Int. J. Miner. Process.

89 (2008) 44–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Miner. Process.

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j m i n p r o

Simple approximations for estimating froth recovery

S.J. Neethling
Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College London, UK

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

Article history: Froth recovery is an important aspect of the overall performance of flotation cell. Froth recovery is also very
Received 8 April 2008 difficult to predict based on the operating conditions of the cell. In this paper, a simple theoretical
Received in revised form 2 September 2008 approximation is proposed that relates froth recovery to the relevant froth parameters, such as gas rate into
Accepted 3 September 2008
the cell, the air recovery and the change in bubble size over the cell. This simple model includes both the
Available online 17 September 2008
particle detachment, as well as the behaviour of detached particles in its description of froth recovery. An
Keywords:
important concept that is introduced and that has a strong influence on the froth recovery is the fraction of
Froth recovery particles attached to a failing film that become detached. Some of the implications of this model for the
Bubble loading performance of flotation cells and, in particular, their response to typical operating parameters such as froth
Slurry content approximation depth, air rate and particle size are discussed.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In froth flotation, the froth phase plays an important role in
determining both the grade and recovery of the desired material. In
this paper it is the effect that the froth has on the recovery that is of
interest.
The impact of the froth on the recovery will be characterised using
the froth recovery, which is defined as the fraction of the material that
enters the froth attached to the bubbles that reports to the
concentrate, rather than dropping back into the pulp (Finch and
Dobby, 1990). This is equivalent to the average probability that a
particle entering the froth attached has of ending up in the
concentrate.
The aim of this paper is to try to develop simple relationships for
how froth recovery depends on the relevant parameters. As there are a
large number of effects and mechanisms that contribute to the froth
recovery, the models in this paper will, by necessity, involve a large
number of simplifications and approximations.
More detailed models have been presented in previous papers (e.g.
Neethling et al., 2000; Neethling and Cilliers, 2002, 2003). These
models are able to investigate problems such as the effect of cell
design, as well as including some of the more subtle effects that might
be encountered, but require complex numerical algorithms and large
amounts of computational power to solve. The reason for producing
these simplified equations is to predict the interrelationship between
different parameters without needing to carry out a very large number
of time consuming simulations.
Since froth recovery is defined as the fraction of material entering
the froth by true flotation (i.e. attached to bubbles) that reports to the
E-mail address: s.neethling@imperial.ac.uk.
concentrate, it is important to note that the froth recovery is not the
same as the probability of a particle becoming detached. This is
because even if a particle becomes detached, it can still report to the
concentrate as a freely moving particle within the water in the froth.
The probability of a particle falling out of the froth is therefore
determined by two probabilities, namely the probability of becoming
detached and the probability of a detached particle falling out of the
froth. This second probability is complicated by the fact that it is
dependant on where in the froth the particle becomes detached. This
paper will look at simple relationships for coupling both these
contributions to the froth recovery, with the first section looking at
particle detachment, and the second section looking at the behaviour
of the unattached particles, followed by a combination of these two
contributions to produce an overall model for froth recovery.
2. Behaviour of attached particles
2.1. Factors influencing rates of release of attached particles
In order to model the release of attached particles, the amount of
particles attached to the bubbles and how this varies with position in
the froth needs to be modelled. Since the attached particles coat the
interfaces of the bubbles, the two key variables are the amount of
interface available, characterised as the specific surface area of the
bubbles, Sb, and the particle loading at these interfaces, characterised
using the mass of solids per surface area, L.
When a film ruptures the surface area of that film is lost. As there
are particles attached to this lost interface, what happens to these
particles must be considered. One of two things can happen to a
particle attached to the lost film, it can become detached and move
into the Plateau borders as a freely moving particle or it can remain
attached and end up on the surface of one of the neighbouring

0301-7516/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2008.09.007
 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52 45

interfaces. This process will be characterised using the fraction of Simplifying, rearranging and dividing through by Δy:
particles attached to the film that become detached when it ruptures,


f. It should be noted that f is the fraction of particles that become Sby+Δy Ly+Δy −Sby Ly Sby+Δy −Sby Ly +Ly+Δy
= f ð5Þ
detached from the lost film in each individual coalescence event. This Δy Δy 2
is not the same as the overall fraction of particles that fall off the lost
films over the entire froth, which is the cumulative effect of a large Taking the limit as Δy approaches zero:
number of coalescence events (see Eq. (19)).
dðSb LÞ dSb
An f of 1 would mean that all the particles attached to a rupturing = Lf ð6Þ
dy dy
lamella become detached. The interfacial area would thus be lost at
the same relative rate as the detachment of the particles and would Expanding and rearranging, this becomes:
therefore be characterised by a bubble loading that is constant with
respect to position in the froth. If f is less than 1, then the surface area dL dSb L
=− ð1−f Þ ð7Þ
of the films will decrease more rapidly than the amount of material dy dy Sb
attached to them. This will result in an increase in the loading, L, over dL dL dSb
the height of the froth, which is indeed observed. Note that it is the Since dy = dS , the explicit dependence on position can be
b dy

