Scale-up of Flotation Processes

Mikhail Burstein and Lev Filippov

January 2010

Publication Number: CSRCR2010-01

Computational Science &

Engineering Faculty and Students
Research Articles COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE
Database Powered by the
Computational Science Research Center
Computing Group
& ENGINEERING

Computational Science Research Center

College of Sciences
5500 Campanile Drive
San Diego, CA 92182-1245
(619) 594-3430

© 2010
 Scale-up of Flotation Processes
Dr. Mikhail BURSTEIN, Computational Science Research Center, San
Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA, Burstein@mail.sdsu.edu
Professor Lev FILIPPOV, Laboratoire Environnement et Minéralurgie,
LEM UMR 7569 CNRS, Nancy, France, Lev.Filippov@ensg.inpl-
nancy.fr

1 Introduction

Flotation is the core separation stage in mineral processing for base metal ores; it is
also widely used in coal fines preparation, waste water treatment, and other
applications where the difference in the bubble-particle (or bubble-droplet)
attachment ability (i.e. hydrophobic properties) can be the basis for separation. In the
vast majority of applications, the three phases are present in the machine: liquid
carrier (typically, water-based), phase to be separated or removed (solid particles or
insoluble liquid droplets), and the gas phase onto which the attachment occurs (most
commonly, air).

Due to the wide range of systems utilizing flotation separation, the equipment used
for the process varies. It can be classified based on the method to generate and to
introduce the gas bubbles (dissolved-air, forced injection, suction), the level of
turbulence (impeller or impellerless), relative direction of phase movement (reactor-
separator, bank of several cells, countercurrent column). Capacities of the machines
can be as little as a portion of a cubic centimeter or as large as several hundreds of
cubic meters.

All of the above makes creating the techniques for flotation scale-up particularly
challenging.

In addition to that, unlike many other separation processes, increased duration of the
flotation separation does not necessarily improve its metallurgical results. While this
is generally true for waste water treatment, raising the time of bubble/particle
exposure in mineral flotation typically increases the recovery of component to be
collected with the froth, but leads to product grade deterioration. Therefore,
determining the correct arrangement and size of the flotation cells based on batch
and pilot test results (scaling-up) is extremely important for the overall results.

Scale-up should also include a methodology to optimize the flowsheet which (in case
of mineral flotation) typically includes rougher, scavenger and cleaner stages with
recycling of intermediate products into the previous stage (optionally including
additional reagent treatment and/or regrinding).

Despite all considerations, the typical approach is to determine the “right” parameters
in lab-scale tests (including conditioning and separation time, etc.) and then to apply
them to the industrial-scale operation using an empirical “scale-up factor”.

Based on the complexity and multifaceted nature of the problem, hierarchical model
is required to analyze all the aspects and to propose a reliable scale-up approach.
This paper summarizes the major works done by the type of flotation machinery
used.

2 Flotation scale-up fundamentals

The simplest approach is to consider flotation as the process following the first-rate
kinetics. Assuming that particles do not interact with each other and do not “compete”
for the space on bubble surface (in slurry and in froth), this approach is adequate
under steady-state conditions (i.e., the stable froth has been formed and is
discharging, gas holdup and velocity distribution reached the final pattern, etc.).

Rate of the first-order kinetics equation (often referred to as flotation rate K, min-1)
represents a probability of a particle (more precisely, a unit mass of the component in
question) transfer into concentrate per unit time. Change of the constant depending
of the scale of the flotation machine is the factor determining the scale-up
considerations.

It should be noted that (unlike reaction rates in chemical engineering) flotation rate
depends upon particle composition and size as well as upon its surface properties,
reagent adsorption and other factors. Therefore, each component may be
represented by its continuous flotation rate distribution F(K). Formally speaking,
deformation of this set of distributions at scale-up is determining results of industrial-
scale process based on given pilot/batch results. Given the identical chemical
environments, this deformation can be attributed to the differences in aeration and
hydrodynamics between machines of different scale. Analysis of the differences
should be based on studying the physics of the flotation process.

In addition to that, at continuous flotation, particle retention time is not constant

(unlike at batch flotation experiments); hence, dispersion of the residence time
distribution (RTD) E(t) should be taken into consideration as the factor reducing
metallurgical performance (both recovery and grade) comparing to those in batch
tests under the identical otherwise conditions and flotation time.

Overall, recovery R of a component in continuous flotation can be calculated as [1, 2]

R = ∫∫F(K)E(t)(1-exp(-Kt)dKdt (1)

If flotation rate distribution had a rectangular shape, batch flotation kinetics would
follow Klimpel equation

R(t) = 1- (1-exp(-Kmaxt)/Kmaxt) (2)

(Kmax is the highest flotation rate of the given component under the given conditions).
While simple to interpret, this equation represents another extreme case opposite to
an assumption that all particles containing given component have equal floatability. In
reality, the flotation rate distribution has a bell shape, similar to the gamma-
distribution. In addition to that, certain part of material (or its component) would not
float even at infinite separation time and is represented by the fraction of K=0.

In addition to bubble/particle attachment/detachment dynamics determining

selectivity of the separation, flotation comprises of several other distinct
“subprocesses” including particle collision with the bubble, transport of loaded
bubbles into froth, particle entrainment (upward movement of fine unattached
particles into froth), froth transport, syneresis, etc. Most of these processes are not
dependent on particle surface properties (“floatability”). Particle flocculation and
reagent adsorption also occur in flotation cells. To have adequate understanding of
flotation scale-up, all of these processes should be prioritized and analyzed.

For capture to occur between a bubble and a hydrophobic particle, they must first
undergo a sufficiently close encounter, a process that is controlled by the
hydrodynamics governing their approach in the aqueous environment in which they
are normally immersed [3]. Should they approach quite closely, within the range of
attraction surface forces, the intervening liquid film between the bubble and particle
will drain, leading to a critical thickness at which rupture occurs. Movement of the
three-phase contact line (the boundary between the solid particle surface, receding
liquid phase, and advancing gas phase) then occurs, until a stable wetting perimeter
is established. This sequence of drainage, rupture, and contact line movement
constitutes the attachment process. A stable particle–bubble aggregate is thus
formed.

