ARTICLE IN PRESS

Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

This article is also available online at:
www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Some gas dispersion characteristics of mechanical flotation machines

Jan E. Nesset, Jose R. Hernandez-Aguilar, Claudio Acuna,
Cesar O. Gomez, James A. Finch *
Department of Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering, McGill University, The Wong Building, 3610 University Street, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada H3A 2B2

Received 12 July 2005; accepted 18 September 2005

Abstract

The gas dispersion properties that are the subjects of this communication include three measured parameters, gas superficial velocity
(gas rate), gas holdup and bubble size, plus the derived parameter, bubble surface area flux. Over the past 10 years sensors to measure
these parameters have been introduced and those originating from McGill University are briefly described.
The sensors have seen extensive use in plant campaigns and experiences on four cell types at three sites are discussed. The impact of
frother in controlling bubble size by retarding coalescence is illustrated, indicating the need to understand chemistry/machine interac-
tions in interpreting gas dispersion results. An increase in Sauter mean bubble size (D32) with superficial gas velocity (gas rate, Jg)
was found, which was fitted empirically by D32 = D0 + C, J ng where D0
0.5–0.6 mm and C and n are fitted parameters dependent
on the system (machine and chemistry). Following this, a consistent trend in bubble surface area flux (Sb) vs. Jg was also observed.
The relationship between Sauter mean and number mean (D10) is suggested to interpret the nature of the distribution. Analysing gas
holdup vs. gas rate shows both a dependence on location in the cell as well as cell position in a bank, factors which must be considered
when comparing data from different plants and circuits.
The instrumentation and methodologies being developed are presenting new opportunities for incorporating cell hydrodynamics into
metallurgical diagnostics. A case study at one plant serves as illustration.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flotation machines; Flotation frothers; Flotation bubbles

1. Introduction The sensors and instruments employed here are those

The last 10 years have seen significant advances in the
measurement of so-called gas dispersion properties in flota-
tion machines, namely: gas superficial velocity (or simply
gas rate) (Jg), gas holdup (eg) and bubble size (diameter,
Db). From these can be derived the bubble surface area flux
(Sb = 6Jg/Db, where Db is usually the Sauter mean diame-
ter, D32). Each paremeter carries information that charac-
terizes gas dispersion, the Sb being of prime interest
because it is related to flotation rate (Gorain et al., 1997;
Hernandez et al., 2003).
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 514 398 4492.
E-mail address: jim.finch@mcgill.ca (J.A. Finch).
described in Gomez and Finch (2002). Designed for plant
work, they are robust and provide automated data acquisi-
tion, and increasingly, on-line data analysis. There are other
devices at varying levels of sophistication (Powell et al.,
2000; Yianatos et al., 2001; Grau and Heiskanen, 2003).
As of writing, the team has conducted gas dispersion
campaigns at 12 sites on five continents. These have
included: investigating summer/winter swings in metal-
lurgy (the case study selected for discussion); interpreting
differences between recovery in pilot and full-scale cells;
determining the impact of gas rate profiles on banks;
comparing the effect of different frothers and collector
types on gas dispersion; detailing the response of self-aer-
ation machines to process variables; and comparing spar-
ger systems for flotation columns. This paper extracts cell

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.09.045
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

characterization data from three concentrators: North
American Palladium Ltd.Õs Lac des Iles (LDI) (Ontario,
Canada); Impala PlatinumÕs UG2 (Impala) (S. Africa);
and Noranda/FalconbridgeÕs Raglan (Raglan) (Quebec,
Canada). The paper focuses on forced air mechanical
machines: at Raglan, (nominal) 28-m3 Outokumpu OK-
28 U-bottom cells; at LDI, 130-m3 Outokumpu OK-130
tank cells; and at Impala, 50-m3 Bateman 50 and 30-m3
Metso RCS 30 tank cells. Common gas dispersion fea-
tures are identified, for example the dependence of bubble
size on gas rate. There is no intent to compare cell
designs as this would require a more complete under-
standing of the role of at least the following: pulp prop-
erties (density, viscosity), mechanical factors (energy
input, mixing), solution chemistry (notably frother dosage
and sometimes salt concentration) and sampling location
(radial and depth variations in gas distribution in a cell
can be expected).
2. Instrumentation
The basic measurement is the gas superficial velocity
(Jg), namely the volumetric flow rate of gas (air) (Qg) per
cross-sectional area of the cell (A). i.e., Jg = Qg/A with
units typically cm/s. This is often termed simply Ôgas rateÕ.
The data reported here were measured using the so-called
on/off Jg sensor (Fig. 1a) (Torrealba-Vargas et al., 2004).
It comprises a tube to collect bubbles by natural buoyancy
and infers Jg from the rate of increase in pressure once a
valve is closed (specimen Ôpressure-variationÕ curves are
included, Fig. 1b). The estimation of Jg requires the bulk
density (qbulk) and this is usually taken at the same time

