155

WATER RECOVERY AND BUBBLE SURFACE AREA FLUX

W. Zhang, J.E. Nesset, *J.A. Finch

Department ofMining and Materials Engineering, McGill University,

3610 University Street, Wong Building
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B2
(*Corresponding author: jim.finch@mcgill.ca)

ABSTRACT

Frother influences water recovery through control of bubble size and a chemical effect.
De-coupling the two is necessary to establish the extent of the chemistry effect. A setup is described to give
steady state water overflow rate (Jwo) along with measurements of bubble size into and on top of the froth.
Arguing neither bubble size correlates directly with water overflow, a frother mass balance is solved to
estimate the bubble surface area flux in the overflow (Sb0 ). The solution required measurement of frother
concentration using TOC analysis and frother adsorption density using surface tension data. The
relationship between Jwo and Sbo reveals the frother chemistry effect, quantified for discussion purposes by
an equivalent water layer thickness.

Advances in Mineral Processing Science and Technology

Proceedings of the
48th Annual Conference of Metallurgists ofCIM
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Edited by C.O. Gomez, J.E. Nesset, S.R. Rao
156 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Second only to particle recovery, the recovery of water to the froth product (overflow) determines
metallurgical performance in a flotation plant. The water transports both collected particles and entrained
particles, thus influencing recovery and grade [l]. This study continues our examination offrother type on
water recovery [2].

Water is transported by bubbles. In the pulp zone they carry water in a film and wake [3] and
through the froth transport is in the bubble lamellae and Plateau borders [4]. The transport is influenced by
the bubble size or more directly the total surface area ofbubbles, and apparently by the nature of the frother
itself [2, 5-7]. To isolate the frother chemistry effect it must be de-coupled from the frother effect on bubble
size. This de-coupling forms a basis of the present communication.

A continuous mini-cell setup is used to determine water overflow rate with simultaneous
estimation of bubble surface area flux using bubble size measurements and by a novel frother mass balance
approach. The work is on the water-air system as a prelude to using the approach under conditions of solids
flotation.

EXPERIMENTAL PART

Water Recovery

The setup is based on the rig designed at the Noranda Technology Centre for continuous
small-scale on-site flotation testing [8]. The arrangement comprised a mechanical mini-cell, holding tank,
conditioning tank and feed flow-regulator tank configured in a closed loop to achieve steady state (Figure
1). The cell (Figure 2) is 5.5 L and volume of the entire setup is 56 L. The cell has a decreasing
cross-section with height, a design feature to more closely emulate the froth area to cell volume ratio of
industrial cells. Water is held in the holding tank and pumped into the feed flow-regulator, which allows a
calibrated flow into the conditioning tank while the remainder returns to the holding tank. The conditioning
tank is mixed (stirrer at 1000 rpm). Flow from the conditioning tank is fed to the cell. The position of an
opening (4 cm x 4 cm) on the underflow (tailings) discharge pipe (Figure 2) regulates water rate to
underflow and hence controls froth depth (level) in the cell. Cell overflow and underflow were recombined
and pumped to the holding tank to close the loop. The pump was used to ensure a flow above the minimum
to maintain the target feed flow rate set at the regulator tank. Samples of both cell products were taken to
measure flow rate and frother concentration; all unused sample was returned to the holding tank.

Frother was added to concentration and mixed by circulating between conditioning and holding
tanks for 15 minutes prior to initiating a test. This concentration is referred to as 'system concentration' to
distinguish from frother concentration determined analytically. Operating conditions were feed flow 2300
g/min (i.e., retention time in cell ca. 2 min), impeller speed 1250 rpm, air flow rate 4200 cm3/min and froth
depth 1 cm. For analysis it is convention to use superficial flow velocities: Based on the area of the cell at
the froth depth used, 96.8 cm2, the feed (water) velocity JFI = 0.396 emfs and the air velocity Jg1 = 0.725
emfs (the subscript I refers to 'into' froth). The air velocity reported at the area of the cell in the impeller
region (309.2 cm2) is Jg= 0.227 emfs, the latter being at the low end of the operating range for flotation
cells large and small [9-10]. Selected conditions were repeated at random to establish precision estimates;
and the error bars reported, unless otherwise stated, are the 95% confidence interval.
 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 157