The particle may only be dislodged from this state if it is supplied with sufficient
kinetic energy to equal or exceed the attachment energy; thus a process of
detachment can occur.

The collection (or capture) efficiency Ecoll of a bubble and a particle is often defined
as

Ecoll = EcEaEs

where Ec is the collision efficiency, Ea is the attachment efficiency, and Es is the

stability efficiency of the bubble–particle aggregate. This dissection of capture
efficiency into three processes, proposed many years ago, focuses attention on the
three regions of bubble–particle capture around the bubbles where, in order,
hydrodynamic interactions, surface forces, and forces controlling bubble–particle
aggregate stability are dominant [4, 5]. Each component in the equation above
depends upon particle size and other characteristics as well as upon local
hydrodynamics in the flotation cell.

It should be noted that this approach ignores two important factors: (1) flotation is a
kinetic process and most of “efficiencies” should be considered as “rates” or
“intensities”; (2) all of the processes are reversible, i.e. particle can repeatedly
undego attachment/detachment stages in slurry and in froth (most profound for
coarse particles and for impeller machines with intensive mixing and columns with
deep washed froth layer and cleaning zone) before it eventually is removed into the
concentrate launder. Based on that, the structure of subprocesses can be considered
as Markov chain and the overall rate can be calculated accordingly [6].

An attempt to link overall kinetics with subprocess structure including entrainment

and froth characteristics and to the physical parameters is presented by Ralston and
co-authors [7].

When flotation state is considered as local dynamic equilibrium between attachment

and detachment processes, it becomes the standard Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) task [8], which can be described (including the limit of particle load on bubble
of certain size β) for a given finite element as

dNp1/dt = -k1Np1Nb (1 – β) + k2Na (3)

Combining this source/sink balance equation with multi-phase flow equations for the
conservation of mass, momentum and turbulence quantities and description of
bubble size distribution allows representation of transport processes of free and
attached particles in the volume of the cell. Having dependencies of attachment and
detachment rates upon physical parameters and those from the cell size and
geometry as well as from operating parameters (impeller tip speed, air and feed flow
rates, e.a.), one can build the scale-up simulation from the first principles [9].

Particle retention time in froth tf also affects kinetics, and, therefore, the metallurgical
results as particles can drop from the froth due to drainage in Plateau canals as well
as due to syneresis. According to [10], K decreases exponentially with tf and raises
linearly with bubble surface area flux but the relationship is dependent on the cell
size and, therefore, not directly useful for scale-up. When tf is divided by a typical cell
dimension to take into account the effect of froth transportation distance in cells of
different sizes, the relationship between K and the "specific froth residence time" fits
the data better and is found to be independent of cell size.

3 Scale-up in impeller cells

During the last 100 years, this type of machines has been the main equipment for the
flotation of ores and coal. They are manufactured by several leading vendors which
are developing their own phenomenological recommendations for selecting the type
and sizes of cells for a given task.

The cell in these machines can be divided into two distinct zones: within the impeller
(mechanism) and outside it. There is no single opinion whether “stable” flotation
attachment occurs inside the impeller. While the probability of collision in this zone
with intensive turbulent mixing is high, the contact time between particle and bubble
is very short. The relationship between the contact time and “induction time”
necessary to form the “three-phase wetting perimeter” determines the probability of
particle attachment to a bubble following their collision.

Also, flotation attachment is reversible for relatively coarse particles. The gradient of
liquid velocity in the vicinity of the bubble surface determines the magnitude of shear
forces. Balance of these forces, gravity, particle inertia, and attachment forces
between particle and bubble results in stability of the flotation aggregates.

Based on that, mechanism of the flotation attachment may differ in the impeller zone
and outside it, as well as for fine and for coarse particles of different specific gravity.

Obviously, the differences in impeller geometry, size and its tip speed between
laboratory, pilot and industrial cells are the major reason for discrepancies in
metallurgical results at identical nominal retention time.

The fundamental research of particle-bubble collision in highly-turbulent flows is done

by H. Schubert [11]. One should note that the induction time is also dependent on the
pressing force between particle and bubble and is shorter when particle approach to
the bubble is at high velocities rather than that at quiescent sliding.

Intensity of collisions and contact time and its dependence on particle and bubble
sizes as well as local air holdup and turbulence parameters are used by Koh et al as
the input parameters for CFD modeling [6]. They found that the limiting factor is often
not the collision or attachment rate, but insufficiency of the bubble surface area for
attachment of all material to be recovered into froth. This is even more important for
the flotation of ultrafine particles having high specific surface area when bubble
carrying capacity is lower (the mass of particles which can be attached to and carried
by the unit bubble surface is smaller).

Experimental analysis of the influence of energy dissipation and superficial air

velocity in the cell on undistributed flotation rate constant for a given size fraction is
given by Newell and Grano [12]. It has been found that, in the aeration range studied,
flotation rate K grows linearly with the bubble area flux. N3D combination defining
energy dissipation (N is rotational speed of the impeller and D is its diameter) has
been found to be a good scale-up criterion. It should be noted, though, that no
research has been conducted using cells with capacity over 50 dm3 in this work.

In addition to lower flotation rates in large-scale flotation cells, the dispersion of

Residence Time Distribution [RTD, E(t)] there is typically higher. While in batch
flotation tests, all particles have equal flotation time, it is not the case in a continuous
process. Some particles can shortcut to the tailings discharge while others circulate
in the bank of cells significantly longer than the nominal retention time calculated as
the ratio of the volumetric slurry flowrate to the volume of slurry in the bank.
Assuming high-intensity mixing in a flotation cell and low return flow between the
cells (which is a good approximation for flotation cells with the baffles between them),
the RTD follows the “cell model” which has been extensively studied in chemical
engineering.