Fig. 1a. Schematic of McGill on/off gas rate sensor (Note, level in tube descends as air accumulates).

Fig. 1b. Example pressure variation curves for the on/off sensor.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
taking two pressure measurements a known depth apart.
(The latest sensor design incorporates both Jg and qbulk
measurements in one device.) The method has the advan-
tage of also providing a direct measure of real-time varia-
tion in cell pulp level, a variable required for correction
of Jg (as well as bubble size). The standard procedure is
to report Jg at the location (depth) sampled, typically
0.5–1.0 m below the pulp–froth interface. This is a region
away from the impeller where conditions are less turbulent
and bubble surface flux represents that leaving the pulp and
entering the froth.
Gas holdup (eg) is the volumetric fraction (or %) of gas
in the aerated slurry. The sensor is conductivity-based
(Tavera et al., 1996) comprising (Fig. 2) two flow cells,
an open cell to measure the conductivity of aerated slurry
(jslg) and a siphon cell to measure the conductivity of de-
aerated slurry (jsl). The siphon cell has a conical base with
a small opening that acts to restrict bubble entry and thus
establish a bulk density difference between the fluid inside
and outside the cell. This density difference drives a flow
of slurry out through the orifice in through the top of the
cell (hence the description ÔsiphonÕ). This flow both com-
pletes the elimination of air (bubbles cannot enter against
the outflow of slurry) and replenishes the slurry in the cell.
With the two conductivities, MaxwellÕs model for the con-
ductivity of a dispersion of spherical non-conducting
objects (bubbles in this case) in a continuous conducting
medium (slurry) is solved (included in Fig. 2). (Note, the
model involves the ratio of conductivities, hence their
actual value, or whether they vary during measurement
(e.g., due to reagent addition, change in percentage solids,
etc.) is not a factor.) Highly saline solutions require modi-
fications to the sensor calibrations in order to maintain lin-
earity and sufficient sensitivity.
Bubble size distribution is the third gas dispersion
parameter. The technique employs a sampling-followed-
by-imaging technique (Hernandez-Aguilar et al., 2004).
The set-up (Fig. 3a) comprises a sampling tube connected
to a closed, sloped viewing chamber with rear illumination
through a diffuser (filter) to minimize light diffraction
Fig. 2. Schematic of McGill gas holdup sensor (including Maxwell
model).
3
Fig. 3a. Schematic of McGill bubble size analyzer.
effects on the bubble images. The assembly is first filled
with process water (to limit changes in chemistry experi-
enced by bubbles as they enter), then a valve near the base
of the tube is closed and the tube inserted at the desired
location in the cell (below the froth and typically at the
same location as for Jg). The valve is opened and bubbles
rise by buoyancy into the viewing chamber. Here they
encounter the sloped window and spread into an approxi-
mate mono-layer, which reduces bubble overlap and pro-
vides an unambiguous plane of focus. For several
minutes the bubbles remain in clear view until particles
(carried by the bubbles and released as they burst) accumu-
late and cloud the chamber. Example images illustrating
the clarity are included (Fig. 3b). Typically over 10 000
bubbles are counted after the distribution has reached
steady state (the initial bubbles entering the viewer are
the largest in the population as they rise up the sampling
tube faster than the others). The data are processed to yield
frequency distributions (number, surface area and volume)
and various statistical means, usually the number mean
(D10) (sensitive to small bubbles) and volume-surface (Sau-
ter) mean (D32) (sensitive to larger bubbles and appropriate
metric to calculate bubble surface area flux).
Ideally, all gas dispersion measurements should be
made simultaneously at the same location with the pres-
sure and temperature recorded. In this way correction
to ÔstandardÕ conditions can be made, which is essential
to compare data from different cells. Practical consider-
ations often impose compromises. A discussion of the
plant sampling methodology used to investigate the rela-
tionships between metallurgical performance and the gas
dispersion measurements is given by Nesset et al. (2005).
The key is to conduct campaigns over a wide range of
the major variables (e.g., froth depth, air rate, reagent
addition level, Jg profile), preferably at the same time con-