mass loaded per area of interface that increases, the total mass loaded
per volume of froth will still decrease with height due to the
detachment of particles. An f of zero would mean that even though
surface area is lost during film rupture, no particles become detached.
This would result in a froth recovery of 1. Since experimentally
measured froth recoveries are typically substantially less than 1 (e.g.
Savassi, 1998; Mathe et al., 2000), this indicates that f is above zero.
The fraction of particles becoming detached during a coalescence
event could well depend on both the loading of the bubbles, L, and the
size of lamellae involved (which is directly related to the bubble size
and thus the specific surface area of the films, Sb). In particular, it
might be expected that as the loading increases there will be less
space available for the particles on neighbouring films and so f might
increase with loading.
2.2. Modelling changes in bubble loading
In order to assess the rate of drop off of attached particles and the
change in loading as a function of position in the froth, we need to
model the system. To do this, the flow between two gas flow
streamlines a small, but finite distance apart will be considered. The
distance will be assumed to be larger than the scale of the bubbles, but
smaller than the scale of the system. It will also be assumed that these
streamlines are close enough to one another that variations in the
relevant variables across the streamlines can be ignored and that the
only independent variable of relevance is the distance along the
streamlines, y (the system will be assumed to be at steady state). By
definition, the volumetric flow-rate of froth between streamlines, Q, is
constant.
A governing equation for the attached material can be derived by
considering a balance over a control volume between the stream lines
Δy long. The flow of attached material into the control volume (at
position y) is:
Min =QSby Ly
The flow out (at position y + Δy) is:
Mout =QSby+Δy Ly+Δy
The amount of material becoming detached is equal to the change
in the surface area times the average amount of solids loaded onto the
lost interface, times the fraction of this material that becomes
detached:



 Ly +Ly+Δy
Mdetach = Sby −Sby+Δy Q f ð3Þ
2
Since the amount of material flowing in is equal to the amount of
material flowing out plus the amount becoming detached:



 Ly +Ly+Δy
QSby Ly =QSby+Δy Ly+Δy + Sby −Sby+Δy Q f ð4Þ
2
removed:
dL L
=− ð1−f Þ ð8Þ
dSb Sb
This means that in order to calculate the change in loading, the
change in position need not be known. Nor is the history of how the
bubble size changed required. Only the change in specific surface area
and the initial loading are required (together with the relationship
between f and the variables L and/or Sb).
If we make the (potentially problematic) assumption that f is a
constant, then the following relationship is obtained (where Li is the
loading and Sb i is the specific surface area at position yi):
 
L2 Sb1 1−f
ð constant f Þ = ð9Þ
L1 Sb2
Since specific surface area is inversely proportional to bubble
radius, r:
 