Feed
Flow
Regulator

Conditioning
Tank

Diaphragm
Pump
Diaphragm
+ Sampling Point
Pump
- water mass flow rate
- frother concentration (TOC)

Figure 1 - Setup for continuous closed loop testing on water-air system

Conditioning
tank output
Froth
discharge
pipe Shaft

Tailing and Impeller and

discharge pipe diffuser

Figure 2 - Details of mini-cell

Frother Type and Analysis

Table 1 identifies the four commercial frothers used, F150, DF250, FX160-05 and MIBC. These
were selected to give a wide range in water recovery based on their known 'hydrodynamic' characteristics
[11]. Solutions were prepared with Montreal tap water equilibrated to room temperature (20±2°C).

Options explored for frother analysis included colorimetry [12], surface tension (following an
observation by Grau and Laskowski [13]) but the most convenient proved to be Total Organic Carbon
(TOC), as employed by Hadler et al. [14]. Given only one organic is added, frother, TOC gave accurate
concentration readings after allowing for background TOC in the tap water. The instrument was a
Dohrmanns DC 80 (TELEDYNE Instruments Company, U.S.).

Table 1 - Frothers used in the study

Trade Name Mol Wt (g/mol) Chemical Formula Supplier
MIBC 102 CH 3CHCH3CH(OH)CH3 Flottec
DF250 250 CH3(C3H60)40H Dow Chemical
FX160-05 207 CH3CH2CHi(C3H60h.sOH Flottec
F150 425 H-(C3H60h-OH Flottec
158 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Surface Tension

Surface tension as a function of concentration was used to estimate frother concentration on

bubble surface (adsorption density) by solving the Gibbs adsorption excess isotherm for a water-air
interface. The Wilhelmy Plate method was used (Krauss K-12 Tensiometer). Solutions were made with
distilled and Montreal tap water (there was no significant difference). Readings were taken after 3 minutes
to approximate equilibrium. Each experiment was repeated at least three times and the average is quoted.

Bubble Size

Bubble size distribution was determined both below the froth (i.e., bubble size into froth, Db1) and
on top of the froth (DbT). Below the froth, the McGill Bubble Size Analyzer was used and some 10000
bubbles counted. Details on the method are in Gomez and Finch [15]. The bubble size distribution on top of
the froth was also measured by image analysis. A digital camera (Canon DC-40) was mounted on a braced
support with lens 10 cm from froth. Lighting was by a single 100 W bulb next to the camera. Twenty
images per run were captured and transferred to a computer. Analysis used Photolmact 8.0 software. The
relative standard deviation of the Sauter mean bubble size was less than 3% for both into and top of froth
cases.

RESULTS

Water Recovery

Figure 3 shows water mass flow data as a function of frother concentration (added to system) for
three full repeat tests. Reliability is established by noting that the relative standard deviation was ca. 2%
(resulting in too small a 95% confidence interval to indicate on the plot), and the back-calculated feed rate
(sum of overflow and underflow) was constant and equal to that set (2300 g/min).

2500
2250
d
=- 2000
~ 1750 ............................................................................................ ······························~·······························

:undetflo
~ 1500
c::
3: 1250
"
~ 1000
i"' 750
500
250
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
DF250 System Concentration (ppm)

Figure 3 - Validation test: overflow, underflow and combined (computed) feed mass flow rate and
comparison to set feed flow rate (2300 g/min)

Figure 4 shows the water overflow results for the four frothers, with superficial velocity (Jwo) on
the primary axis and mass recovery (= Jw0 /JFI) on the secondary axis. They show a similar pattern: a
minimum concentration to achieve overflow followed by a rapid rise (MIBC being a possible exception)
then a slower steady increase. For Fl50 and DF250, water recovery reaches more than 20%.
 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 159

