:mm:ss hh:mm:ss Sec.
1 0ppm 0ppm 768 3/4'' 235.2 120 0.5 5 770 1005 22.4 18:29:00 18:33:00 1
2 0ppm 0ppm 768 3/4'' 235.2 120 0.5 5 771 1005 22.4 18:33:00 18:40:00 1
3 0ppm 0ppm 772 3 3/4'' 235.2 120 0.5 1 773 1003 22.7 10:29:00 10:35:00 1
4 0 ppm 0 ppm 772 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 3 775 1003 22.7 10:37:00 10:44:00 1
5 0 ppm 0 ppm 772 3 3/4'' 235.2 120 0.5 2L 778 1003 22.6 11:02:00 11:09:00 1
6 0 ppm 0 ppm 772 3 3/4'' 235.2 120 0.5 4R 779 1002 22.6 11:11:00 11:23:00 1
7 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 1 781 1000 22.4 13:36:00 13:39:00 1
8 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 2L 782 1000 22.4 13:40:00 13:43:00 1
9 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 3M 783 1000 22.4 13:44:00 13:47:00 1
10 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 4R 784 1000 22.4 13:49:00 13:51:00 1
11 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 1 785 1000 22.2 14:18:00 14:21:00 1
12 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 2L 786 1000 22.2 14:22:00 14:24:00 1
13 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 3M 787 1000 22.2 14:25:00 14:28:00 1
14 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 4R 788 1000 22.2 14:30:00 14:32:00 1
15 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 1 789 1000 22.1 15:02:00 15:04:00 1
16 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 2L 790 1000 22.1 15:05:00 15:08:00 1
17 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 3M 791 1000 22.1 15:09:00 15:11:00 1
18 5 ppm 5 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 4R 792 1000 22.1 15:12:00 15:15:00 1
19 22 ppm 22 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 1 793 1000 21.9 16:22:00 16:24:00 1
20 22 ppm 22 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 2L 794 1000 21.9 16:25:00 16:28:00 1
21 22 ppm 22 ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 3M 795 1000 21.9 16:30:00 16:32:00 1
22 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 4R 796 1000 21.9 16:34:00 16:37:00 1
23 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 0.5 1 797 1000 22.2 16:52:00 16:55:00 1
24 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 0.5 2L 798 1000 22.2 16:57:00 17:00:00 1
25 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 0.5 3M 799 1000 22.2 17:01:00 17:05:00 1
26 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 0.5 4R 800 1000 22.2 17:06:00 17:10:00 1
27 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1 1 801 999 22.1 17:29:00 17:32:00 1
28 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1 2L 802 1000 22.1 17:33:00 17:36:00 1
29 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1 3M 803 1000 22.1 17:37:00 17:40:00 1
30 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1 4R 804 1000 22.1 17:41:00 17:44:00 1
31 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1.5 1 805 1000 22.1 18:05:00 18:08:00 1
76 | P a g e
Table B.3.b Raw Data of test run - September to October 2008.
chamber
Shutter
Speed
32 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1.5 2 L 806 1000 22.1 18:09:00 18:12:00 1
33 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1.5 3 M 807 1000 22.1 18:13:00 18:15:00 1
34 22ppm 22ppm 780 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1.5 4 R 808 1000 22.1 18:17:00 18:20:00 1
35 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 1 811 1002 22 18:12:00 18:23:00 1
36 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 2 812 1002 22 18:24:00 18:37:00 1
37 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 3 813 1003 22 18:39:00 18:49:00 1
38 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 0.5 4 814 1003 22 18:55:00 19:00:00 1
39 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 1 815 1004 21.7 19:36:00 19:46:00 1
40 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 2 816 1004 21.7 19:47:00 19:58:00 1
41 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 3 817 1004 21.7 20:00:00 20:10:00 1
42 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1 4 818 1004 21.7 20:11:00 20:21:00 1
43 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 1 819 1005 21.6 20:43:00 20:50:00 1
44 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 4 820 1005 21.6 20:53:00 21:02:00 1
45 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 3 821 1006 21.6 21:03:00 21:10:00 1
46 0 ppm 0 ppm 810 3 3/4'' 235.2 100 1.5 2 822 1006 21.6 21:11:00 21:36:00 1
47 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 1.5 824 1016 21.3 14:29:00 14:32:00 1
48 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 0.5 825 1017 21.3 14:40:00 14:44:00 1
49 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 1.5 826 1016 21.1 15:04:00 15:05:00 1
50 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 0.5 827 1016 21.1 15:14:00 15:17:00 1
51 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1.5 828 1016 21.4 15:43:00 15:46:00 1
52 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 0.5 829 1015 21.4 15:53:00 15:56:00 1
53 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 0.5 830 1015 21.3 16:09:00 16:12:00 1
54 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 235.2 100 1.5 831 1015 21.3 16:19:00 16:22:00 1
55 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 3/4'' 415.7 100 1.5 832 1014 21.3 17:01:00 17:04:00 1
56 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 3/4'' 415.7 100 0.5 833 1014 21 18:49:00 18:53:00 1
57 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 415.7 100 0.5 834 1014 20.8 19:35:00 19:38:00 1
58 5ppm 5ppm 823 3 1/2'' 415.7 100 1.5 835 1014 20.8 19:50:00 19:53:00 1
69 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 1/2'' 415.7 100 0.5 101 1020 20.8 12:23:00 12:28:00 1