L2 r2 1−f
ð constant f Þ = ð10Þ
L1 r 1
2.3. The loading of the froth surface
Thus far, only internal bubble rupture (bubble coalescence) events
have been considered. The surface film rupture (bubble bursting)
presents something of a problem. This is because no attached particles
can pass through the bursting surface and yet each individual
coalescence event only has a fraction f of the attached particles
becoming detached. This must result in an accumulation of attached
solids in the surface films relative to films arriving at the surface layer.
There is thus a discontinuity in the loading between the surface films
and those directly below them.
In order to analyse this problem, the flow between streamlines
ð1Þ
that both intersect the bursting surface will be considered. All
attached particles at the surface of this region thus ultimately become
detached (though not in each bursting event), since they cannot flow
ð2Þ through the bursting surface. Two different loadings need to be
considered; Lnom being the average loading of the bubbles that are
arriving at the surface layer (i.e. below the discontinuity) and Lsurf
being the average loading of the bursting bubbles (i.e. above the
discontinuity).
In this bursting region, coalescence between neighbouring bubbles
will be ignored and only bursting considered. This means that Sb can
be assumed to be constant within this small region, but it will do a
discontinuous jump from a finite value in this region to zero above it
(i.e. no bubbles). The total mass of solids arriving into the surface
bursting region is:
MArrive =QSb Lnom ð11Þ
46 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52
At the surface, bursting will result in a certain amount of particles
becoming detached, with the rest ending up attached to the newly
arriving films. Since all surface area is lost at the bursting surface, the
rate of detachment is as follows:
Mdetach =QSb Lsurf f
At steady state, the rate of arrival and the rate of detachment must
equal one another (no particles pass through this surface). The
following simple relationship is thus obtained:
Lnom
Lsurf =
f et al., 2004) and involves touching surface bubbles with a glass
2.4. Experimentally estimating f
The most problematic unknown in this theory is f, the fraction of
attached material that becomes detached from the lost surface area
during a coalescence event. This factor would be very difficult to
directly measure at the scale of individual coalescence events, but can
be estimated using measurements of macroscopic changes in bubble
size and solids loading.
The method that will be used in this paper is to measure the
incoming bubble size and solids loading, as well as the solids loading
and bubble size at the froth surface.
The incoming bubble size and loading are measured using a bubble
viewing column, which consists of a tube that passes down into the
pulp, with a viewing chamber attached to it at the top (for similar
methods see e.g. Grau and Heiskanen, 2002 and Hernandez-Aguilar
et al., 2004). The tube and viewing chamber are initially filled with
surfactant containing water. A valve at the bottom of the tube leading
down to the pulp is then opened allowing bubbles to pass up the tube
into the viewing chamber. The bubbles are recorded against the sloped
glass wall of the viewing chamber allowing the bubble size to be
obtained using image analysis.
After a sufficient number of bubbles have passed into the chamber,
the valve is closed. The amount of air that is in the chamber is then
measured and combined with the bubble size in order to estimate the
total amount of bubble surface area that entered the system. The total
mass of solids in the chamber is obtained by filtering the water and
drying and weighing the solids. By dividing the mass of solids by the
Fig. 1. The fraction of material becoming dettached during a coalescence event (f, as calculated using Eq. (14)) as a function of incoming solids loading. Data from rougher circuits on
two different mines.
total surface area, an estimate for the incoming loading is obtained.
This value is likely to be a slight underestimate of the true value,
seeing that some of the solids are lost as the entering bubbles displace
water from the viewing chamber. If the solids entering the system are
assumed to remain suspended after the bubbles burst, then in these
ð12Þ experiments, the incoming loading obtained in this manner is
underestimating the real value by about 10%–20%.
The surface bubble size is obtained directly by image analysis of the
top surface of the froth. The surface loading is obtained using touch
samples. The method for carrying this out has been described in
previous papers (e.g. Sadr-Kazemi and Cilliers, 2000; Ventura-Medina
ð13Þ
microscope slide and measuring the mass and area covered by the
particles that become attached to the slide.
If L0 and r0 are the loading and bubble size entering the froth
respectively and Lsurf and rsurf those at the surface, then a combination
of Eqs. (10) and (13) can be used to estimate f.
 1−f
fLsurf r
= surf ð14Þ
L0 r0
Fig. 1 gives the value of f as calculated using Eq. (14) as a function of
the incoming bubble loading. Data from 2 experimental campaigns are
shown on this figure (the campaigns are on two different Platinum
mines). It can be seen that the calculated f increases with increasing
incoming loading. This is to be expected, seeing that as loading
increases, the amount of free space on the films decreases and so there
is less space available for the particles from neighbouring coalescing
films to be accommodated in and so a greater fraction of them become
detached during coalescence events (f increases).
It is interesting to note that all the data in Fig. 1 appears to lie on a
single curve, despite it coming from two different flotation plants, a
number of locations down the bank of rougher cells and a wide range
of operating conditions (including large changes in both froth depth
and air rate). This would tend to indicate that the relationship
between f and loading is relatively independent of machine factors
and operating conditions.
An implicit assumption in Eq. (14) is that f is constant. The values of
f calculated using this formula therefore represent only an average
value within the froth. To do more accurate calculations, exactly how