ducting metallurgical sampling. Our standard practice is
to include repeat tests on separate days to measure
reproducibility.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3b. Example bubble images: top left, lab, air–water, fine frit porous
sparger; top right, same as left but coarse frit; mid left, industrial
mechanical machine, base metal slurry; mid right, column flotation cell, jet
type sparger, base metal slurry (large bubble isolated for demonstration
purposes); bottom left, industrial mechanical machine, PGM slurry; low
air rate; mid right, same as left but high air rate.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Bubble size and chemistry
The bubble size observed in a flotation cell (of any
design) is the result of the primary generation process
and secondary processes, notably coalescence. The slurry
properties (percent solids, viscosity, etc.) may influence
either but certainly solution chemistry influences coales-
cence. In most cases, frother is added to retard coalescence,
which Harris (1976) noted was more important than the
machine in controlling bubble size. Some collectors such
as fatty acids and amines also affect coalescence, as can
high concentration of some salts. Any discussion of bubble
size in flotation machines must start by recognizing the
chemistry/machine interaction (Cho and Laskowski, 2002).
The role of frother is illustrated in Fig. 4 which follows
the impact of sequential additions to a laboratory flotation
cell containing process (Impala) water (no solids). With
increasing dosage (the process water may have contained
some residual frother), the Sauter mean (D32) decreases
to a constant value (ca. 0.6 mm) (note the number mean,
D10, is less sensitive). The inserts reveal how the distribu-
tions evolve. In particular, note the volume frequency
where at zero addition there are two modes, at ca. 1 mm
and ca. 5 mm, and as frother is added the peak at 1 mm
grows at the expense of the other.
One interpretation is that bubbles are produced at ca.
1 mm and some coalesce to form the larger bubbles (ca.
5 mm), a process progressively retarded by addition of
frother. Around 20 ppm (in this case), coalescence appears
to be completely prevented, which has been termed the crit-
ical coalescence concentration (CCC) (Cho and Laskowski,
2002). At concentrations above the CCC the volume fre-
quency approaches the number frequency indicating a dis-
tribution that is narrowing (the two means would be
coincident for a mono-sized dispersion). There are some
issues arising from this ÔcoalescenceÕ model which are dis-
cussed elsewhere (Finch et al., 2005).
3.2. Bubble size versus gas rate
Fig. 5 summarises the experience for the four machine
types showing the Sauter mean size increases with gas rate.
(This is among the first data showing this relationship in
operating cells.) The trend follows a power law,
D32 ¼ D0 þ CJ ng ; ð1Þ
where D0 is the bubble size (diameter) at Jg = 0 and C and
n are parameters dependent on the bubble production
mechanism, system chemistry, and, possibly, slurry proper-
ties. The relationship is a modification of that proposed by
Dobby and Finch (1986) for porous spargers in columns
(their equation did not include the D0 term). The Bateman
cell was deliberately run to approach zero gas rate and sug-
gests D0
0.5–0.6 mm, which is supported by extrapola-
tion of the other data. Given the machines all produce
bubbles by mechanical induced shear, we can hypothesize
that D0 is the (mean) starting size generated by that mech-
anism. Data gathered on a Denver laboratory cell mimics
the Db–Jg relationship (Sung-So Do, 2004), suggesting a
vehicle for more controlled testing than generally allowed
in plant trials.
The increase in mean bubble size with gas rate may
result from an effect on the primary and/or secondary (coa-
lescence) processes. Fig. 6 shows the number frequency
response to gas rates in two cases. In Fig. 6a (Impala) there
is a steady increase in modal size as gas rate increases, sug-
gesting the primary process is affected. An effect on the pri-
mary process may be related to the decrease in power draw
as gas rate is increased (Arbiter et al., 1976), i.e., there is
less energy for bubble break-up, but is also seen with por-
ous spargers (Dobby and Finch, 1986) where the same con-
sideration apparently would not apply. In Fig. 6b (LDI), as
Jg increases the peak initially at ca. 1 mm shifts to a larger
size (primary process again), while between the two highest
gas rates, the ÔprimaryÕ mode remains at the same size but
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 5