0.10
~ 25
~

..,•
0
0.08
~ 20
u
0
~
L
o;
,..
0.06 ~
>
;;: 15
0

..,.
;: .
0
u

..
0
~
0.04
.
0::
~

1;i
10
1;i $:
$: 002
ii
·;:;
..
if
<>.
:J
000
10 20 30 40 50 60
"' Frother System Concentration (ppm)

Figure 4 - Overflow as superficial velocity (primary y-axis) and recovery (secondary y-axis) as a function
of system frother concentration

Frother Distribution

Figure 5 establishes the validity of the technique showing that the back-calculated ('measured')
feed concentration compares well to the known system concentration. Precision was poorest for MIBC
likely due to high volatility [16] but the back-calculated values remained within 5% of the known (i.e.,
estimated 5% ofMIBC was volatilized).

70
s
.E; 60
c
= 50
·.= /
!lc
""'c 40
l/
=
u
Q 30
~/
"'
N
u.
.,,Q 20
.Y
~
iii 10
"'"'
/
:;;
0 f/ -1:1 line

10 20 30 40 50 60
DF250 System Concentration (ppm)
Figure 5 - Validation test: mass balance on frother showing calculated feed concentration compares well
with system concentration

Frother Partitioning

Figure 6 shows the frother concentration in the overflow was consistently higher than in the
underflow which illustrates the preferential transport of frother into the overflow resulting from adsorption
onto bubbles. Assuming perfect mixing the underflow concentration is taken to be that within the cell
solution (or bubbly zone) below the froth. All the frothers showed the same trend, including the sharp
increase in overflow concentration at low dosage. The case for Fl50 was tracked to ca. 1 ppm system
concentration by sampling the froth directly (as no overflow was achieved below 3 ppm) and reached 160
ppm compared to 1 ppm in the undeflow.
160 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

BO
i
..!!: 140
160
a) Fl50 i 70 b) DF250
~
c
0 60
"' 120

j 100
!
~
a
50

40
""'
0
BO
"~
~
60 30
1L
"~ 40
~
~
20

ii
"'
20
I 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
F150 System Comcemtration (ppm) DF250 System Concentration (ppm}

_.
[
BO

..!!: 70
c c) FX160..05 I 70 d)MIBC
i
~
~
60

50

40
I~ 60

50

40
9
:;: 30 .,"" 30
x :ii
~ 20 ~
20
! ~
~ 10
:
"' 0
I 10

10 20 30 40 50 60
10 20 30 40 50 BO
FX160·05 System Concentration (ppm)
MIBC System Concentration (ppm)

Figure 6 - Frother distribution to overflow and underflow as a function of system concentration: a-Fl50; b
-DF250; c-FX160-05; d-MIBC

Bubble Size

The bubble size (Sauter mean diameter) in the bubbly zone, i.e., into the froth (Db1), follows the
recognized trend (Figure 7) [17]: a rapid decrease to a common near-constant size (ca. 0.5 mm in this case
which is consistent with the low Jg value of 0.227 cm/s) equated with reaching the critical coalescence
concentration (CCC). The relative 'strength' is also anticipated, Fl50 having the lowest CCC, MIBC the
highest [18].

Mean bubble size on top of the froth (DbT) shows a similar trend to Db1 (Figure 8), but the
minimum size reached is now a function of frother chemistry, Fl 50 holding the smallest size, ca. 1.2 mm,
and MIBC yielding the largest, ca. 1.8 mm. The increase in size relative to the minimum Db1 (included for
reference) reflects coalescence in the froth that is frother dependent, as the accompanying images further
illustrate.
 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 161