 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52
the local value of f varies with the local loading would need to be
known. Unfortunately, a continuous profile of bubble size and solids
loading with position in a froth would be required in order to calculate
this relationship. As the attached and unattached particles of a
particular mineral type are indistinguishable other than by their local
position in the froth (in the films and Plateau borders respectively),
this would be technically very challenging to achieve.
2.5. Recovery of attached material to the concentrate
One factor in the overall recovery of valuable material to the
concentrate is the amount of material that enters the froth attached
that overflows the lip of the cell without becoming detached. Note
that this fraction is not the same as the froth recovery (the fraction of
material that enters the froth attached that reports to the concen-
trate), seeing that even if a particle becomes detached, it will not
necessarily fall out of the froth. This is mainly because the average
water flux at all heights in the froth is upwards (assuming the froth is
not washed), meaning that the average effect of the water motion is to
carry unattached particles towards the concentrate. In order for a
particle to fall out of froth it must therefore either settle faster than the
water velocity and/or be dispersed out of the froth. This vertical
dispersion is mainly due to there being a range of liquid velocities
within individual Plateau borders (Lee et al., 2005).
What an estimate for the amount of material that enters the froth
attached that overflows the lip of the cell without becoming detached
will do is put a lower limit on any estimate for the froth recovery.
In estimating this recovery, only those streamlines that don't
intercept the burst surface need to be considered, seeing that all the
bubbles that burst ultimately loose their attached load, even if there is
some accumulation in this region. The amount of attached material
flowing out of the cell is obtained using the air recovery, α (the
fraction of air entering the cell that leaves as unburst bubbles), the air
rate into the cell, Qair, the average loading on the bubbles flowing out
of the cell, Lout, and the average specific surface area of these out-
flowing bubbles, Sb out:
Mattach; out =Qair Lout Sb out α ð15Þ
The amount of material entering the froth attached can be similarly
described:
Mattach; in =Qair Lin Sb in ð16Þ
The recovery of attached material, Rattach, is simply the ratio of Eqs.
(15) to (16). This ratio is the same as the probability that a particle that
enters attached remains attached:
Lout Sb out α
Rattach = ð17Þ
Lin Sb in
If we once again assume that f is constant, then Eq. (9) can be used
to simplify the above equation:
 f
S 
Rattach = b out α ð18Þ
Sb in
In terms of incoming and out-flowing bubble radii, Eq. (18)
becomes:
 f
r 2000):
Rattach = in α ð19Þ
rout
Eqs. (18) and (19) give a lower limit on any estimate for froth
recovery. It will also provide a reasonable estimate for the froth
recovery in a washed cell with a strongly downwards water bias
(assuming the wash water is added to the surface). This is because
47
most detaching particles will be washed out of the froth under these
circumstances.
The interesting thing to note about this equation is that there is no
direct dependency in the fraction of material becoming detached on
the most commonly used control parameters in flotation, namely air
rate and froth depth. Both the ratio of incoming to outgoing bubble
size and the air recovery, α, do depend on these parameters, but the
dependency is complex, making control of the amount of drop-off
potentially very tricky.
3. Equations governing the behaviour of unattached solids
While the amount of material becoming detached from the
bubbles is an important aspect of froth recovery, it isn't the only
factor. Once a particle has become detached, it can either be carried
upwards out of the froth to the concentrate or it can settle out of the
froth back into the pulp. While the detachment process is typically
non-selective, this drop back process will be selective with respect to
the particle's settling velocity, and thus its density and size. A failure
to recognise that froth recovery consists of these two distinct
processes (one of which is highly selective, the other either non-
selective or only slightly selective), has led some researchers to
conclude that the detachment process itself is highly selective (e.g.
Honaker et al., 2005).
3.1. The governing equations
The motion of unattached particles through a froth has three
contributions; the motion of the water, hindered settling of the
particles and dispersion (Neethling and Cilliers, 2002). Two types of
dispersion have been identified, namely Plateau border dispersion,
which is caused by velocity profiles within individual Plateau borders,
and Geometric dispersion, which is caused by the tortuous path that
liquid and unattached particles must follow through the froth. In this
work it is the Plateau border dispersion that is of greatest interest as it
acts predominantly in the direction of net liquid motion.
The underlying equations for this analysis are the same as those
used in previous work by this author (for liquid motion: Neethling
et al., 2000, for solid motion Neethling and Cilliers, 2002) and will
therefore not be derived again. In this analysis, only vertical variations
will be considered, with horizontal variations in, for instance, liquid
content, solids concentration and bubble size assumed to be
unimportant. This is a reasonable assumption in cells with vertical
walls in the froth zone, though non-vertical walls, such as froth
crowders or sloping overflow weirs, can cause strong horizontal
variations that might influence the behaviour. In order to study
systems with complex geometries, full CFD type modelling may need
to be carried out (e.g. Neethling and Cilliers, 2003).
The vertical mass flux of solids F can be written as a function of the
liquid volumetric flow rate, Ql, the cross-sectional area of the column,
Acol the solid concentration in the liquid, C, the slurry content, ε (i.e.
the volume fraction of the froth that is not gas), the dispersion
coefficient, D and the particle settling velocity, vset:

Ql dC
F= −vset " C−"D ð20Þ
Acol dy
An important factor in the solids motion is that of the liquid.
For water transport, the governing equation is (e.g. Neethling et al.,
 
Ql k2 dA
= −k1  A− pffiffiffi +vg Aλ ð21Þ
Acol A dy
Where vg is the gas velocity, A is the cross-sectional area of the
Plateau border, λ is the length of Plateau borders per volume of foam
48 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52

(λ is proportional to (bubble diameter)− 2) and k1 and k2 are the approximation, capillarity (the second term on the RHS of Eq. (21) will
following combinations of physical parameters: be ignored and the flow will be assumed to depend only on the ratio of
viscous drag to gravity. Using Eq. (21) and noting that ε = λA:
ρg
k1 = ð22Þ
3  CPB  μ Ql k1 "2
≈vg "− ð28Þ
Acol λ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffi ffi
3− π2  γ Combining Eq. (28) with Eqs. (24) and (25) and rearranging to
k2 = ð23Þ solve for ε gives the following expression:
6  CPB  μ

Where ρ, γ and μ are the liquid density, surface tension and 3.2.1. Slurry content approximation 1
viscosity respectively. CPB is the Plateau border drag coefficient. The
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
drag coefficient has a value of about 50 when the liquid gas interfaces 1 vg
of the Plateau border are immobile, with the value decreasing as the if α b : "≈ λ+ λ2 −4α ð1−α ÞλλOut ð29Þ
2 2k1
mobility increases. This equation assumes that the slurry content is
low. It is possible to do this analysis using models that work at higher  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
1 vg
slurry or liquid contents (e.g. Neethling et al., 2002), but as the aim of if α z : "≈ λ+ λ2 −λλOut ð30Þ
2 2k1
this paper is to examine the broad trends expected, rather than the
finer details of the behaviour, this would dramatically increase the A second approximation that can be made is to assume that the
complexity of the proposed model, without any substantial change in cross-sectional Plateau border area remains constant with froth depth
the insights obtained. and has a value that is the same as it has at the level of the overflow lip
(A≈"mid =λtop from the non-coalescing case). This results in the
3.2. Simplified relationships for liquid motion following far simpler approximation for the liquid content:

Obtaining simplified equations for predicting the water recovery 3.2.2. Slurry content approximation 2
from an overflowing foam/froth was the subject of a couple of earlier
papers (Neethling et al., 2003a,b) and so the details of this work will 1 vg
not be repeated. if α b : "≈ ð1−α Þλ ð31Þ
2 k1
The following equations give an estimate for the volumetric slurry
rate, Ql, through the froth as a function of the cross-sectional area of 1 vg
the froth, Acol, the air recovery, α, the gas velocity, vg, and the length of if α z : "≈ λ ð32Þ
2 2k1
Plateau borders per volume, λ:

1 Q l v2g λout The “Full Solution” shown on Fig. 2 was produced by integrating
if α b : = ð1−α Þα ð24Þ Eq. (21) together with an appropriate continuity equation. It uses a
2 Acol k1
froth height of 0.5 m, a gas velocity of 1 cm/s and physical constants
approximately that of surfactant containing water (ρ = 1000 kg/m3,
1 Q l v2g λout μ = 0.001 Pa.s and γ = 0.05 N/m). The incoming bubble size was
if α z : = ð25Þ
2 Acol 4k1 assumed to be 5 mm, while the outgoing size was 20 mm, with a
linear change in size with height. The Plateau border drag coefficient,
In a non-coalescing froth, the slurry content will be reasonably CPB, was assumed to be 50. The air recovery was assumed to be 25%.
constant over most of the foam height, with only a changing slurry It can be seen that approximation 1 gives a very accurate slurry
content in the capillary layer near the pulp-froth interface and also content profile below the capillary boundary layer. Approximation 2 is
potentially just below the froth surface. If more than half the bubbles less accurate, with a progressive under-estimation of the slurry
burst, the slurry content will remain near constant to the top surface content as you drop below the froth surface. If a high level of accuracy
and the average internal slurry content will be the same as the is required, then approximation 1 can be used, but for the purposes of
overflowing slurry content. On the other hand, if less than half the this work, approximation 2 will be used in the main body of this paper
bubbles burst, there will be a decrease in slurry content in the region as it is reasonably accurate, while at the same time being simple to
above the height of the overflow lip and the average slurry content solve. The derivations from Section 3 of this paper are repeated in
below the level of the overflow lip will be higher than the average Appendix A using approximation 1.
overflowing slurry content.
Non-coalescing froths: 4. Predicting froth recovery

1 vg λ
if α b : "Over ="Mid = ð1−α Þ ð26Þ As mentioned in the introduction to this paper, froth recovery is
2 k1 the fraction of material that enters the froth by true flotation (i.e.
attached to bubbles) that reports to the concentrate. This material
1 vg λ vg λ reporting to the concentrate will consist of not only the material that
if α z : "Over = ; "Mid = ð27Þ
2 4k1 α 2k1 has remained attached to the films, but also material that entered
attached and subsequently became detached, but was then carried
Flotation froths are not stable and have bubble sizes that increase over by the liquid motion. In order to obtain the overall froth recovery,
quite markedly with height in a foam. This change in bubble size will the combined effect of attached and unattached solids motion needs
cause quite large changes in the slurry content with height. Using Eq. to be considered.
(21) and an appropriate continuity equation, it is possible to solve for In order to solve for the flux of the unattached solids rigorously,
this change in slurry content with height, though this does not result Eq. (20) would need to be solved in conjunction with a continuity
in a nice analytical expression. Two approximations to the full solution equation and, depending on the air recovery and level of approxima-
will be demonstrated. In both methods, Eqs. (24) and (25) will be used tion, one of Eqs. (29)–(32). The problem with this approach is that it
to obtain the average slurry flux through the foam. In the first will not have an analytical solution and would thus require a
 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52 49

Fig. 2. Slurry Content as a function of height as calculated using the full drainage theory and the two approximations. Note that the slurry content axis cuts off some of the capillary
boundary layer in order to highlight the relationship over most of the height.

