FLOTATION FROTHS

Properties of Flotation Froths:

Chemical properties of frothers
Flotation froths and froth dynamics
Dynamic froth stability
Effect of collector on froth properties
Influence of frother on the rate of flotation
Machine Vision
 Allan Lakein
“Planning is bringing the
future into the present so you
can do something about it
now”
Frother: A chemical added to a flotation pulp to reduce air-water interfacial tension, ϫ a/w, and
therefore, stabilise bubbles.
Properties of Frother
1) Create sufficiently stable (but not tenacious) froth to ensure efficient transport of floated hydrophobic minerals through
the pulp to the top of the cell and finally discharge into the concentrate launder. Thereafter, the froth must be able to
break so that it can be transported by pumping.
2) To facilitate dispersion of air into fine bubbles.
3) Allow selective drainage of mechanically entrained hydrophilic gangue from froth zone back into the pulp phase.
4) To increase flotation kinetics.
5) Frother must be soluble in water to some extent so that its concentration can be distributed uniformly in the pulp to
ensure maximum effectiveness.
6) Effectiveness over a wide range of particle size.

Chemistry of Frothers
 Chemically, frothers are similar to ionic collectors, i.e. they are heteropolar surface active chemicals (surfactants)
consisting of a polar and a non-polar group. However, a good frother must not have collector power as doing so
complicates the control of grade and recovery. For this reason, alcohol frothers are the most widely used frothers since
they have practically no collector power.
 Frothers are adsorbed on the air-liquid interface, in other words, frothers reduce interfacial tension between air and liquid
(ϫa/w or ϫg/l).
 Water dipole molecules react with the polar groups of frother and hydrate them but are indifferent to the non-polar groups.
 Consequently, frother molecules are oriented such that the polar groups are in contact with water
molecules while non-polar groups are in contact with the air phase, diagram below.

 Some of the most effective frothers contain one of the groups mentioned:
-OH Hydroxyl (Alcohols) Hydroxyl, Carboxyl, Amino groups are most soluble in water.
Frothers with Amino and Sulpho groups possess weak collector properties
O
-C Carboxyl group
OH

C Carbonyl group

NH2 Amino group

-OSO2OH SO2OH Sulpho group

Classification of Frothers (Dudenkov et al.)

Acidic Neutral Basic

Phenols Aliphatic alcohols Pyridine & its homologues
Alkyl Sulphates Cyclic alcohols
Alkoxy paraffins
Polypropylene glycol ethers
Polyglycol ethers

Polyglycol glycerol ethers

Acidic Frothers
 Acidic frothers are effective in acidic medium.
 They are produced by gasification of coal tar and distillation of crude oil.
 Acidic frothers were extensively used in the past but their application has reduced significantly in
recent times because of environmental concerns.
Basic Frothers

 Suitable in basic environment, pH greater or equal to 7.

 Pyridine and homologues are mainly derived as by-products of coal tar distillation.
 They are used in the flotation of base metal ores.
 Pyridine can be used as raw material in the production of higher quality frothers.

Neutral Frothers
 Effective in acidic and alkaline media.
 Most widely used group in sulphide and oxide flotation of base metal ores and industrial minerals.
 Aliphatic alcohol frothers are mostly used as mixtures of different carbon lengths and a mixture of
hydrocarbon oils.
 Several sub-groups exist. Below chemical structures of some common Neutral Frothers.
Chemical Structures of Common Neutral Frothers – Aliphatic Alcohols
Chemical Structures of Some Common Neutral Frothers – Alkoxy Paraffins
 Developed in 1951 by Dr. Powell, South Africa.
 Extensively used in flotation of sulphide and oxide base metal ores. Also effective in flotation of oxide
minerals after Sulphidisation.
 They are selective and give improved rates of flotation particularly for Cu & Zn sulphide minerals.
 They are less sensitive to presence of clay gangue.
Chemical Structures of Polyglycol Ether Frothers
 Manufactured from synthetic brake fluid.
 General formula is given below.
 Several variations exist by different manufacturers therefore, performance may also vary.
Natural and Synthetic Frothers