For N continuous perfect mixers-in-series, with a total residence time τ, the following
equation has shown a good agreement to represent the residence time distribution of
the rougher plant [13]

E(t) = tN-1e-(Nt/τ)/((τ/N)NΓ(N)) (4)

This expression can be substituted in equation (1) where F(K) is the flotation rate
distribution in the industrial-scale machine.

If (though no physical grounds for the assumption can be given) flotation rate
distribution is uniform from K = 0 to K = Kmax (see eq.(2) above) and that the recovery
after infinite flotation time is Rmax, Yianatios, et al. [13] found that following simple
relationships allow adequate prediction of plant results from batch tests:

t/T = kmax/Kmax (5)

r(t)/R(T) = rmax/Rmax (6)

where t, T – flotation time in lab and industrial cell at the point of optimum separation
at identical flotation regime, r, R – recoveries at that time in these cells, rmax, Rmax –
recoveries in infinite time in both cells [1].

Recovery into froth by the true flotation in the commercial flotation apparatus can be
predicted based on laboratory test results using the technique which includes the
following:
1. Conduct a kinetic test in a laboratory apparatus.
2. Evaluate particle size distribution in the feed f(dp) and in the products of the kinetic
test.
3. Evaluate the dependences of recovery and yield in batch processes upon the time
for each size fraction (Rld(t)) and Yld(t)).
4. Using the chosen formula of the function, assess Kl(dp) for laboratory and Kc(dp) for
commercial apparatus. It requires estimation of the aeration characteristics of
laboratory and commercial apparatus and calculation of average relative velocities of
particles and bubbles.
5. Solve the following equation for fd(Pa)

1 — Rld(t) = ∫fd(Pa)exp( — Kc(dp)Pat)dPa

i.e. assess the “physico-chemical floatability” distribution of components in each size

fraction.
6. Evaluate the density of residence time distribution for material of dp size in an
apparatus of continuous operation Ed(t).
7. Substitute the obtained relationships into the formula

Rc = ∫∫∫ f(dp) fd(Pa) [1 — exp( — Kc(dp)Pat] Ed(t)dPad(dp)dt

and calculate the expected values of recovery and yield under commercial
conditions.

The same recovery R in a commercial apparatus can be achieved at different values

of the volumetric slurry flow rate determining the required height of the collection
zone. The material can be either processed in several apparatuses operated in
parallel or in the same number of cells in series. In absence of mutual influence of
particles, sufficient air flow rate and insignificant back mixing in a bank of flotation
cells, the same process results will be observed in the apparatuses operated in
parallel and in series since average retention time is the same. It is difficult to make a
comprehensive analytical evaluation of the mutual influence of the particles. It is
connected with the processes of aggregate formation, hindered bubble/particle
attachment, re-attachment in froth, changes in the liquid phase composition during
flotation, and product grade reduction resulting from back mixing. Therefore, final
recommendations on optimum design of a flotation circuit should be based on the
analysis of experimental results. An increase of feed flow rate Ql at a consistent
solids feed flow rate (reduction of slurry density) down to certain limits is of little
importance for the microstructure of flow patterns, hence, for flotation subprocesses.
Since the separation curve S(K,t) and the RTD profile change insignificantly, an
increase of Ql can be made up for by increasing flotation time without changes in
recovery and concentrate grade. Commonly, slurry velocity variations are small
compared to the intensity of turbulent pulsations; hence, the local flow parameters
are practically unaffected.

According to some studies, non-selective entrainment of fines into froth in the wake
of bubbles or by upward local flows in highly-mixed impeller cell cannot be neglected.
Share of true flotation vs. entrainment is determined in [14] .The entrainment of the
fine particles can be directly related to the water recovery and can be estimated by
mineral recovery in the absence of collector (providing natural floatability is small).

4 Scaling-up methods for flotation columns

4.1 General approach

4.1.1 Principle of column operation

Extensive use of flotation columns necessitated development of a simple and

accurate method to calculate their design and process parameters based on pilot test
results [15, 16]. Column flotation basics and major factors should be determined to
develop scale-up approach.
Flotation column is a vertical chamber of round or rectangular cross-section. Its
height-to-diameter ratio should exceed 5:1. It includes the following units (Figure 1):
column body, sparger, feed distributor, and froth launder.

Figure 1 Diagram of column flotation: 1-column body, 2-sparger, 3-feed

distributor, 4- froth launder, 5-froth.
Hm: froth depth; Jb: superficial bias velocity of the wash water; Jl: superficial
feed velocity; Jg : superficial gas velocity.

A column is comprised of two sections:

- Collection zone between the sparger and feeder level. According to Sastry
[17], Yianatos [19], and Finch and Dobby[18], this zone should have the height of 75-
80% of the overall column.
- Cleaning zone which is effective only if wash water is added at the froth top.
This zone is the same as froth if the column is fed at the froth/slurry interface level. If
feed enters below the froth/slurry interface, then the cleaning zone includes a part of
the column. This zone is needed for froth drainage to avoid hydrophilic particles
entrainment into the concentrate.

Feed slurry after reagent conditioning enters the column generally at the
froth/slurry interface or below. This area serves for the contact of froth, slurry, wash
water and rising bubbles. Bubbles are generated at the sparger (2) located near the
column (1) bottom. Loaded bubbles are accumulated above the slurry forming froth
(5) which overflows to the launder.
Column diameter (dc) determines the machine capacity and flotation
efficiency. Diameter increase leads to a rise in the dispersion number D (D ≅ dc1/3).
This causes change of metallurgical results at scale up from lab or pilot columns to
industrial units [20].
Columns of large diameter can have slurry circulation of larger scales
caused by the following :
- particle settling at the wall part of the column due to lower aeration of the
slurry there;
- high air holdup in the axial portion causes upward slurry movement and fine
particle entrainment;
- profile of liquid velocities caused by slower flow near the walls.