numerical approximation. The problem is the differential term in material that becomes detached above the level of the overflow lip
Eq. (20), which is used to model the dispersion. In order to produce an will be collected to the concentrate, even though the particles are
analytical expression for the froth recovery, the effect of dispersion settling faster than the fluid velocity.
will be ignored. In this section we will concentrate on the situation where the
Ignoring dispersion is equivalent to assuming that the fluid within settling velocity is intermediate to the fluid velocity at the bottom and
the Plateau borders is plug flow (i.e. no velocity profile to spread the top of the foam. This is quite a wide range as the fluid velocity just
liquid, and thus particles, out) and that all the tortuous routes through below the level of the overflow lip will typically be 1 to 2 orders of
the foam are equivalent in terms of average velocity. No dispersion is a magnitude greater than the liquid velocity into the froth.
best case scenario with respect to froth recovery. This is because the Since the slurry content, and thus velocity, at a particular height in
concentration of previously attached material in the Plateau borders the froth is a function of the average bubble size at that height, there
will virtually always increase with height in the froth. Dispersion will be a critical bubble size at which the particle settling velocity will
causes solids to be transported down concentration gradients and equal the upward fluid velocity. This bubble size, rcrit, will be
therefore the dispersion of previously attached material will be estimated using Eqs. (31) and (32) (slurry content approximation 2.
downwards, thus reducing froth recovery. See Appendix A for calculation of froth recovery based on approxima-
Ignoring dispersion means that Eq. (20) can be simplified as tion 1), together with Eqs. (24) and (25). Noting that λ, the length of
follows: Plateau borders per volume, is inversely proportional to the square of
  the bubble radius:
Ql
F≈ −vset "C ð33Þ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Acol " 1 vset
if α b : rcrit = rout ð34Þ
2 vg α
The first term in Eq. (33) is the average fluid velocity in the vertical
direction. Since the slurry content drops with height in the foam and,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
below the level of the overflow, the volumetric liquid flow-rate is 1 2vset
constant (and upwards), the average upward fluid velocity increases if α z : rcrit = rout ð35Þ
2 vg
with height.
In the absence of dispersion, if the settling velocity is less than the
Since particles that fall off bubbles in higher regions of the froth,
average fluid velocity within the Plateau borders, the particles will be
where the average bubble size is greater than rcrit, will settle slower
transported upwards and collected to the concentrate, while if it is
than the liquid velocity and thus be recovered, only those particles
greater than the fluid velocity it will fall out of the froth. This is
that fall off in lower regions where bubbles are smaller than rcrit will
because if the particle moves downwards, it will move into fluid with
contribute to the material lost from the froth. The froth recovery is
an even slower upward velocity and so will sink faster and vice versa
thus the ratio of the material attached to the bubbles at the critical
(see Fig. 3).
height/bubble size to that entering the froth:
This means that the height of cut-off between particles being
collected to the concentrate and falling out of the froth is the height at Q air Lcrit Sb crit
which the settling velocity equals the fluid velocity. If the fluid velocity RFroth ≈ ð36Þ
Q air Lin Sb in
is greater than the settling velocity at the bottom of the froth, then the
froth recovery will be 1 (which is one of the limits for the equation to Using Eqs. (10) and (36) and noting that specific surface area is
be developed). The other limit is if the settling velocity is greater than inversely proportional to bubble radius:
the fluid velocity at all points in the froth. In this limit, the froth  f
recovery will be approximately the attached material recovery from r
RFroth ≈ in ð37Þ
Eq. (19). The reason for saying approximately is that some of the rcrit
50 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a flotation cell illustrating the simplified froth recovery model.

Substituting Eqs. (34) or (35) into Eq. (37): For froth recovery it is the product of the air velocity and air
recovery (αvg) which is the important factor in the froth recovery. This
 f   product is equal to the volume of air flowing over the lip divided
1 αvg 2 rin f
if α b : RFroth ≈ ð38Þ by the cross-sectional area of the cell. Experimentally the volume of
2 vset rout
air flowing over the lip has been found to typically increase with air
 f   rate at low air rates, followed by either a levelling off or a decrease
1 vg 2 rin f
if α z : RFroth ≈ ð39Þ with increasing air rate at higher air rates (Neethling and Cilliers,
2 2vset rout 2008).