2.~ ~F150
a)
~"'
-4-Cf250
2.0 --,\--- FX160-05

\\' -0-MIBC

sg 1.2
\\~ MIBC-50ppm
~
2.5mm

2 0.8
~\\\t, b)
--.·~,

O.~
- ~

00
0 10 20 30 ~o 50 60
F:ro11rer SystemConcenu:ation Qlpin)

~
F150-50 ppm 2.5mm
Figure 7 - a) Sauter mean bubble size into froth (Db1) as a function offrother concentration added to
system; b) Example images MIBC (top) and Fl50 (bottom) both at 50 ppm

2.4
\ a)
2.0

1.6
s MIBC - 50 ppm ~
0.8mm
g 1.2 b)
2
0.8
Mininum I\1 - - - - - - - - - - - ,_ __ - -
0.4

00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fm ther System Conrentrntion (pp1n)

F150 - 50 ppm ~
0.8mm
Figure 8 - a) Sauter mean bubble size on top of froth (DbT) as a function offrother concentration added to
system (including minimum Db1for reference); b) Example images: MIBC (top) and Fl50 (bottom) both at
50ppm
162 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Surface Tension and Adsorption Density

The concentration of frother per unit area on the bubble surface, or adsorption density r, can be
estimated from the Gibbs isotherm for excess surfactant concentration at a liquid-vapour interface,

r= ar (1)
RT81nc

where r is in moles/m2, y surface tension (N/m2), R the gas constant, T temperature (K), and c
concentration (mol/L). Given the form of Equation 1 the appropriate plot is y vs. ln c (Figure 9). As a first
approximation trends are treated as linear [19] and this 'average' r is reported in Table 2.

74

72

Is 70
,.
611
·~"
ii 00
.
I-

~" 64
,..,:I
62

00
-6 -3 ·2 ·1 0

In c

Figure 9 - Surface tension vs. natural logarithm of concentration; slope yields Gibbs adsorption excess, r

Table 2 - Estimated Gibbs adsorption excess from Figure 9

Frother Type Adsorption Density R2 Value
(mmol/m2)
MIBC 2.184E-4 0.914
FX160-05 4.525E-4 0.986
DF250 l.076E-3 0.996
Fl50 9.267E-4 0.993

Bubble Surface Area Flux

From Bubble Size Data

The bubble size data can be converted into bubble surface area flux, BSAF. Figure 10 gives the
results for BASF into froth (Sb, = 6Jg,!Db1) and through top of froth (SbT = 6Jg1/DbT)- The Sb, can be related
to water entering the froth [20-21] but SbT is not necessarily related to water reporting to overflow. (There
is an issue calculating SbT; we have used Jg1 but this may not be appropriate as air distributes between the
air - some bubbles burst- and the overflow.). The overflowing bubbles derive from a number oflayers that
depend on froth height above the overflow lip. An alternative approach was found to directly estimate
bubble surface area flux to overflow (Sbo) using a mass balance on the frother across the froth zone.

From Frother Mass Balance

A mass balance on the frother can be proposed as follows,

 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 163

(2)

where the term Sbo r is the mass rate of frother carried on the bubble surface, JECE gives the mass rate of
frother in the 'entrained' water (i.e., water carried between the bubbles in lamellae and Plateau borders) and
Jw0 C0 is the mass rate to overflow. Since the first term represents no water volume then JE = Jwo and
assuming perfect mixing CE = Cu; consequently Equation 2 can be rewritten as:

(3)

where all the parameters except Sbo are known (measured).

100 100

90 a) Fl50 90 b) DF250 r
BO 80 _.;,..-"--..-------;I Sb1

70 70
~ 60 t ~ 60
:c. :c.
~ 50 ![
c2 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
F-150 System Concentration (ppm) DF250 System Concentration (ppm)

100 100
90 c) FX160-05 90 d)MIBC
80 80
70
70
60
.!!! ~ 60
:!:.. 50 :c.
~ 50
cS 40
40
30
20 30

10 20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

FX160-05 System Concentration {ppm) MIBC System Concentration (ppm)

Figure 10 - Bubble surface area flux as a function of frother concentration (a - F250; b - DF250; c -
FX160-05; d-MIBC)

Figure 10 includes the Sbo result. The error bars are the estimates from propagation of error rules.
The Sbo trend agreeably lies between Sb1 and SbT· This reflects both the enlargement (coalescence) of
bubbles on journeying through froth (i.e., Sbo should be less than Sb1) and the fact that some bubbles smaller
than DbT will overflow from layers below the surface plus there is loss of some Jg to overflow due to bubble
bursting (i.e., Sbo should be greater than sbT).