 The “first generation” or original frothers were natural products, - Pine Oil, Cresylic Acid, and
Eucalyptus oil being the most common.
 These are rich in surface active ingredients that stabilize froth bubbles and are effective as frothers.
 However, being natural products, these chemicals are not quite pure as they contain a broad range
of chemicals in addition to the surface-active ingredients, Terpineol – C 10H17OH in Pine Oil, and
CH3C6H4OH in Cresylic Acid.
 A large variety of synthetic frothers are now in use whose chemistry is based on high molecular
weight. The composition of these frothers is much more stable making it easier to control flotation
circuits.
 Most common of these synthetic frothers is Methyl Iso Butyl Carbinol (MIBC). Another two important
ranges of effective synthetic frothers are Polyglycol Ethers and Polyglycols.
 Often, these frothers are blended.
 The table below gives a general guide on properties and use of Alcohol, Polyglycol ether and
Polyglycol frothers.
Comparison of Alcohol, Plyglycol Ether and Polyglycol Frothers

Alcohol Frothers Polyglycol Ether Frothers Polyglycol Frothers

Weak Medium Strong
Selective Medium Least selective
Suitable for fine grind Suitable for medium grind Suitable for coarse grind
Example: Pine Oil, MIBC DF 1012 Dowfroth 250
Flotation Froth and Froth Dynamics
 A variety of terminology is used to describe the appearance of flotation froth. For example; Stable, dilute, watery, running,
rushing, tough, sticky, viscous, thick, brittle, persistent, tenacious, etc.
 Although flotation parameters are adjusted basing on such descriptions, these are subjective observations and must be
qualified by their impact on metallurgical performance.
 Cytec suggest that from the plant operators’ point of view, it may suffice to classify froth into two main categories:
1) Froth with Thin membrane bubbles. Such froth;
 Carries less water along into concentrate (it is dry)
 Entrains less fine gangue (it is selective)
 Is stable but not persistent.

2) Froth with Thick membrane bubbles. Such froth;

 Carries more water along into concentrate (it is wet)
 Entrains more fine gangue (it is unselective)
 Is persistent.

 Moolman et al. 1996, suggested classification based on three broad categories:

1) Ideal froth
2) Runny froth
3) Sticky froth
 Sub-classes can then be developed from these and linked to metallurgical performance.
 The most important features of froth selected by Moolman et al. were;
 Froth mobility or velocity
 Froth stability
 Average bubble size

1. Ideal Froth. This is the desired froth structure which is intended to serve as reference for other
classes. It is specific to a particular plant and is dependent on; ore mineralogy, feed grade, tonnage,
slimes content, combination of flotation chemicals used, type of flotation equipment, circuit
configuration, water quality, etc.
Ideal froth often represents a balance between runny froth and sticky viscous froth.

2. Runny Froth. Degree of loading is poor and patchy. Froth appears watery and flows fast. Bubble size
is smaller than in ideal and froth is relatively unstable.

3. Sticky Viscous Froth. Characterized by excessive loading, low mobility, large and persistent froth.
Froth Types in Relation to Froth Characteristics – Moolman et al. 1996
Froth Average
Type Bubble
Size Mobility Stability Overall Texture Average Colour
Ideal Medium Medium Medium Polyhedral, closely packed bubbles with “clear little window” Indicates high
on top that indicates balance between water and mineral mineralization
content.
Runny Small High Low Watery, spherical, loosely packed bubbles with little Little mineral
mineral.
Sticky Large Low High Viscous, ellipsoidal, closely packed bubbles with high froth Froth load too high,
load. may cause a light
colour because of
gangue.
Factors Affecting Froth Characteristics
 The characteristics of froth is affected by a number of process variables so that the properties of
froth is the net result of processes taking place in the pulp. Some of the prominent parameters
affecting froth characteristics are:
 Bubble size and shape
 Air flow rate
 Volume of froth, its viscosity and mobility
 Solids concentration
 Particle size of solids
 Chemistry of pulp