70 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 1/2'' 415.7 100 1.5 102 1019 20.8 12:34:00 12:38:00 1
71 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 415.7 100 0.5 103 1019 20.4 13:04:00 13:08:00 1
72 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 415.7 100 1.5 104 1019 20.4 13:14:00 13:17:00 1
73 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 1/2'' 235.7 100 0.5 105 1018 20.8 13:47:00 13:50:00 1
74 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 1/2'' 235.7 100 1.5 106 1018 20.8 13:58:00 14:01:00 1
75 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 235.7 100 0.5 107 1018 20.8 14:13:00 14:47:00 1
76 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 235.7 100 1.5 108 1018 20.8 14:23:00 14:27:00 1
77 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 0.5 109 1018 20.9 15:10:00 15:13:00 1
78 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 1.5 110 1018 20.9 15:19:00 15:22:00 1
79 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141.0 100 0.5 111 1018 21 15:45:00 15:48:00 1
80 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141.0 100 1.5 112 1018 21 15:54:00 15:57:00 1
81 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 0.5 113 1017 21 16:50:00 16:53:00 1
82 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 1/2'' 141.0 100 1.5 114 1017 21 16:59:00 17:02:00 1
83 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141.0 100 0.5 115 1017 21.2 17:16:00 17:20:00 1
84 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141.0 100 1.5 116 1017 21.2 17:26:00 17:29:00 1
85 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 1/2'' 235.7 100 0.5 117 1017 21.2 18:01:00 18:04:00 1
86 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 1/2'' 235.7 100 1.5 118 1016 21.2 18:10:00 18:13:00 1
87 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 235.7 100 1.5 119 1016 21.2 18:22:00 18:24:00 1
88 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 235.7 100 0.5 120 1017 21.2 18:30:00 18:34:00 1
89 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 1/2'' 415.7 100 0.5 121 1017 21.3 18:52:00 18:56:00 1
90 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 1/2'' 415.7 100 1.5 122 1016 21.3 19:01:00 19:05:00 1
77 | P a g e
Table B.3.c Raw Data of test run - September to October 2008.
chamber
Shutter
Speed
91 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 415.7 100 1.5 123 1016 21.3 19:56:00 19:59:00 1
92 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 415.7 100 0.5 124 1016 21.3 20:05:00 20:08:00 1
93 5ppm 0ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 101 1001 20.5 13:15:00 13:18:00 1
94 5ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 102 1000 20.5 14:21:00 14:25:00 1
95 5ppm 10ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 103 999 20.5 15:01:00 15:04:00 1
96 5ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 104 999 20.5 15:36:00 15:39:00 1
97 5ppm 40ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 105 998 20.5 16:21:00 16:24:00 1
98 10ppm 0ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 101 988 19.8 12:49:00 12:52:00 1
99 10ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 102 988 19.4 13:29:00 13:33:00 1
100 10ppm 10ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 103 988 19.4 14:20:00 14:24:00 1
101 10ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 104 988 19.4 15:35:00 15:38:00 1
102 10ppm 40ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 105 990 19.4 16:20:00 16:24:00 1
103 20ppm 0ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 106 991 19.4 18:30:00 18:33:00 1
104 20ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 107 992 19.2 19:07:00 19:11:00 1
105 20ppm 10ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 108 992 19.2 19:37:00 19:41:00 1
106 20ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 109 992 18.9 20:12:00 20:15:00 1
107 20ppm 40ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 110 992 18.7 20:52:00 20:55:00 1
108 40ppm 0ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 111 992 19.2 22:04:00 22:07:00 1
109 40ppm 5ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 112 992 18.7 22:39:00 22:42:00 1
110 40ppm 10ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 113 992 18.8 23:14:00 23:17:00 1
111 40ppm 20ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 114 992 18.7 23:47:00 23:49:00 1
112 40ppm 40ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 115 992 19 0:12:00 0:15:00 1
113 25ppm 25ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 0.5 101 1002 19.8 19:37:00 19:40:00 1
114 25ppm 25ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1 102 1001 19 19:58:00 20:01:00 1
115 25ppm 25ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 1.5 103 1001 19.2 20:16:00 20:20:00 1
116 25ppm 25ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 9.42 104 1001 19.3 20:33:00 20:36:00 1
117 25ppm 25ppm 100 3 3/4'' 141 100 2.5 105 1000 19.3 21:02:00 21:06:00 1
78 | P a g e
Table 4: Data of measurements the rougher cells date May 12, 2008. Troilus Campaign
Bank Rougher #2
Cell #3
Feed 600 TPH
pH 10.4
% solids 37
Tube Length 152.5 cm
Calibration
573
Folder
Location (72,38) cm
Calibration 71.0 pixel/mm
Time Frother Tube Cell Chamber N bubble
Camera
(hr: Conc., ø Water Temp. Temp. TH =0
Test Folder
min) (ppm) (inch) (°C) (°C) SF =0.7 -0.9
1 16:30 2 ½” 574 Process 17477
2 16:55 2 ¾” 575 Process 6594
3 17:45 2 ½” 576 Tap 8399
4 18:10 2 ¾” 577 Tap 2990
5 20:00 5 ½” 578 Process 16616
6 20:14 5 ¾” 580 Process 11872
7 20:27 10 ½” 582 Process 13972
8 20:40 10 ¾” 583 Process 8497
9 20:53 0 ½” 584 Tap 17.1 8168
10 21:19 0 ¾” 585 Tap 4691
79 | P a g e
APPENDIX B
B.1 Concepts
B.1.1 Isokinetic sample
To obtain a representative sample independent of particle size or bubble size, it is