It should be noted that the air recovery in most flotation systems is 4.2. Effect of froth depth on froth recovery
typically less than 50% and therefore Eq. (38) will usually be the
applicable equation. While there is no explicit dependency on froth depth in Eq. (38),
From Eqs. (38) and (39) it can be seen that, in the absence of both the ratio of incoming to outgoing bubble size and the volume of
dispersion, froth recovery can be characterised using a single air flowing over the lip (proportional to αvg) usually decrease with
dimensionless group, NRf: increasing froth depth. This would lead to a decrease in froth recovery
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  with increasing froth depth, which is what is indeed found (e.g.
1 vg α rin Savassi, 1998).
if α b : NRf = ð40Þ
2 vset rout
4.3. Effect of particle size on froth recovery
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
1 vg rin
if α z : NRf = ð41Þ A particle's size and settling velocity are, of course, intimately
2 2vset rout
related. The particles in flotation froths will not settle at their terminal
Eqs. (38) and (39) can therefore be expressed using the following settling velocity, though. Firstly, the particles are settling in a slurry,
very simple form: meaning that they are experiencing hindered settling. The settling
velocity will thus be less than the settling velocity in the absence of
f other particles by a factor that is a function of the volumetric solids
RFroth ≈NRf ð42Þ
fraction in the Plateau borders, ϕ. The following is an empirical
relationship to account for the effect of the solids fraction (Coulson
The range of validity for the above approximation is when the
and Richardson, 1993):
settling velocity of the particles equals the velocity of the liquid at
some point in the froth. This means that the range of validity for Eq.
(42) is as follows: vset ≈vterm ð1−Þ4:65 ð44Þ

  The second factor that influences particle settling through these

rin
b NRf b 1 ð43Þ froths is that the particles must follow a tortuous path through the
rout
Plateau border network. If the Plateau borders are assumed to be
randomly oriented, then the average gravitational force along the
4.1. Effect of air rate on froth recovery Plateau borders will be 1/3 of that in the vertical direction. If the flow
is assumed to be laminar, then Stokes law holds:
If only the direct air rate dependency of Eq. (38) is considered, it
would seem to indicate that the froth recovery would have a power
g 4 ðρS −ρÞd2p
law increase with air rate. This is misleading, seeing that both the air vterm = ð45Þ
recovery and the ratio of incoming to outgoing bubble size will be 18μ
functions of air rate as well. In particular, the air recovery is a very
strong function of air rate. and g4 = 3g
 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52
Fig. 4. Froth recovery as a function of particle size (after Savassi, 1998). Cell number indicates position down a bank of cells.
Where ρS is the density of the solid particles and dp is the particle
diameter. Combining Eqs. (43) and (44) gives an expression for the
particle settling velocity:
gðρS −ρÞd2p
vset ≈ ð1−Þ4:65 ð46Þ
54μ
Substituting Eq. (45) into Eq. (38):
 f

f rin
RFroth ≈ Kαvg 2 d−f
p ð47Þ
rout
54μ
where K= :
gðρS −ρÞð1−Þ4:65
The important factor to note from Eq. (47) is that the froth
recovery is inversely proportional to the particle diameter raised to
the power f, the fraction of material becoming detached from the
vanishing interface during a coalescence event. This means that if
dispersion is not a big factor in the froth recovery, then if the log of
the froth recovery is plotted against the log of the particle size, a
straight line should be obtained with a slope in the range 0 to −1.
Note that the data plotted should be the froth recovery as a
function of particle size for a single set of operating conditions. The
only parameters in Eq. (46) that depend on particle type are the
particle density and size, all the others are constant with respect to
particle type. If different systems, each with a different particle size
are used, changes in the value of the air recovery and bubble size
due to changes in froth stability could swamp the effect of particle
size.
There are limits on the expected range of validity for this
relationship over and above those expressed in Eq. (43). For instance
if the particles are of a similar size to the Plateau borders, they will not
settle as readily as Eq. (46) would suggest, seeing that wall effects
within the Plateau borders would hinder their settling. This effect
would probably manifest itself as a froth recovery that is higher than
that expected given the particle size.
Fig. 4 shows experimentally measured froth recoveries for a
number of particle size classes (Savassi, 1998). By plotting this
51
data on log–log axes it can be seen that the relationship between
froth recovery and particle size obeys a power law relationship as
the simplified theory presented in this paper predicts. The inferred
values for f are all in the range 0 to 1, with most of the values around
0.5.
Fig. 4 also shows that as you move down the bank, the froth recovery
drops. This is most probably because as you move down a bank of cells,
the amount of bursting increases (α decreases) and therefore the value
of vgα decreases. From Eqs. (38) and (47), this would be expected to
result in a drop in froth recovery for all particle sizes.
5. Conclusions
This paper has shown how simple relationships for froth recovery
can be derived. It has also introduced the fraction of material attached
to a coalescing film that become detached, f, as an important factor in
these relationships. Experimentally it has been found that f varies
with loading, though the exact form of this relationship is still
unknown.
A single dimensionless group to characterise the froth recovery,
NRf, has been derived. The most important factors in the froth recovery
are the volume of air overflowing the cell lip, the ratio of incoming to
outgoing bubble size and the settling velocity of the particles. It was
shown that, assuming that the particles obey a Stokes law relationship
for settling velocity, this should result in a power law relationship
between froth recovery and particle size, which was indeed
experimentally found.
Appendix A. Calculation of froth recovery based on slurry content
approximation 1
In the main body of this paper, slurry content approximation 2
(Eqs. (31) and (32)) was used to produce a simple expression for the
froth recovery. This was because it gave a reasonable approximation
within a very simple functional form. It is possible to use the same
method together with slurry content approximation 1 (Eqs. (29) and
(30)) to derive an expression for the froth recovery:
Eq. (37) will still hold, though a new expression for rcrit is
required. Combining Eqs. (24) and (25) with Eqs. (28)–(30) and noting
52 S.J. Neethling / Int. J. Miner. Process. 89 (2008) 44–52