Bubble Size and Shape

 Glembotskii (1972) assumed that there is a relationship between the size of the bubble generated in
pulp and the size of the bubble at the surface of the froth.
 It has been recognized that bubble size distribution in pulp has an important influence on solid-air
bubble Pc and Pa.
 Most recent designs of flotation cells and bubble generators are designed for higher P c and Pa in line
with trends towards finer grind, e.g. Columns, Jameson, Dorr-Oliver flotation cells.
 In addition, bubble size distribution is an indicator of other flotation parameters such as;
 Amount of air flow to the cell/aeration rate
 Reagent additions
 Quantity of minerals in froth
 Bubble size itself is influenced by a number of factors. O’Connor et al (1990) identified the following
factors;
 Surface tension of the interface formed with pulp as it emerges
 Frother concentration
 Size of the aperture from which the bubble emerges
 Speed of emergence, and volume and pressure of gas behind it
 Hydrostatic head against which the bubble is compressed
 Turbulence of surrounding pulp
Bubble Size Vs Operating Process Parameters Bubble Shape
Small Bubble Size Large Bubble Size
Frother addition too high Low frother addition rate
Depressant dosage too high Depressant dosage too low
Low pulp density High pulp density
Too low aeration rate Too high aeration rate
Too coarse grind Too fine grind
Effects of Particle Size

 Most of the good and high grade ores have been depleted and yet the demand for metals keeps increasing. As a
result, the mining industry has turned to low grade ores. The valuable minerals in these ores are often small grained
and are finely disseminated into the gangue matrix.
 Finer grind is therefore, imperative to achieve good liberation of valuable minerals from gangue.
 However, the efficiency of flotation is known to reduce with finer particle size as demonstrated by the Recovery-
Particle Size curve.
 Not only does recovery decline, concentrate grade or selectivity is also negatively affected.
 Sutherland (1948), found that the Pc and Pa for fine particles could be improved by using small bubbles.
 He proposed that the overall probability of a particle floating (Pf) can be represented by;
Pf = PcPa(1-Pd)

 Each of the components was studied by using mineral particles and air bubbles of different sizes. This work concluded
by presenting a numerical relationship, thus:
Pc α (Dp/Db)2
Where;
Dp = Diameter of solid particle
Db = Diameter of bubble

 It can be seen that Pc will reduce if Dp decreases (i.e. grind becomes finer) and that Pc will increase if Db is reduced.
 Particle Diameter, Flotation Recovery, and Liberation
a) “Elephant” Curves b) Particle Size Vs Liberation and Flotation Recovery
Effects of Solids Concentration
 High or low solids concentration has a direct bearing on stability and appearance of the froth
surface.
Important Note
It is not correct to compare froth structure from different stages in a flotation circuit, e.g. Rougher and Cleaner. Rougher
concentrate will contain more gangue minerals which will influence structure and appearance of froth.
 High Mineral Loading will result in; Large bubbles, no little windows on top of bubbles, too stable
and viscous froth. Possible causes: Low depressant dosage; High mineral content in feed.
On the other hand,
 Low Mineral Loading will result in; Watery froth, very small unstable bubbles, patchy loading.
Possible causes: High depressant dosage; Low mineral content in feed.
 High Mineral Loading will result in; Large bubbles, no little windows on top of bubbles, too stable
and viscous froth. Possible causes: Low depressant dosage; High mineral content in feed.
On the other hand,
 Low Mineral Loading will result in; Watery froth, very small unstable bubbles, patchy loading.
Possible causes: High depressant dosage; Low mineral content in feed.
Effect of Air Flow Rate