Equivalent Water Layer Thickness

Bascur and Herbst [20] modeled water transport by considering each bubble carried a water layer
of water film of effective thickness, 8. Applying this approach to the overflow we write,
164 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

(4)

wherf: 80 represents the water carried per unit of bubble surface area flux to overflow. The relationship is
tested in Figure 11. The result suggests two regimes each approximated by a linear dependence (MIBC may
not have reached the upper Sbo region). For present purposes consider the regime at the lower SbO values,
which is closer to the range of frother addition in practice. It is evident that there is an intercept,
representing a minimum Sbo before any overflow occurs (Shomin). Equation 4 is then re-written as,

(5)

Table 3 gives estimates of Shomin and 80; the order in 80 reflects the observed frother effect on water
overflow rate.

OJlB

j O.llcl

~
~
D.(14

OJlZ

D IB ~ ~ ~ M M m 00 ~ ~

SbO(l!s)

Figure 11 - Superficial water overflow velocity (Jw0) vs. bubble surface area flux to overflow (Sbo)

Table 3 - Estimated minimum Sbo and bubble equivalent film thickness in overflow
Frother Type Oo (µm)
Fl50 5.5 17.6 (± 0.11)
DF250 6.4 20.8 (± 0.07)
FX160-05 4.6 8.8 (± 0.20)
MIBC 14.7 4.9 (± 0.23)

DISCUSSION

The observation that frother type influences the amount of water overflowing is re-confirmed in a
quantitative manner. In order to achieve overflow, even with a froth depth of only 1 cm it was sometimes
necessary to go to concentrations beyond typical flotation practice (with solids). This is common in water-
air studies but this system needs to be understood before the effect of particles can be incorporated. The
impact is related due to two actions of the frother: reducing bubble size, or more precisely increasing
bubble surface area flux; and a chemistry effect that apparently alters the bubble's ability to transport water.

Taking the standpoint that the rate at which water overflows is related the rate it enters the froth
we start by considering Db1· It is evident that above 15-30 ppm (Figure 10) while water overflow increases
Db1 and hence Sb1 is constant and independent of frother type; thus an effect of bubble size is ruled out and
chemistry appears to be a factor.
 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 165

More closely related to the overflow is DbT· Here bubble size is a function of frother type, the
Fl50 retaining a smaller size than MIBC, for example. The difference in bubble size does not appear
sufficient to account for the difference in overflow rate, however. Consider the 50 ppm case: DbT ~ 1.7 mm
for MIBC and 1.1 mm for Fl50, a ratio of~ 1.5, while the water overflow velocity increased~ 3.4-fold (to
0.085 from 0.025). Even taking a square function on the bubble size [4] the ratio is only ~ 2.2, again
apparently not enough to account for the difference in water overflow between the two frothers. Again, it
seems a chemistry effect is at play.

The most direct link would be to consider bubble size in the overflow [4]. This is not readily
measured. A novel resolution of the problem was to exploit the partition of frother between underflow
(bubbly zone) and overflow (froth) to establish a mass balance across the froth and estimate Sbo without
need of bubble size data.