0.4

0.3
Fraction

0.4
0.2 Volume
Surface 0.3
Number
0.1

Fraction
0.2 Volume 0.4
0.0 Surface
0.1 1.0 10.0 0.1 Number 0.3
Db (mm)

Fraction
0.0 0.2 Volume
0.1 1.0 10.0 Surface
Number
Db (mm) 0.1

0.0
3.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
Db (mm)
2.5
0.4
D10 or D32 (mm)

2.0

1.5 0.3
D10

Fraction
1.0 D32 0.2 Volume
Surface
0.5
Number
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60
0.0
Frother Addition (pm) 0.1 1.0 10.0
Db (mm)

Fig. 4. Impact of frother dosage on mean bubble size (D32 and D10) and on frequency distributions (number, surface area, volume) at selected frother
dosages.

3
40
Outokumpu TC 130 LDI
2.5 Jg=0.11
Jg=0.11
30
Frequency (%)

Jg=0.48
Jg=0.48
2
D32 (mm)

Bateman TC 50 Impala Jg=1.34

Jg=1.34
20
1.5 Metso RCS 30 Impala
Outokumpu 28U Raglan 10
1

0.5 0
0.1 1.0 10.0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Db (mm)

Jg (cm/s) Fig. 6a. Impact of gas rate on number frequency (Impala—Bateman).

Fig. 5. Bubble size (Sauter mean diameter) versus gas rate for the four cell
types at the three plants.

25
diminishes in frequency with a second mode becoming evi- Jg =0.43
Jg=0.43
dent (ca. 2.5 mm), suggestive of an effect on the secondary 20
Frequency (%)

Jg =1.0
Jg=1.0
process. The top gas rate may be too high for the frother Jg =2.4
15 Jg=2.4
dosage to fully retard coalescence.
The availability of bubble size distribution data invites 10
exploration of the properties. Plotting D32 against D10 pro-
vides some insight into the effect of gas rate on the distribu- 5
tion. Fig. 7 shows the result for two of the cases in Fig. 6. 0
The LDI (Outokumpu) data closely follow the identity, 0.1 1.0 10.0
which means the distribution remains narrow over the Db (mm)
gas rate range, compared with the Impala (Bateman) data
which indicates a widening distribution with increasing gas Fig. 6b. Impact of gas rate on number frequency (LDI—Outokumpu).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

rate. The different response may be related to the degree of 100 Impala Bateman
coalescence but more experience is required to pursue this

Minus 1 mm bubbles (%)

reasoning. 80 Impala Metso

Fig. 8a indicates the distributions often have a consis- LDI OK

60
tent shape: the percentage minus 1 mm versus D10 for three
of the full size machines and for pilot and lab scale data LDI Pilot
40
(LDI) yield a unique relationship. This is expected from LDI Lab
integration of the fine end of the frequency distribution, 20
which usually approximates a normal distribution. The 0
coarse end is often not as well behaved and so the plot of 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
percentage minus 1 mm versus D32 is not a consistent rela- D32 (mm)
tionship (Fig. 8b). Evidence was presented by Nesset et al.
(2005) that the proportion of minus 1 mm bubbles can Fig. 8b. Plot of percentage minus 1 mm versus D32 does not show the
strongly influence fine particle recovery (true flotation same consistency as for D10 in Fig. 8b.
effect) and concentrate grade (entrainment effect), and
hence D10 should be included alongside the more common
D32 for linking with metallurgical performance. 80
Outokumpu 28U Raglan
Much as the availability of particle size data stimulated 70
comminution research, the same can be expected in flotation Metso RCS 30 Impala
60
from bubble size data. The hypothesized advantage of Bateman TC 50 Impala
matching bubble and particle size distributions is closer to
Sb (1/s) 50
Outokumpu TC 130 LDI
being tested given the measurement abilities now available. 40
30
3.3. Bubble surface area flux versus gas rate 20
10
Fig. 9 is the data in Fig. 5 presented as bubble surface
0
area flux. The values extend up to 80 s1, which is towards
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Jg (cm/s)
3
Fig. 9. Bubble surface area flux versus gas rate for data in Fig. 5.
2.5