Column height Hc and height-to-diameter ratio (Hc/dc) are the major

parameters which determine industrial column design and performance. Increased
Hc/dc ratio leads to lower upward slurry flows, thus, it increases recovery and
selectivity. Typically, columns of over 10 m high are used in the industry.
At early ages of flotation columns at plant operation, it has been commonly
assumed that the higher is the column, the better performance it allows to obtain.
Increased column height can really improve bubble surface utilization and their
mineral load. But it also can cause the following negative phenomena:
- bubble surface is insufficient for the mineral to be recovered,
- bubble rise velocity decreases with the load and, ultimately, some
mineral/bubble aggregates may have zero buoyancy,
- overly mineralized froth requires increased wash water dosage which can
cause particle drop from the froth.

Superficial feed velocity Jl is the ratio of the volumetric feed flow rate to the
column cross-section Ac. It is expressed in cm/s:

Superficial feed velocity determines the column flotation results.

It defines the value of the following parameters:
1) slurry residence time,
2) liquid velocity Jl,
3) bubble rise velocity.
Due to the countercurrent nature of the flows, air bubbles (or particle/bubble
aggregates) should exceed certain velocity to reach the froth, otherwise, they will
report to tailings. This limits utilisation of fine bubbles.

Slurry aeration is normally described by air holdup εg. It can be measured by

hydrostatic pressure profiling along the column height due to the presence of the gas
phase (bubbles) in the slurry. Gas holdup depends on air flowrate and column
capacity. Gas phase is measured by the superficial gas (air) velocity (cm/s).

where is the gas flow.

Flotation column always has optimal Jl/Jg ratio. Effect of air flowrate on flotation
performance at a constant feed flow has a complex nature. Increased superficial air
velocity causes raise in the gas holdup and in the average bubble size. Bubble
surface area defines bubble carrying capacity while increased bubble diameter
reduces the collision probability. Increased aeration also causes bubble coalescence.
Overall result of the above processes lead to the maximum point on the recovery
curve as a function of superficial gas velocity (Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. Effect of superficial air velocity upon recovery in the collection zone for
3.8m dia. column (adapted from [21]).

Sharp increase in air flow can cause formation of large bubbles due to
coalescence, intensive slurry mixing and bursting and, as a result, steep
deterioration of flotation process. Reduced superficial gas flowrate at constant gas
holdup can cause lower recovery despite of increased particle/bubble collision
efficiency. This is explained by high mineral load on fine bubbles and their sinking.

Bubble diameter depends on sparger type and column feed composition and
properties. Bubble average diameter and size distribution are key factors of
successful column operataion. Photogrpahic measurement and modeling of bubble
sizes can be conducted for liquid/gas systems, but not for three-phase flotation
slurries. It can be estimated in Flotation Columns from Drift Flux Analyses [22]. For
two-phase sustems, one can assume that for identical spargers, initial bubble size
distribution is the same for pilot- and industrial-scale columns.
Retention time. All factors described above affect particle residence time tp, which
determines recovery in the collection zone. Slurry retention time can be calculated
based on volumetric tailing flow Qr and collection zone volume [18, 19, 23]:

Particle residence time τp is higher for smaller particles [20]. For countercurrent
flow, the following expression can be derived:
where Usp is the particle settling velocity in slurry calculated from Maslyah [24]
equation, and Jl is the superficial slurry velocity. The difference of slurry retention
time and particle residence time is more profound for coarse particles. According to
the experimental results Dobby and Finch at superficial slurry flowrate of 1-2 cm/s,
the retention time for particles of 120 µ m size is just 60% of that of slurry [20]. For
fine light particles, retention time is close to the one of the liquid.

For industrial-scale columns, particles of -100 µm fraction are distributed identical to

the liquid phase. This means that flotation column turbulence allows to ignore effect
of difference in sizes for such particles. These vortices influence slurry and particle
residence time distribution as well as air and wash water flowrates.

4.1.2 Approach to scaling

A considerable number of models have been proposed for description of different

aspects of column flotation. But any one of them taken separately does not allow
calculation of the parameters of the apparatus. An algorithm comprising a number of
stages is required to solve this problem. The technique proposed by Canadian
researchers [15, 18] is the most widely used. It includes the following stages:

1. Evaluation of flotation rate constant of each component by laboratory test

results;
2. Calculation of recovery in the collection zone;
3. Calculation of overall recovery in the column;
4. Assessment of the degree of bubble loading.

Let us consider each of the stages of column scale-up.

A curve similar to that of flotation kinetics for a batch apparatus can be obtained in a
laboratory column of low height (1-2 m). The tests are run with several cleaner
stages for tailings reprocessing and analysis of all the concentrates. Under conditions
close to plug flow in a laboratory column i.e. there is no turbulent diffusion (this is true
for columns of very small diameter), the obtained results make up a flotation kinetics
curve from which the required rate constant can he determined. Since material
floatability differs considerably, Dobby and Finch proposed to distinguish fractions of
high and low flotation rates in each component of the floated material [15]. Flotation
rate constant and the proportion of each fraction are evaluated from the kinetics
curve. If the diffusional flow in a laboratory column cannot he neglected, the value of
K is calculated by the iterative solution of an equation similar to equation proposed by
Levenspiel [25] including the sum of recovery values of the two fractions. The air flow
required for maximum recovery is considered to be optimum and is evaluated
experimentally. It is difficult to predict the effect of aeration upon process results
since it influences both bubble size and capture efficiency. Thus, the type of the
sparger in a laboratory and commercial column should be the same to provide the
same bubble size distribution. Calculation of the optimum height of the collection
zone from a derivative of Levenspiel equation is the second stage of scaling-up.

4.2 SIMULATION OF FLOTATION COLUMNS

Scale up techniques is based on certain models of process and machine. Among
many approaches to flotation theory, mass transfer equations are the most used [2,
16, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29]. Most of publications refer to classical reactor design approach
which allows estimating industrial apparatuses parameters if process kinetics and
hydrodynamics are known:

= - ΚC + div (U C) + div (D grad C)

where K is flotation kinetic rate, D is the dispersion coefficient.