 In a flotation circuit, air flow rate is often the first parameter to adjust in an effort to restore recovery
or grade.
 Increasing air flow rate results in an increase in solids recovery to froth and consequently, higher
recovery. But this is at the expense of selectivity or grade.
 Conversely, Reducing air flow rate results in reduction of solids concentration into froth and an
accompanying reduction in recovery. This however, is favourable to selectivity.
 There is a relationship between air flow rate and bubble size as seen earlier; Low air flow rate gives
small average bubble size while high air flow rate gives large average bubble size.
Process Variables Vs Froth Structure – Moolman et al. 1996
Process Variable
1. Frother addition: Too high
Too low
2. Depressant dosage: Too high
Too low
3. Collector addition: Too high
Too low
4. Activator dosage: Too high
Too low
5. Pulp level: Too high
Too low
6. Pulp density: Too high
Too low
7. Too high feed grade
Too low feed grade
8. Too coarse feed size distribution
Froth Appearance
Froth too stable, bubbles too small
Froth less stable, large bubbles formed by coalescence
Froth watery, runny with low degree of mineralization (froth loading too low); small bubbles
Froth viscosity too high: reflected by too stable a froth with low mobility; large bubbles; gangue minerals gives
the froth lighter appearance
Depresses valuable minerals
Difficult to detect with eye: may be detected by image analysis
Froth becomes brittle and more mobile
Difficult to detect with eye
Froth too fast and watery
Froth viscosity too high, reflected by stick froth of low mobility
Degree of mineralisation too high (froth load too high; viscous froth of low mobility
Froth watery and runny and unstable
High loading of froth with no windows; Stable froth; mobility may be low
Poor froth loading; large windows; unstable watery and runny froth
Froth too brittle; small bubble size
Froth Stability
 Main aspects used to characterize strength of frother:
1) Foamability
2) Foam Stability (or Collapse Time)
3) Surface activity

Foamability
 This refers to the volume of foam formed by a frother. It is to be expected that a stronger frother will create larger
volume of froth compared to a weaker frother and also that higher dosage of same frother will yield larger volume
of foam.

Foam Stability (or Collapse Time)

 This is the time taken for the foam to collapse completely and the broken froth structure leaves a homogenous
liquid phase.
Foam stability is determined by standing froth in a graduated cylinder and recording the original volume. The froth is
observed until it collapses completely.
The time taken is recorded along with the pulp volume. The time, referred to as Collapse Time gives an indication of froth
stability. The difference in volume is an estimation of air contained in the froth, the Froth Power.
Experiment has shown that Collapse Time depends first on frother type and secondly on bubble generating system.
Surface Activity

 Frother that lowers surface tension between air-water interface more also produces more stable froth. For
example, experimental work by Gupta, A.K. et al. (2007) ranked DF1012 (strongest) > Alpha Terpineol >
MIBC (weakest) in terms of reducing surface tension.
Bubble Coalescence
 As air bubbles oscillate due to turbulent conditions, they collide and merge. The merging of small bubbles
into larger bubbles is called Coalescence and is influenced by thinning of the water film around the bubbles.
 An important function of a good frother is that it must allow “thinning” of the water film around bubbles to
increase probability Pa after collision.
 The water and entrained hydrophilic minerals removed by thinning of water film must be drained back into
the froth zone below.
 However, although thin membrane bubbles (dry froth) enhance selectivity, they also promote bubble
coalescence. Coalescence results in drop back of minerals into the froth below and possibly into pulp-froth
zone. On the other hand, whereas thick membrane bubbles (wet froth) are not selective, they resist
coalescence.
 It is therefore, necessary to strike a balance between dry and wet froth structure.
 Above a certain frother concentration, the degree of bubble coalescence begins to decrease and at a critical
concentration, the bubbles stop to coalesce and there is no increase in bubble size.
 This critical frother concentration is called Critical Coalescence Concentration (CCC).
Recovery and Selectivity in Froth Phase
 It is important to consider froth as a 3-Phase zone and to conceptualise sub-processes taking place
which involve detachment and re-attachment of particles, ultimately contributing to overall selectivity
and recovery.
(i) 3-Phase System:
Froth zone Pulp-Froth zone Pulp zone
 These 3 zones interact so that overall selectivity and recovery is the net effect of the sub-processes
and their interaction.
(ii) Sub-Processes Between Zones:
a) Bubble Coalescence. There is a reduction in total available surface area in the upper regions as bubbles
coalesce.
b) Particle Detachment. Particles detach from bubble surfaces when sufficient force is exerted to separate the
particle from the aggregate.
c) Particle Drainage. Some particles drain into lower froth and others further down into pulp. Particle drainage is
selective with respect to particle hydrophobicity, size, and density.
d) Particle Re-attachment. Particles detached in b) above have a chance to re-attach to bubbles in the lower froth
zone by displacing less hydrophobic minerals or covering unloaded froth surface area.
Events in 3-Phase Zones
Concentrate
FrothPhase
Froth Phase Larger particles require more energy to detach from bubbles due to higher contact area.
Hydrophilic particles detach preferentially to hydrophobic particles.