2
D32 (mm)

LDI
the high end of the range in the literature (Gorain et al.,
1.5 Outokumpu 1997; Powell et al., 2000). Xu et al. (1991) suggest a maxi-
1 mum Sb in water–air systems of ca. 160 s1.
Impala
Bateman
Following from Fig. 5, the trends could be fitted by
0.5
6J g
0 Sb ¼ . ð2Þ
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 ðD0 þ CJ g Þ
D10 (mm) After calibration (to provide estimates of D0, C and n), Eq.
Fig. 7. Sauter mean (D32) versus number mean (D10). (2) could be integrated into flotation simulators.

3.4. Gas holdup versus gas rate

100 Impala Bateman
This relationship was the first explored to characterize
Minus 1 mm bubbles (%)

80 Impala Metso flotation machines. It was used, for instance, to establish

the operating gas rate range of a cell (Cooper et al.,
60 LDI OK
2004). Fig. 10 shows the relationship in two cells (both
40 LDI Pilot OK-28) at Raglan in the rougher/scavenger bank. The typ-
ical linear trend (which holds to some gas rate above which
LDI Lab
20 gas holdup varies erratically) is noted, but with a different
relationship for the two cells. The corresponding bubble
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
size versus gas rate data did not show such a distinction
(bubble size from both cells is included in Fig. 5). This sug-
D10 (mm)
gests slurry properties do not affect bubble generation as
Fig. 8a. Plot of percentage minus 1 mm versus D10: note consistent much as they do bubble dispersion: gas holdup is sensitive
relationship regardless of source. to bubble rise velocity, which may have been influenced by
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 7

20 presented. Noranda/FalconbridgeÕs Matagami concentra-

tor in northern Quebec, Canada, has been processing mas-
16
sive sulphide copper–zinc ores from local mines for the past
Rougher 7 40 years. The deposits have been similar, containing a high
Scavenger 3 proportion of pyrite and talc as gangue minerals. A strong
εg @ 2.5m (%)

12 seasonal variation in final zinc concentrate grade has been

8 minimum (winter) to maximum (summer) change. (Addi-
4
0 cated as March and August, respectively, in Fig. 12. Sur-
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Jg @ 2.5 m (cm/s)
Fig. 10. Gas holdup versus gas rate in two cells (Note, measurements are
at a specified depth which is now the practice).
differences in percent solids between the two cells (Banisi
et al., 1995).
The comparison is complicated, however, by the fact
that measurement is at a particular location in a cell, i.e.,
it represents local gas holdup and gas rate values. Fig. 11
shows the
g–Jg trend in the same cell for different positions
of the gas rate sensor. Experience with mechanical cells
generally supports a radial symmetry, gas rate, gas holdup
and bubble size decreasing with distance from the central
a feature for much of this period, giving as much as a 3%
tional details are provided by Nesset et al. (2005)).
The results of a year-long investigation, which included
studying gas dispersion as well as chemical characteristics,
revealed much finer bubbles in winter than in summer, indi-
2.0
veys were conducted at low, medium and high Jg for the
zinc rougher bank (all cells with the same targeted Jg) with
a repeat on a separate day. Comparing gas rate against zinc
concentrate grade (Fig. 13a) it is evident that the normal
operating Jg (indicated by arrows) results in the best zinc
grade in August and the lowest grade in March. When
viewed as Sb against zinc grade (Fig. 13b) the trends now
correspond with an off-set, demonstrating that the higher
bubble surface area flux obtained in winter (due to smaller
bubbles) is driving the zinc grade down.
100
Frequency Distribution