4.2.1 Collection zone recovery

Axial dispersion model is largely used for flotation in columns. This theory is based
on the assumption that the fluid transfer in cylindrical cell is determined by the phase
relative velocities and the dispersion coefficient. Radial flow loops are considered
insignificant. The column is assumed to behave as a non-ideal plug flow reactor.

Under this approach, equation for particle concentration C in the collection zone can
be presented as

, where x is the axial coordinate.

Analytical solution of the equation by Levenspiel (1972) defines mineral recovery in

the collection zone for the first-order kinetics:

where a =(1+Kτ Nd)1/2

Nd= vessel dispersion number
L = collection zone height
dc= column diameter
τ= mean residence time

If the intensity of the elementary flotation process is considerably higher than the
particle detachment and entrainment rates, equation (1), having an analytical solution
(2), can be used to describe the steady state conditions for particles with K value of
the kinetic constant. Under the assumptions made, the right part of the equation
presents the separation characteristic of column flotation. It shows the dependence
of material distribution between the products of the operation upon the separation
criterion K.

For practical use of equation (2) Levenspiel’s diagram has been modified (Figure 3).
The diagram was complemented by the isolines of equal values of the modified
Peclet number

Pe* =(Up + Ul)H/D

where H is the height of plug flow apparatus providing recovery equal to that in a
column of H height with dispersion coefficient D.

Figure 3. Modified diagram for evaluation of collection zone height based on axial
dispersion equation (mass transfer model) and first-order kinetics (flotation model).

The modified diagram allows the evaluation of the required height H from the
calculated Hl value. The practical use is as follows: Material recovery to tailings is laid
off as abscissa. The ordinate is the ratio of the column volume to the volume of plug
flow apparatus (column of a rather small diameter) providing the same recovery. To
estimate the necessary height of the collection zone Hc, the intersection of R(t) = R0
line (R0 is the specified recovery) with the line corresponding to Pe value in a
commercial column should be found. T

The plot cannot be used to estimate the height of the collection zone as in the
formula for the Peclet criterion Pe=(Up + Ul)H/D the value of H is unknown.

4.2.2 Calculation of total recovery.

The next stage of the scaling is the calculation of total recovery in the column R,
taking into account material recirculation from the cleaning to the collection zone.
Dobby and Finch proposed the two-zone model to estimate the total recovery in
collection and froth zones [15,21]

This is described by the formula:

where Rc, Rf are the recoveries in the collection and froth (cleaning) zones,
respectievly.
The recovery in the collection zone was estimated from Levenspiel equation. The
actual values of the Rf estimated from pilot column tests ranges between 40 and
80% of total recovery [30].
The same authors concluded that collection zone recovery at industrial scale is less
(down to 20-50%) [31].

Yianatos et al. proposed a model to estimate froth recovery depnding on superficial

gas rate Jg, superficial water rate Jw, and froth depth Hf [32] :

It provides good correlation between estimated and experimental results. Significant

effect of wash water rate upon froth recovery has been demonstrated when Jw
increased from 0 to 0.1 cm/s. Froth recovery has been varying in a wider range
(from 20% to 70%) comparing to Dobby and Finch papers while overall column
recoveries were 40 to 88% at the second copper cleaner circuit of the Colon
concentrator at El Teniente (Codelco, Chile).

4.2.3 Calculation of the dispersion coefficients

Several models have been developed to describe Residence Time Distribution (RTD)
and dispersion coefficeint D in columns. All of them are based on axial dispersion
model and are similar to the equation derived by Laplante et al. 1988 linking D to
the geomtery of the industrial column (dc) and air flow reate. One of such
approximations can be derived from Kolmogorov’s equation

D = 0.35 dc4/3·(g·Jg)1/3

Mixing is more intensive in columns of larger diameter due to irregularity of velocity

profile as well as turbulence energy adsorption by the column walls.
Vessel dispersion number can be calculated using the disperson coefficient as

, where Ui =interstitial velocity

Relative phase velocity (interstitial velocity) can be derived from the expression

linking superficial feed velocity and gas holdup in the column Ui = .

There are many approximation formulas for Nd depending on column parameters.

Experiments confirm adequacy of the Kolmogorov’s approach [33, 34].

Dobby and Finch propose the following equation for dispersion coefficient and vessel
dispersion number [15, 20]

4.2.4 Estimation of flotation rate and slurry residence time

Particle and liquid retention time is estimated according to the following:

Flotation rate can be evaluated by kinetic tests in pilot column to deterimne recovery
vs. slurry retention time taking into account wash water rate (or tailings superficial
velocity, cm s-1) [15]. Retention time can be changed by varying feed flowrate or
collection zone height.

But the reproducibility of the results using this technique is low, therefore, the scale
up recommendations are not sufficeintly accurate (see O’Connor et al., 1995). Also,
slurry/froth transfer and particle/bubble detachment cannot be ignored in the
industrial flotation. Changing the feed flowrate effects all process intensities/rates. If
flotation rate cannot be found from pilot or lab-scale column results, it can be
estimated using the following aproximations:

and

where db is the mean bubble size estimated by the drift flux analyses [35].

Estimate of axial dispersion model applicability using Dobby and Finch technique is
given by Alfrod, et al. [36] and Tuteja, et al [37]. As the result, the new formula for
flotation rate has been recommended:

where Ci= mineral-specific parameter, b = constant, Qc = feed solids flow rate, µ =

slurry viscosity. The major conclusion of these papers is to consider one collection
zone and not spatially-separated collection zone and froth layer as proposed by
Falutsu and Dobby [31].

The technique developed by G. Dobby and J. Finch has the following drawbacks.
The effect of hydrodynanic parameters (slurry and air flow rates, type of aerator, etc.)
upon the elementary flotation process and stability of flotation aggregate is not
estimated, whereas it is one of the main reasons which accounts for difference in
commercial process results compared to laboratory test data. As was already
demonstrated, the diagram proposed by Levenspiel [38] can not be used to calculate
the column height necessary to achieve the specified recovery. The technique does
not include calculation of the rise velocity of flotation aggregate. It is known that in
countercurrent operation loaded small bubbles are entrained to tailings which results
in the reduction of recovery. Froth zone recovery Rf values for the recovered and
suppressed components are not assessed from experimental results in the
considered work.