Larger & more dense particles drain faster than finer less dense particles.

Pulp-Froth Interface
More hydrophobic particles have a higher probability of re-attachment.

Pulp Phase
(Collection Zone)
Fresh Feed
Tails
 Pulp-Froth zone is responsible for a large degree of upgrading and also for significant proportion of recovery loss across froth phase as a whole.
 A mass balance is carried out which incorporates “recycling” i.e. detachment and re-attachment of solid particles .
Factors Affecting Froth Stability
 Reagent types and concentrations
 Viscosity of medium
 Bubble size
 Properties of particles (Size, Hydrophobicity, Shape)

Reagents
 Flotation reagents which increase strength of attachment between solid-air bubble, e.g. collector, also
increase froth stability. On the other hand, reagents which reduce strength of attachment between
solid-air bubble, e.g. depressant also reduce froth stability.
 There is a relationship between frothing ability and surface activity of the solutes (polar part). Solutes
which lower surface tension more strongly tend to produce more persistent froth. For example,
Polyglycol ether with more OH- sites is more surface active and therefore, stronger than MIBC which
has one OH- site.

Viscosity (Plasticity)
 Viscous medium has higher resistance to drainage of water films from between bubbles. Therefore,
the rate of coalescence in viscous media is lower with consequent loss of selectivity in froth zone but
higher recovery.
Bubble size

 Optimum bubble size must be established for each application. Experienced operators will have tacit
knowledge about optimum bubble size. Optimum bubble size should result in high probabilities of
solid-air bubble collision Pc and attachment Pa.
 Too large bubble diameter results in overly stable froth which is Viscous, closely packed with high
froth load while too small bubbles results in unstable froth which is watery, with loosely packed
bubbles that have little mineral content.

Properties of particles
Particle Size: Generally, coarse particle size distribution produces brittle froth and the bubbles are small. On the other
hand, fine particle size distribution produces more stable froth (which in extreme cases may be sticky) and the bubbles are
large. However, according to Hadler et al (2010), the effect of particle size cannot be linked to froth stability without
considering air flow rate as even small produce significant changes to froth stability.
Particle Hydrophobicity: Hydrophobic particles form very stable froth of low mobility. Bubble diameter is also large.
Hydrophilic particles will produce froth of opposite characteristics; i.e. unstable, runny, and small bubble diameter.
Particle Shape: Particle shape affects the area of solid particle in contact with the air bubble so that for particles of same
hydrophobicity, the more spherical particles will have less area of contact and therefore, produce less stable froth.
Machine Vision: Process Control by Froth Image Analysis
Process Control by Froth Image Analysis
According to Aldrich et al (2010), development of process control based on froth image analysis can be
divided into four stages;
 Froth characterization
 Inferential estimation of operational variables
 Process monitoring
 Automated control

1. Froth Classification
 Involves identification of froth structure, characteristic of specific process conditions in the plant. The
identified features are used as predictor variables to categorise froth classes.
 Froth identification can be used to determine how the flotation plant is being operated and the controls
required to restore froth structure to ideal.
For example, froth colour, bubble size, bubble shape can be used to estimate mineral content in froth.
2. Inferential Estimation of Operational Variables
 A critical question to answer is which variables are critical and how do they affect flotation
performance? It has been found that the bubble size and velocity are critical and as a minimum, must
be included in modelling.
 Additionally, air recovery to concentrate (indicator of stability) is important.
 Models of flotation kinetics in froth have been developed based on froth hydrodynamics and
empirical data.
 Woodburn et al (1994) combined conceptual froth structure with flotation kinetics. They based flotation
kinetics on the flux of bubble surface area overflowing from the cell;
ɸ = αQaSb
Where; ɸ = Flux of bubble surface area
α = Air recovery
Qa = Volumetric air flow rate into cell
Sb = Specific bubble area
 The above equation can be re-written as;
ɸ = αQaSb = (εvfhw)Sb
α = εvfhw/Qa
Where; ε = Volume fraction of air
vf = Froth velocity
h = Froth height
w = Weir height
 vf and h can be determined by image analysis.
 Greater values of α, air recovery, result in improved flotation performance. Varying air flow rate to individual cells in a bank to
3. Process Control Charts
 In addition to identification of specific classes of froth as an indicator of process conditions, plant
operators can also be assisted by use of process charts.
 Optimum froth features are imaged and stored on-line as charts. Dynamic plant variables are
controlled to achieve froth structure that conforms as closely as possible to the optimum charts stored
on-line.