80
March
gas injection point. This is seen here: reading across, the
(% passing)

Jg at the central position is higher than at the wall (laun- 60 August

der). The result is a different (but still linear) trend for
the two locations. Consequently, when comparing cells 40
(e.g., to examine the possible slurry effect on gas holdup Cell E2

noted above), it is necessary to allow for the sensor 20 Jg= 0.62

location.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3.5. Linking to metallurgy: an example Db (mm)

By way of an industrial case study, the investigation into Fig. 12. A comparison of bubble size distributions at the Matagami
seasonal variation in zinc concentrate grade at Matagami is concentrator for March and August at the same gas rate setting.

20
Concentrate Grade (%Zn)

55
Located at center Aug/02
Located at launder 53
16
Aug/02 Repeat
51
εg @ 2.5m (%)

12 March/02
49
March/02
8 OK28
OK28 47 Repeat

45
4 0 1 2 3 4 5

August March
0 Jg (cm/s)
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Jg @ 2.5 m (cm/s) Fig. 13a. Zinc concentrate grade versus gas rate for winter (March) and
summer (August) zinc rougher surveys at Matagami. Note, arrows
Fig. 11. Gas holdup versus gas rate with Jg sensor at two locations. indicate plant operating settings.

8 J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
55
Concentrate Grade (%Zn)
53
51
49
47
45
0 10
August
Fig. 13b. The same data as Fig. 13a but plotted against bubble surface
area flux.
56
Zn Concentrate Grade
54
@ 70 %Recovery
52
50
48
46
0 10 20
Bubble Surface Area in Fraction <1 mm (%)
Fig. 14. The concentrate grade data for March and August correlate when
plotted against the proportion of the surface area flux within the minus
1 mm bubble fraction.
Various relationships were investigated to try to explain
this dependency and, ultimately, the one demonstrated in
Fig. 14, showing the concentrate grade is inversely-linearly
related to the proportion of bubble surface area flux con-
tained in the minus 1 mm bubbles proved the most con-
vincing (R2 = 0.92). At this juncture it is not known if
the role of the fine bubbles is to enhance collection of gan-
gue particles by true flotation or entrainment mechanisms
(For further discussion see Nesset et al. (2005)). While
not completely resolved, the example does show the value
of gas dispersion measurement in understanding metallur-
gical behaviour.
4. Conclusions
Gas dispersion measurements—gas rate (Jg), gas holdup
(
g), bubble size (Db) and bubble surface area flux (Sb)—are
reported on commercial flotation cells from three sites,
North American PalladiumÕs Lac des Iles concentrator
(nominal 130-m3 Outokumpu OK-130 tank cells), Impala
PlatinumÕs UG2 concentrator (50-m3 Bateman, and 30-
m3 Metso RCS tank cells) and Noranda/FalconbridgeÕs
Raglan concentrator (28-m3 Outokumpu OK-28U cells).
The following observations were made:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1. Coalescence is suggested by a bi-modal size distribution,
where the peak at the larger size shrinks with increasing
August/02
frother dosage.
2. The Sauter mean bubble size increases with gas rate fol-
August/02
Repeat lowing the trend D32 ¼ D0 þ CJ ng where C and n depend
March/02
on chemistry/machine system and D0 is the extrapolated
size when Jg = 0.
3. D0 may represent the inherent (mean) size produced by
the mechanism; the data suggest D0
0.5–0.6 mm.
20 30 40 50 4. Following from 2, a consistent trend in bubble surface
area flux versus gas rate was found; the maximum Sb
March was ca. 80 s1.
Sb (1/s)
5. The trend in Sauter mean vs. number mean is used to
probe the nature of the distribution; as the two means
approach it indicates a narrowing distribution. The
D10 is an important measure of the fine end of the distri-
bution being a direct measure of the proportion of
minus 1 mm bubbles.
6. To compare gas dispersion data from different cam-
paigns must consider slurry and chemistry effects and
August
R2 = 0.9166 the influence of sampling location.
7. Gas dispersion measurement offers unique new insights
March
into metallurgical behaviour with opportunities for pro-
Linear fit cess improvements, as illustrated by a case study.