4.2.5 Scale-up procedure based on particle/buble attachment/detachment

intensities

Scale-up procedure based on separation mass transfer for free and attached
particles has been developed and validated. Instead of a single flotation rate, it
includes intensity of attachment and detachment processes [27, 29, 30, 40, 63]
 - µ Cp+ν Cb - div (Up . Cp) + div (Dp . grad Cp)

µ Cp- ν Cb - div (Ub . Cb) + div (Db . grad Cb)

where Cp, Cb are volumetric concentrations of particles in slurry and on bubble

surface,
µ, ν are attachment and detachment intensities,
Up, Ub are the absolute velocities of particles and bubbles, respectively.
Expressions µCp and νCb represent transfer of particles from slurry onto bubbles
and reverse.
The mass transfer is affected by the column height, velocities Up and Ub also
depend on it.

Cp ≠ 0 ; Cb ≠0

Raise of hydrostatic pressure with the depth in column as well as bubble

coalescence effect air holdup and bubble rise velocity within a column, this has been
experimentally confirmed by Gomez et al [41].
Transfer of particles from the slurry onto gas phase determines change in particle
velocities within the machine height. Dispersion coefficients for bubbles and particles
are also different in various parts of the column.

Therefore, under steady-state conditions, the equations can be represented as

0 = - µ Cp + ν Cb - Up - Cp + Dp + + Q/Ac

0 = µ Cp - ν Cb + Ub - Cp + Db +

Expression Q/Ac is attributed to the return of certain flow of particles Q from froth
back to the collection zone over column cross-section Ac.

Diagram of particle transfers between different column zones is shown on Figure 4.

Assumptions are that the column has incoming streams of gas, feed slurry and wash
water. Particles are discharged into the concentrate with the gas phase and with the
slurry and into the tailings only with the slurry. If column is subdivided into N zones
with the increment of h (equal to a height of the volume element with ideal mixing
within), then the collection zone incorporates zones from 2 to N – 1. In these zones
all transfers between slurry and bubbles are allowed. The transfers define the
separation process.

Zone 1 is the interface between slurry and froth. Particles are transferred from slurry
into concentrate due to the following:
- Displacement of loaded bubbles towards the concentrate;
- Transfer of particles with the liquid and bubbles by dispersion transfer;
- Recycle of particles form the froth as a homogenous phase.
Zone N corresponds to particles leaving the column into tailings stream. Dispersion
exchange here exists only with the previous zone N – 1.

Concentrate

Wash
water

Feed

Gas

Tailings

Figure 4. Diagram of transfers in collection zone and connections to external zones.

Hc is the height of the collection zone, dc is the column diameter, Q(x) is the particle
flow from froth back to the slurry.
This representation makes possible utilization of finite elements approach to estimate
the overall column recovery based on attachment and detachment intensities,
particle size distribution in the feed, mean bubble size as well as dispersion
coefficient.

Change of gas holdup with the column height affects all major processes in flotation
due to shift in the average bubble size. Therefore, equation to estimate Dp based on
gas and slurry velocities in addition to the dc/Hc ratio is used [34]:

or

Another parameter influenced by the average bubble size is the attachment rate m.

It can be estimated based on the formula

µ=IrPcPa.

According to this approach, the adhesion probability Pa is determined by the reagent

conditioning and does not change at sale-up. Collision probability Pc is a function of
particle and bubble size distributions and can be calculated based on one of the
physical or statistical collision models [64].

Ir is the number of events when particle is getting into bubble vicinity (Ir = number of
particle–bubble “collisions” per unit time and volume in flotation cells), it depends
upon relative particle/bubble velocity and can be determined as

Relative particle velocity in the slurry can be calculated by hindered settling equation
by Masliyah [24]:

and

with εs = solids hodup in the slurry, µl =viscosity of the slurry. Accoring to

RICHARDSON and ZAKI [65] parameter n above depends on mixing and is equal to
2.7 for Re<1000.

The overall collision intensity is Ic=Ir Pc.

Collision probability for coarse particles can be calculated by Langmuir equation

 and

or by Flint and Howart [ 60 ]

with

For intermediate bubble Reynolds number in the range of 0.2 < Reb < 100, the
equation proposed by Yoon et al for the collision probability can be applied [54] :

where the bubble Reynolds number based on Reb = dbUb/µ is used. The equation is
valid for particles smaller than 100 µm and bubbles smaller than 1 mm with surfaces
immobilised due to adsorbed surfactants.

Detachment intensity can be evaluated by experimental results or by iteration method

which assumes that ratio between attachment and detachment rates is more
important that their absolute values [29]. The model has been verified when
attachment and detachment rates as well as particle recycle rate from the froth have
been estimated using empirical techniques [39]. Simulation results have been
compared with 200 mm dia. pilot column in cassiterite scavenger flotation.