The distribution of frother confirmed the understanding that frother adsorbs on the bubble and thus
is preferentially transported to the froth and deposited in the overflow water when bubbles burst. This
partitioning enabled the mass balance approach. The surprise was the extent of preferential concentration in
the overflow at low dosage. The explanation is that low frother addition gives a 'dry' froth and the frother
carried on the bubble surface dominates the concentration in the overflow water (i.e., there is little
entrained water). Apart from the application here this effect has potential ramifications for frother use in
practice. The speculation that the excessive Fl50 concentration in cleaner cells (~ 50 ppm) compared to
rougher cells (< 1 ppm) noted at one operation [24] was due to frother concentrating in the rougher froth
(feed to the cleaners) is substantiated by this work, for example.

The mass balance requires the frother adsorption density r, estimated here from surface tension
vs. concentration data using the Gibbs adsorption excess isotherm. The data were interpreted as a constant
r; fitting to the Langmuir adsorption isotherm served to show that the variation in r was minor over the
concentration range used.

Striking the mass balance involved some assumptions. The use of r implies bubbles have reached
equilibrium with the contacting solution and that a bubble rising through the bubbly zone and then through
froth retains the adsorption density associated with the equilibrium value as measured at a static water-air
interface. Others have made the same tacit assumption [25]. At present there seems no alternative. An
associated assumption is that the appropriate concentration in solving the Gibbs isotherm for the bubble in
the overflow is the system concentration. (We could use the measured solution concentration but this
makes little difference.) The third assumption is that frother in the inter-bubble water has the same
concentration as in the bubbly zone below, which assuming perfect mixing is the same as measured in the
underflow. Clearly frother is concentrated in the froth but a division between that carried on the bubble,
representing no water volume, which actually contributes the added concentration and inter-bubble water
that represents water entrained from the solution below appears tenable. Given that the bubble surface
represents no water volume finally means that the rate of entrained water into the overflow JE is equal to the
measured overflow rate Jw0 .

The resulting bubble surface area flux to overflow Sbo can then be determined without need to
know Dbo· (The temptation to estimate Dbo from (Sbo = 6Jg I Dbo) is resisted as we actually need Igo, the air
recovered to the overflow.) The Sbo values lie between Sb1 and SbT, as would be expected, which offers
credence to the approach. The Sbo was plotted against Iwo to test the notion that the rate of water transport
is determined by the bubble surface area flux, as suggested by Bascur and Herbst [20] and Xu et al. [21].
There is one objection to this: since Sbo is derived using Iwo in the mass balance, subsequent correlation
between Sbo and Iwo may be compromised. The data divided into two linear trends and using the lower
range, corresponding closer to frother concentration in practice, the equivalent film thickness. 80 was
calculated.

The calculation of 80 represents a 'blackbox' approach. There is no suggestion that water is

carried as a uniform layer surrounding a bubble either in the bubbly zone or froth. The notion of 80 offers
an empirical parameter to describe the frother chemistry effect on water recovery and separates that effect
166 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

from bubble size reduction. Direct measurements of film thickness on bubbles blown in air show a similar
order with respect to frother type as found here (e.g. Fl50 > MIBC) but with thicknesses is of the order of 1
µm and less (F150 ~ l lOOnm, MIBC < 160 nm) [26]. A bubble blown in air roughly corresponds to a
bubble on the froth surface in the current experiments. Taking the measured film thickness to represent the
lamellae thickness associated with bubbles in the froth then the values of 80 indicate the bulk of the water is
carried in the Plateau borders, as is well known [4, 22].

A more phenomenalogical approach can be considered. The chemistry effect can be included in
the proportionality constant in the water transport model ofNeethling and Cillers [4]. (Interesting, in terms
of current terminology this model shows a dependence on the square of Sbo-) The effect can be in the
surface viscosity in the Nguyen and Schulze [22] froth model which shows it strongly influences water
flow in the Plateau borders. The problem then transfers to one of measuring that parameter [23] if it is not
to remain a calibrated value. Stevenson [27] has recently proposed a froth drainage model with two
adjustable parameters that apply to the surfactant (frother) type. The present froth is too shallow to measure
some of the necessary properties, e.g. gas holdup, to use a drift flux analysis which offers a promising
approach [28]. Regardless, ultimately the effect has to be related to the frother structure and the interaction
with water for a fundamental explanation to emerge [26].