necessary to remove the sample stream isokinetically, i.e. with the same velocity as the
main stream. The following figure shows the pattern of the flow lines in the vicinity of a
thin-walled sampling probe.
Figure B.1 Reason for isokinetic sample.
Meanwhile, particles with sufficient momentum will tend to continue traveling in a

straight line leaving the gas flow streamline and will not be carried into the sampling probe
(Vgas<Vsample). Similarly, if the sampling velocity is too low, excess to the gas is to divert to
away from the probe while particles are carried into the probe, representing an
80 | P a g e
erroneously high particle concentration. The correct isokinetic flow rate (Vgas=Vsample), is
determined by the conducting velocity traverse prior to collecting a particulate sampling.
All particles flowing toward the intake opening are equally collected.
B.1.2 Buoyancy
The buoyant force on a submerged object is equal to the weight of the liquid
displaced by the object. For water, with a density of one gram per cubic centimeter, this
provides a convenient way to determine the volume of an irregularly shaped object and
then to determine its density.
Figure B.2 shows an effect of buoyancy force.
Examination of the nature of buoyancy shows that the buoyant force on a volume of
water and a submerged object of the same volume is the same. Since it exactly supports the
volume of water, it follows that the buoyant force on any submerged object is equal to the
weight of the water displaced. This is the essence of Archimedes principle.
81 | P a g e
B.1.3 OPTO 22
Develops and manufactures hardware and software products for applications in