The parameters µ, ν and Kb (drop back probability describing the Qr) are estimated by
a preliminary tests in lab scales [42,43]. Values of parameters (µ, ν and Kb) were
taken as the first approximation for modelling. The comparison of the calculated
recovery of tin for each class (28, 56 and 100 µm) of particles and the distribution of
the losses of cassiterite in the tailings product allows to validate the intensities
obtained by the model. The results of the validation are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Modelling and validation results of cassiterite column flotation in pilot-scale

machine (adapted from [39])
-3 -1
Average Attachment intensity ( 10 s ) Sn Recovery, %
Test J a, J g, bubble Gas drop-back probability
No. cm/s cm/s diameter hold- for particle size (µm)
mm up 28 56 100 Calculat Pilot
% ed test
1 0.8 1.3 1.2 11.8 5.0 4.2 2.8 59.8 60.0
0.75 0.8 0.8
2 1.1 1.3 1.2 11.8 5 4.2 2.8 56.5 58.8
0.75 0.8 0.8
3 1.8 1.3 1.1 10.9 5.0 4.2 2.8 40.5 43.8
0.75 0.75 0.8
4 3.3 1.3 0.9 12.9 5.0 4.2 2.8 26.4 42.1
0.75 0.75 0.8
5 0.8 2.3 1.4 14.2 5.0 4.5 3.3 70.3 73.3
0.7 0.75 0.8
6 1.1 2.3 1.3 16.5 5.5 4.5 3.3 67.3 68.2
0.65 0.7 0.75
7 1.8 2.3 1.4 14.3 6.5 5.5 4.3 63.7 66.8
0.65 0.67 0.7
 8 3.3 2.3 1.2 19.8 6.5 5.5 4.3 45.7 52.4
0.6 0.67 0.7

The model validation procedure is required to compare experimental and calculated

recoveries for different superficial gas velocities Jg by regrouping close superficial
feed velocities Jl. This approach is justified by the fact that the important variations of
Jl induce a variation of the bubble diameter; consequently, the estimate of the
bubble-particle collision probability is distorted. The possibility to calculate the size-
by-size particle distribution by column height and to compare it with the experimental
distributions constitutes the next level of parameter validation.

Thus, the model validation results demonstrate the applicability limits for the axial
diffusion model related to the qualitative changes on considered basic phenomena.

Further development of this scale-up approach has been done by comparison of

calculated and measured particle profile along the column height [40].

Figure Simulated and experimental concentration of molybdenum precipitate

particles as a function of column height Hc:
a) Jl = 0.19 cm/s, b) Jl=0.47 cm/s.
Ea is energy dissipation that effects the particle precipitate particles size and, therefore, the
attachment rate µ.

This allows to adjust finite elements calculations based on process intensities (rates)
as well as on gas holdup changes and, therefore, dispersion number fluctuations.

4.2.6 Deviation of flotation from the first-order kinetics

To assess bubble load (the fourth stage of scaling procedure), formulas were derived
to calculate the mass of solids per unit air volume. Collection rate is assumed to be
constant in the period when loading is below 80% of the bubble surface.

The major limitation of flotation kinetic models is considerations for free bubble
surface and maximum bubble carrying capacity. Fuerstenau and Sastry [17] used
two-phase separation mass transfer approach including attachment K1 and
detachment K2 rate coefficients.

Dр - Up - =0

Db - Ub + =0

In these equations, kinetic restrictions are introduced by Av member which is the

interphase liquid/gas surface area and by which is maximum particle
concentration on bubbles. But the paper does not include the methods to find these
parameters. Similar approach has been used by Filippov [39] to estimate the bubble
rise velocity reduction by mineral load; it is based on experimentally confirmed
flotation kinetics [42,43]. It has been demonstrated that reduction in upward bubble
velocity better describes flotation comparing to the approach based on the limits of
bubble surface. The rate of bubble velocity reduction has been expressed as

The most common technique to estimate bubble load by particles is column carrying
capacity calculation developed by Canadian researchers [45-47]. Carrying capacity is
expressed as Ca, g/(min cm2). It can be estimated using the approximation formula .

A tentative model is presented to predict column carrying capacity (Ca) as a

function of particle size (d80) and particle density rp: Ca = 0.068 (d80 × rp). Evidence
is presented suggesting Ca is independent of column diameter.

ψ depends upon bubble loading and size difference as well as probability of

detachment in froth.
dp and db are particle and bubble size, respectively,
Jg is superficial air velocity (see below)
ρs is the solids density.

Average experimental value of ψ is close to 0.6. It is preferable to use experimental

values for the scale-up rather than calculated based on empirical model [48]. Sastri
[49] revised the equation proposed by Espinosa-Gomez et. al. [45] for the carrying
capacity in flotation columns to obtain better fit to the data. Flotation columns are
found to be normally operated at about 60% of their maximum carrying capacities.

The fact that the collection of mineral particles by bubbles greatly depends on the
amount of bubble surface available was criticized by Bouchard et al. (2009) They
note that the more adequate way to take into account the influence of gas to the
flotation process is to use bubble surface area flux - the amount of bubble surface
per unit time and unit of column cross section area instead of the gas hold-up. This
becomes obvious when comparing the flotation performance of similar volumes of air
in the form of a swarm of small bubbles (large specific area) or a swarm of fewer
larger bubbles (smaller specific area). The expression for bubble surface area flux Sb
can be derived from the definition and includes the superficial gas velocity and mean
bubble diameter db as follows:

Yoon and co-authors used Peclet number and vessel dispersion number Nd to
evaluate mixing. Their approach is also based on axial dispersion model [52, 54, 55,
57] and lead to development of a static simulator based on hydrodynamic principles,
aiming at predicting the recovery of a column flotation operation. Peclet number
estimate included effect of the column geometry (Hc, dc) and flow rates (Jg, Jl) as well
as gas holdup εg [56].

In their initial papers, these researchers proposed using the following formula for
flotation rate depending on bubble diameter and gas holdup to calculate collection
zone recovery

Later, maximum carrying capacity has been calculated as a product of free bubble
surface and bubble load presented as

where ρp is particle density and β depends upon packing of particle on bubble

surface.

4.2.6 Conclusions
4.2.6.1 Conclusions on the considered models

Application and evaluation of flotation kinetic models based on axial dispersion

approach allowed to indicate the limits of their applicability.
1. Major drawback of all models is lack of froth analysis. Description of
interaction between collection zone and froth layer is based on experimantal
observations and empirical relationships.
2. Models do not take into consideration radial mixing in columns
3. Analytical solution of diffusion equation assumes first-order kineteics.
Models using two-phase separation mass transfer equations (particle
transfer by slurry and by bubbles) require identification of both attachment
and detachment rates.
4. Majority of models do not consider the composition of flotation feed.
5. It is extremely difficult to include products grade into models to compare
simulation outcome to metallurgical results of column flotation.