Moyo et al. [2] took a similar blackbox approach. In their case water to overflow was correlated
against gas hold-up in the bubbly zone. They failed to find a connection with bubble surface are flux (Sb1 in
current terminology) because the frother concentrations used all exceeded the CCC and so bubble size and
thus Sb1 was constant. We can now interpret that it is Sbo that is needed. The correlation with gas hold-up
nevertheless suggests a connection between bubbly zone and froth overflow properties. The current data
will be interrogated to determine if there is a way to estimate water flow into the froth Jwr and hence
estimate 81. This would de-couple the bubbly zone (pulp) from the froth in modeling water recovery. The
approach is to consider the ratio Sbo I Sbi, i.e., the bubble surface area flux recovery, across the froth. We
can already note that the increase in lwo as frother dosage is increased beyond the bubbly zone CCC is
because the ratio Sbo I Sb1 is increasing, i.e., more bubbly zone BSAF is recovered to the overflow. BSAF
recovery has analogies to air recovery, a factor that is finding application [l]. Modifying the present system
to avoid the change in cross-section in the cell may facilitate the investigation.

Water-air systems are a necessary staring point. Others have noted that the presence of solids can
dominate over frother type [7]. Some solids promote froth stability others cause collapse. In principle the
measurements here can be executed on an industrial cell substituting the frother analysis procedure of
Gelinas and Finch [12] for TOC. One aim will be to investigate the particle/frother/water interaction
controlling water (and solids) overflow.

CONCLUSIONS

Water recovery for four commercial frothers covering a wide range in structure and molecular
weight was measured at steady state in a closed loop mini-cell setup. Bubble size into and on top of froth
was measured by image analysis. Frother concentration was measured by TOC and frother partition
between overflow and underflow determined. Estimating the Gibbs adsorption excess on the bubble in the
overflow from surface tension-concentration data coupled with the frother partition permitted a frother
mass balance approach to be devised to estimate bubble surface area flux to overflow (Sbo). The water
overflow rate was shown to have an approximate linear relationship to Sbo that reflected a frother chemistry
effect. An equivalent water film thickness was used to quantify the chemistry effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Chair in Mineral Processing sponsored by
Vale Inco, Xstrata Process Support, Teck Cominco, Shell Canada, Agnico-Eagle, Barrick Gold, Corem,
SGS Lakefield Research, and Flottec under the NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada) CRD (Collaborative Research and Development) program. The authors would also like
to thank Ray Langlois, Ranjan Roy and Andrew Golsztajn for their assistance in the experiments.
 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 167