4. Classical Control
 Advances in computing power and technology have resulted in tremendous progress in the area of
process control including digitized understanding of froth structure.
 However, flotation processes are influenced by many variables which also interact amongst
themselves making the overall system very complex. This even more so when dealing with the study
of froth structure which is a relatively new field.
 In some studies, the control systems become very slow because of numerous variables that must be
processed. It becomes necessary to devise a control configuration which guarantees satisfactory
operation while enabling process optimization.
 Furthermore, cases arise where it is difficult even not possible, to find the best reference values for
some output variables.
 In such cases, the reference values are replaced with Upper and Lower Alarm limits so that the
purpose of control is to maintain the output between these two limits by use of “IF-THEN” algorithms.
Commercial Machine Vision Systems
 Monitoring and control of froth flotation using froth vision is developing and there are already commercial
systems installed in operating plants. Examples; FrothMaster, JKFrothCam, SmartFroth, VisioFroth,
ACEFLOT.
 A video camera is installed above a flotation cell and it captures and stores dynamically the nature of froth
together with selected variables.
 For instance, the camera will measure froth velocity in each cell. Froth velocity is directly related to mass pull
(and therefore, recovery and grade). The control system is then used to adjust froth depth, to optimise froth
velocity and mass pull.
 Dynamic control algorithms include mass pull, air flow rate, froth depth, reagent additions, etc. These are
adapted to local froth structure and characteristics depending on level of importance or impact on
metallurgical performance.

Difficulties with Machine Vision Control

 Other indicative variables captured include; - froth colour, bubble size, and bubble shape, may be subjective
because they may not always be unique to a set of operating conditions. It is possible that similar or even
same froth colour could be produced by different ore mineralogy and cell operating parameters.
 Cell reference froths must be determined and the acceptable range of froth types in relation to other cells,
e.g. in a rougher bank, froth type in Cell 1 relative to Cell 2.

In most plants where machine vision is applied, the installations are integrated with other plant process control
Commercial Machine Vision

Froth Monitoring Camera on Flotation Cell

Down-the-Bank Images of Froth

SGS METCam and Froth Velocity Expert Control
References

1. Wills, B.A., and Napier-Munn, T.J., (2006), Mineral Process Technology: An Introduction to the Practical
Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery, 7th Edition, Publisher: Elsevier Science and Technology
Books, ISBN: 0750644508.
2. Mining Chemicals Handbook (2002), Revised Edition, Cytec Industries Inc.
3. Bulatovic, S.M., (2007), Handbook of Flotation Reagents – Chemistry, Theory and Practice: Flotation of
Sulphide Ores, Volume 1, Elsevier Science and Technology Books.
4. Aldrich, C. et.al, (2010), Int. J. Miner. Process, 96(2010), p1-13.
5. Gupta, A.K. et.al, (2007), Effect of Alcohol and Polyglycol Ether Frothers on Form Stability, Bubble Size and
Coal Flotation, Int. J. Miner. Process, 82(2007), p126-137.
6. Moolman, D.W. et.al, (1996), The Significance of Flotation Froth Appearance for Machine Vision Control, Int.
J. Miner. Process., 48(1996), p135-158.
7. SGS Mineral Services Brochure – T3 SGS 236, METCAM – FC V5.