Acknowledgements
30 40 50 60
The authors wish to thank the site personnel for their
enthusiastic assistance during the campaigns, and SGS
Lakefield Research for facilitating two of these initiatives
(Impala and LDI). The authors represent the various teams
assembled to conduct the work and wish to acknowledge
the significant contribution of the following: M. Bailey, J.
Torrealba-Vargas, L. Calzado and R. Dahlke. Funding
was from two NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada) CRD grants, one sponsored
by INCO, Noranda, Falconbridge, Teck-Cominco, COR-
EM and SGS Lakefield Research, and the other by
AMIRA International under the P9 project.
References
Arbiter, N., Harris, C.C., Yap, R.F., 1976. The air flow number in
flotation machine scale-up. Int. J. Miner. Process. 8, 257–280.
Banisi, S., Laplante, A.R., Finch, J.A., Weber, M., 1995. Effect of solid
particles on gas holdup in flotation columns.—11. Investigation of
mechanisms of gas holdup reduction in presence of solids. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 50 (4), 2335–2342.
Cho, Y.S., Laskowski, J.S., 2002. Effect of flotation frothers on bubble
size and foam stability. Int. J. Miner. Process. 64, 69–80.
Cooper, M., Scott, D., Dahlke, R., Finch, J.A., Gomez, C.O., 2004.
Impact of air distribution profile on banks in a Zn cleaning circuit. In:
Proceedings 36th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors
of CIM, pp. 525–539.
Dobby, G.S., Finch, J.A., 1986. Particle collection in columns—gas rate
and bubble size effects. Can. Metall. Quart. 25 (1), 9–13.
Finch, J.A., Moyo, P., Gelinas, S., 2005. Frother-related research at
McGill University, Miner. Eng., in press, doi:10.1016/
j.mineng.2005.09.027.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Nesset et al. / Minerals Engineering xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2002. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation
machines. CIM Bull. 95 (1066), 73–78.
Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J-P., Manlapig, E.V., 1997. Studies on impeller
yype, impeller speed, and air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation
cell—Part 4: Effects of bubble surface area flux on flotation kinetics.
Miner. Eng. 10 (4), 367–379.
Grau, R.A., Heiskanen, K., 2003. Gas dispersion measurements in a
flotation cell. Miner. Eng. 16, 1081–1089.
Harris, C.C., 1976. Flotation machines. In: Fuerstenau, M.C. (Ed.), A.M.
Gaudin Memorial Volume, SME of AIME, vol. 2, pp. 753–815.
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. Miner. Eng. 17 (1), 53–61.
Hernandez, H., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2003. Gas dispersion and de-
inking in a flotation column. Miner. Eng. 16 (6), 739–744.
Nesset, J.E., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., Hernandez-Aguilar, J., DeFeo, A.,
2005. The use of gas dispersion measurements to improve flotation
performance. In: 37th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral
Processors of CIM, 18–20 January 2005, Ottawa, pp. 401–422.
9
Powell, A., Franzidis, J.-P., Manlapig, E.V., 2000. The characterization of
hydrodynamics conditions in industrial flotation cells. In: 7th Mill
OperatorsÕ Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metal-
lurgy, pp. 243–255.
Sung-So Do, 2004. Hydrodynamic characterization of a Denver labora-
tory flotation cell, M.Eng. Thesis, McGill University.
Tavera, F.J., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 1996. Novel gas hold-up probe
and application in flotation columns. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. (Sec. C:
Miner. Process. Extr. Metall.) 105, C99–C104.
Torrealba-Vargas, J., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2004. Model for the JK
and on–off McGill gas velocity sensors, Amira P9M Final Report,
Flotation Module, vol. II, pp. 47–70.
Xu, M., Finch, J.A., Uribe-Salas, A., 1991. Maximum gas and bubble
surface area rates in flotation columns. Int. J. Miner. Process. 32, 233–
250.
Yianatos, J., Bergh, L., Condori, P., Aguilera, J., 2001. Hydrodynamics
and metallurgical characterization of industrial flotation banks for
control purposes. Miner. Eng. 14 (9), 1033–1046.