REFERENCES

1. N. Barbian, J.J. Cilliers, S.H. Morar and D.J. Bradshaw, "Froth Imaging, Air Recovery and
Bubble Loading to Describe Flotation Bank Performance", International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 84, 2007, 81-88.
2. P. Moyo, C.O. and J.A. Finch, "Characterizing Frothers Using Water Carrying Rate", Canadian
Metallurgical Quarterly, 46, 2007, 215-220.
3. P.G. Smith and L.J. Warren, "Entrainment of Particles into Flotation Froths", In: J.S. Laskowski,
Ed., Frothing in Flotation, Gordon and Breach, New York, USA, 1989, 123-145.
4. S.J. Neethling, H.T. Lee and J.J. Cilliers, "Simple Relationships for Predicting the Recovery of
Liquid from Flowing Foams and Froths", Minerals Engineering, 16, 2003, 1123-1130
5. Cytec Mining Chemicals Handbook, 2002, 75-78.
6. A.V. Nguyen, P.A. Harvey and G.J. Jameson, "Influence of Gas Flow Rate and Frothers on Water
Recovery in a Froth Column", Minerals Engineering, 16, 2003, 1143-1147.
7. F. Melo and J.S. Laskowski, "Fundamental Properties of Flotation Frothers and Their Effect on
Flotation", Minerals Engineering, 19, 2006, 766-773.
8. D. Shink, R. Rosenblum, J.Y. Kim and K.G. Stowe, "Development of Small Scale Flotation Cells
and Its Application in Milling Operations", Proc. 24th Annual Meeting ofCMP, Ottawa, 1992, 13.
9. M.A. Vera, J-P. Franzidis and E.V. Manlapig, "The JKMRC High Bubble Surface Area Flux
Flotation Cell", Minerals Engineering, 12, 1999, 477-484
10. C.O. Gomez, and J.A. Finch, "Gas Dispersion Measurements in Flotation Machines", CIM
Bulletin, 95 (1066), 2002, 73-38.
11. F. Cappuccitti, J.A. Finch, J.E. Nesset and W. Zhang, "Characterization ofFrothers and its Role in
Flotation Optimization", SME Annual Meeting, Denver, 2009, 9-77.
12. S. Gelinas and J.A. Finch, "Colorimetric Determination of Common Industrial Frothers", Minerals
Engineering, 18, 2005, 263-266.
13. R.A. Grau and J.S. Laskowski, "Role of Frothers in Bubble Generation and Coalescence in a
Mechanical Flotation Cell", Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 84, 2006, 170-182.
14. K. Hadler, Z. Aktas and J.J. Cilliers, "The Effects of Frother and Collector Distribution on
Flotation Performance", Minerals Engineering, 18, 2005, 171-177.
15. C.O. Gomez and J.A. Finch, "Gas Dispersion Measurements in Flotation Cells", International
Journal of Minerals Engineering, 84, 2007, 51-58.
16. F. Azgomi, C.O. Gomez and J.A. Finch, "Frother persistence: A Measure Using Gas Holdup",
Minerals Engineering, 2009 (available online).
17. Y.S. Cho and J.S. Laskowski, "Effect of Flotation Frothers on Bubble Size and Foam Stability",
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 64, 2002, 69-80.
18. J.E. Nesset, J.R. Hernandez-Aguilar, C. Acuna, C.O. Gomez and J.A. Finch, "Some Gas
Dispersion Characteristics of Mechanical Flotation Machines", Minerals Engineering, 19, 2006,
807-815.
19. P.C. Hiemenz and R. Rajagopalan, Principles of Colloid and Surface Chemistry. 3rd Edition,
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA, 1997, 327-331.
20. Bascur and J.A. Herbst, "Dynamic Modeling of a Flotation Cell with a View toward Automatic
Control", In: Proc. 14th Int. Miner. Proc. Congress, Toronto, 1982, 1-21.
21. M. Xu, J.A. Finch and A. Uribe-Salas, "Maximum Gas and Bubble Surface Rates in Flotation
Columns", International Journal of Mineral Processing, 32, 1991, 233-250.
168 ADVANCES IN MINERAL PROCESSING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

22. A.V. Nguyen and H.J. Schulze, Colloid Science in Flotation, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York,
USA, 2004, pp. 677-708.
23. P. Stevenson, P., "Remarks on the Shear Viscosity of Surfaces Stabilized with Soluble
Surfactants", Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 290, 2005, 603-606
24. S. Gelinas and J.A. Finch, "Frother Analysis: Some Plant Experiences'', Minerals Engineering,
20, 2007, 1303-1308.
25. S.N. Tan, D. Fomasiero, R. Sedev and J. Ralston, "Marangoni Effects in Aqueous Polypropylene
Glycol Foams", Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 286, 2005, 719-729.
26. J. A. Finch, S. Gelinas and P. Moyo, Frother-related Research at McGill University, Minerals
Engineering, 19, 2006, 726-733.
27. P. Stevenson, "The Wetness of a Rising Foam", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45, 2006, 803-807.
28. P. M. Ireland and G. J. Jameson, "Liquid Transport in a Multi-layer froth, J. Colloid and Interface
Science, 314, 2007, 207-213.