that at λcrit, the fluid velocity and the settling velocity equal one It can be seen that these two expressions are very similar to those
another: developed using approximation 2 (Eqs. (38) and (39)). In fact, they
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! become identical in the limit where the air recovery, α, is small.
1 vset 1 λout
if α b : ≈ 1+ 1−4α ð1−α Þ ð48Þ References
2 vg 2 λcrit
Coulson, J.M., Richardson, J.F., 1993. Chemical Engineering Vol. 2. Pergamon Press,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
Oxford.
1 vset 1 λout
if α z : ≈ 1+ 1− ð49Þ Finch, J.A., Dobby, G.S., 1990. Column Flotation, Chap. 3. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
2 vg 2 λcrit Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2002. Visual technique for measuring bubble size in flotation
machines. Minerals Engineering 15 (7), 507–513.
Since λ is inversely proportional to the square of the bubble radius: Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Coleman, R.G., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2004. A comparison
between capillary and imaging techniques for sizing bubbles in flotation systems.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi Minerals Engineering 17 (1), 53–61.
1 vset vset Honaker, R.Q., Ozsever, A.V., Parekh, B.K., 2005. Selective detachment process in column
if α b : rcrit ≈rout 1− ð50Þ flotation froth. Minerals Engineering 19 (6–8), 687–695.
2 vg α ð1−α Þ vg
Lee, H.T., Neethling, S.J., Cilliers, J.J., 2005. Particle and liquid dispersion in foams.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Colloids and Surfaces, A 263 (1), 165–177.
  Mathe, Z.T., Harris, M.C., O'Connor, C.T., 2000. A review of methods to model the froth
1 vset vset
if α z : r ≈rout 4 1− ð51Þ phase in non-steady state flotation systems. Minerals Engineering 13 (2), 127–140.
2 crit vg vg Neethling, S.J., Cilliers, J.J., 2002. Solid motion in foams. Chemical Engineering Science
57, 607–615.
This means that the expression for froth recovery based on slurry Neethling, S.J., Cilliers, J.J., 2003. Modelling flotation froths. International Journal of
Mineral Processing 72, 267–287.
content expression 1 is: Neethling, S.J., Cilliers, J.J., 2008. Predicting air recovery in flotation cells. Minerals
Engineering 21 (12–14), 937–943.
0 12f
 f Neethling, S.J., Cilliers, J.J., Woodburn, E.T., 2000. Prediction of the water distribution in
1 α ð1−α Þv r flowing foams. Chemical Engineering Science 55, 4021–4028.
if α b : RFroth ≈@  A in
g
ð52Þ Neethling, S.J., Lee, H.T., Cilliers, J.J., 2002. A foam drainage model generalised for all
2 vset 1− vset rout
vg liquid contents. Journal of Physics. Condensed Matter 14 (4), 331–342.
Neethling, S.J., Lee, H.T., Cilliers, J.J., 2003a. The recovery of liquid from flowing foams.
0 12f Journal of Physics. Condensed Matter 15, 1563–1576.
 f Neethling, S.J., Lee, H.T., Cilliers, J.J., 2003b. Simple relationships for predicting the
1 v r
if α z : RFroth ≈@ A in
g
 ð53Þ recovery of liquid from flowing foams and froths. Minerals Engineering 16 (11),
2 4vset 1− vset rout 1123–1130.
vg
Sadr-Kazemi, N., Cilliers, J.J., 2000. A technique for measuring flotation bubble shell
thickness and concentration. Minerals Engineering 13 (7), 773–776.
Except for the very largest particles, the particle settling velocity is Savassi, O., 1998, Direct estimation of the degree of entrainment and the froth recovery
likely to be much less than the gas velocity. This would allow these of attached particles in industrial flotation cells. Ph.D. Thesis., University of
equations to be simplified as follows: Queensland.
Ventura-Medina, E., Barbian, N., Cilliers, J.J., 2004. Solids loading and grade on mineral
 f   froth bubble lamellae. International Journal of Mineral Processing 74 (1–4),
1 α ð1−α Þvg 2 rin f 189–200.
if α b : RFroth ≈ ð54Þ
2 vset rout

 f  
1 vg 2 rin f
if α z : RFroth ≈ ð55Þ
2 4vset rout