industrial automation, remote monitoring, and enterprise data acquisition. Using standard,
commercially available Internet, networking, and computer technologies, OPTO 22’s
input/output and control systems allow customers to monitor, control, and acquire data
from all of the mechanical, electrical, and electronic assets that are key to their business
operations. OPTO 22's products and services support automation end users, OEMs, and
information technology and operations personnel.
B.1.4 iFIX
Designed from the ground-up to be more secure, more powerful and more versatile
than ever before, iFIX makes the industry's most widely-respected HMI/SCADA application
an even better option for all your supervisory control and data acquisition needs.
Embedded VBA, iHistorian Collector, eSignaturing & Electronic Record Functionality
,Synchronization to Windows Security ,Real-time and historical trending, VisiconX - easy
database access ,Data collection and data management ,Comprehensive reporting
,Alarming and alarm management ,Alarm counter functionality ,Node-based security
,Networking, Graphic Dynamo Wizards ,On-line configuration ,Process visualization , OLE
for Process Control (OPC) Support, ActiveX Control Support ,Supervisory Control , Object-
Oriented Graphics ,Secure Containment of ActiveX Controls , Plug and Solve Architecture,
Workspace Development Environment.
82 | P a g e

MT 600 - Carolina Jara G

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MT 600 - Carolina Jara G

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Profesor(es) Patrocinante(s)

UNIVERSIDAD DE CONCEPCIÓN Prof. Sergio Castro

BUBBLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS IN FLOTATION: BUBBLE SAMPLING AND IMAGING

CAROLINA ALEJANDRA JARA GALLEGUILLOS

Informe de Memoria de Título

Ingeniero Civil Metalúrgico

The performance of flotation machines is closely associated with the characteristics

The investigation of chamber frother concentration reveals that the frother

1.1 Concepts Introduction........................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Specific objectives.................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: BUBBLE SIZE IN FLOTATION............................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 8

3.1 Electroresistivity techniques................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Optical techniques..................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 Optical fibers........................................................................................................................ 10

3.3.2 Laser-Doppler anemometry.......................................................................................... 10

3.3.3 Other laser-based techniques....................................................................................... 11

3.3.4 The isokinetic collection probe................................................................................... 11

3.3.5 The sampling-followed-by-isokinetic-collection technique……………............ 13

3.3.6 The imaging technique………………………………………………………….…………….. 14

3.3.7 The sampling-followed-by-imaging technique…………………….………………... 15

4.3 Image processing…………………………………………………………………………………....... 21

4.4 Data correction and management…………………………………………………………........ 23

CHAPTER 5: BUBBLE – PARTICLE RELATIONSHIP……………………………………..... 25

Thanks to my parents, Juan Jara and Alejandra Galleguillos, my sister and my

Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of equipment components used to measure size of

Figure 6.1 Schematic of the pressure difference at the column.

Figure 6.3(a) Air- water –jetting type bubble generator.

Figure 6.3(b) USBM/ Cominco type bubble generator.

Figure 6.4 Air –jetting type bubble generator.

Figure 6.5 Slit type bubble generator.

Figure 6.6 Pulp air mixing aerator.

Figure 7.1 Sketch of laboratory column.

Figure 7.2 Set up of a DP cell connected to a flotation column.

Figure 7.3 Calibration curve of the DP cell (Bailey Pressure Transducer).

Figure 7.4 Calibration curve of the Wika S-10 (Pressure Transmitter).

Figure 7.7 Measurement of frequency bubble size ten repetitions.

Figure 7.8 D10 and D32 (mm) as a function number of test.

Figure 7.9 Four different locations of the camera.

Figure B.1 Sampling of gas with dust particles.

Figure B.2 Show an effect of buoyancy force.

Rp = the radius of particles

Rb= the air bubble radius, cm

g= the gravity acceleration, cm/s2

ρ and ρl the mass of liquid and air, respectively, g/cm3

μ =the viscosity, poise

v = the ascending velocity of bubble.

Flotation process is commonly used in mineral industry for concentrating valuable

Size of bubbles populations, although crucial to understand performance and guide

A series of experiments with different tube geometries, chamber frother

There are two main objectives

 Validate the MBSA by characterizing bubble sampling errors and

1.3 Specific Objectives

 Learn BV operation and image collection and processing.

 Commission and assemble a laboratory bubble column for the task.

2.2 BUBBLE – PARTICLE RELATIONSHIP

2.2.1 The bubble-particle collision

Regarding the physicochemical aspect of the bubble-particle collision process, two

Pc is the probability of bubble-particle collision, Pa the probability of adhesion, and

2.2.2 Bubble-particle collision in quiescent condition

Where, A is a function of the Reynolds number of the bubble, n is a coefficient.

Flotation can be modeled as a kinetic or mass transfer process. In the kinetic

Where P is particle floatability (reflecting mainly size and hydrophobicity).

Where εg is gas holdup.