4.2.6.2 Conclusions on the scale-up procedure

Scale-up methodology includes pilot-scale testing and is comprised of the following

traditional stages:
1. Fesability studies to define the limits ot the major operating parameters (gas
and slurry flow rates)
 2. Kinetic tests to determine flotation rate for different mineral components
based on dependency of recovery from retention time in the column
(attained by changing Jl or collection zone height)
3. Determine bubble carrying capacity using one of the empirical formulas
4. Study of mixing in the column (dispersion number Nd, dispersion coefficient
D, or Peclet number Pe) using empirical or analytical dependencies
5. Find particle and liquid retention time in the machine based on feed flow
rate Jl and particle settling velocities
Evaluate mean bubble size using drift flux analysis method

6. Parameter identification and calculation of the recovery of components in

the collection zone by Levenspiel equation
7. Estimate overall column recovery including froth recovery
8. Comparison of model and epxerimental results and defining the column
diamter required to provide the given Jl. Iterative approach using different
superficial feed velocities may be needed.
9. Number of industrial columns is determined.

The simplified approach proposed by Yoon can also be utilized.

Equation for carrying capacity depending on column diameter is used:

where Ca is determined from the tests, Mf is the capacity by solids, Y is the flow of
the concentrate and N is the number of machines.

Column diameter is determined based on the volumetric feed flow rate and the
solids content in the feed s:

Column height is then calculated by combining retention time, superficial feed

velocity Jl and superficial wash water velocity Jb

Levenspiel equation is used to include mixing characteristics.

The two approaches above (with some modifications) are used in the industry for
column flotation machines scale up.
 References

1. Yianatos J.B., Bergh L.G., Aguilera J. Flotation scale up: use of separability
curves, Min. Eng., 16, 347-352 (2003).

2. Rubinstein J. B. Column flotation: Processes, Design and Practives, 204-221

(1995).

3. Nguyen P.T., Nguyen A.V. Validation of the generalised Sutherland equation for
bubble–particle encounter efficiency in flotation: Effect of particle density, Minerals
Engineering 22, 176–181 (2009)

4. Derjaguin, B.V. , Dukhin, S.S. , Rulyov, N.N. in: E. Matejevic, R.J. Good (Eds.),
Surface and Colloid Science, Vol. 13, Wiley–Interscience, New York, 1984, Chap. 2,

5. Pyke B., Fornasiero D., Ralston J. Bubble particle heterocoagulation under

turbulent conditions, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 265, 141–151 (2003).

6. Samygin V.D., Margulis L.G., Burstein M. Calculation of flotation rate constant

according to the subprocess structure with accounting the space heterogeneity, Izv.
Vuzov. Tzvet. Metall. 2, 12-18 (1985).

7. Ralston J., et al. Reducing uncertainty in mineral flotation—flotation rate constant

prediction for particles in an operating plant ore, Int. J. Miner. Process. 84 , 89–98
(2007)

8. Koh P.T.L., Schwarz M.P., CFD modelling of bubble–particle attachments in

flotation cells, Minerals Engineering 19, 619–626 (2006).

9. Koh P.T.L., Schwarz M. P., Modelling attachment rates of multi-sized bubbles with
particles in a flotation cell, Minerals Engineering, 21, 989-993(2008).

10. Gorain B. K., Harris M. C., Franzidis J.-P., Manlapig E. V. The effect of froth
residence time on the kinetics of flotation, Minerals Eng. 11, 627-638 (1998).

11. Schubert H. On the optimization of hydrodynamics in fine particle flotation,

Minerals Eng., 21,930-936 (2008)

12. Newell R., Grano S. Hydrodynamics and scale up in Rushton turbine flotation
cells:Part 2. Flotation scale-up for laboratory and pilot cells, Int. J. Miner. Process.
81, 65–78 (2006)

13. Yianatos J.B., Diaz F., Rodriguez J., Industrial flotation process modeling: RTD
measurement by radioactive tracer technique. In: 15th IFAC World Congress,
Barcelona, Spain, 21–26 July 2002.

14. Cilek E.C. The effect of hydrodynamic conditions on true flotation and
entrainment in flotation of a complex sulphide ore, Int. J. Miner. Process. 90, 35–44
(2009).

15. Dobby G.S., Finch J.A. Flotation column scale-up and modeling. CIM Bulletin, 79
(889), 89-96 (1986).

16. Rubinstein J.B., Melik-Gaikazyon V.I., Matveenko N.V., Leonov S.B. Foam
separation and comumn flotation. Moscow: Nedra Publishers, p. 93-290 (1986).

17. Sastry K.V.S. Processing of mineral fine by column flotation. Final report of
california Institute of Mining and Mineral Processing, University of California.
Sponsored projects CA-80-MPS(4) and Grant n°G5105014. DOI –OSM-MB-7910.
(1981).

18. Finch J.A. and Dobby G.S. Column Flotation. Pergamon Press. (1990)

19. YIANATOS J.B. Flottation en Colonne. Etat actuel de la technologie. Mines et

Carrières, Les Techniques, 213, 31-40 (1990).

20. DOBBY G.S. and FINCH J.A. Mixing Characteristic of Industrial Flotation
Columns. Chem. Eng. Sci., 40(7), 1061-1068 (1985)

21. DOBBY G.S., FINCH J.A. Particle Collection in Columns-gas rate and bubble
size effects. Can. Metal. Quart, 25(1), 89-96 (1986)

22. DOBBY G.S. and FINCH J.A. Estimation of Bubble Diameter in Flotation
Columns from Drift Flux Analyses. Can. Met. Quarterly, 27 (2), 85-90 (1988)

23. Yianatos J.B., Finch J.A., Laplante A.R. Apparent Hindered settling in a gas-
liquid-solid countercurrent column. Int J of Mineral processing, 18 (3/4), 155-165
(1986)

24. Masliyah J.H. Hindered settling in a multi-species particle system. Chem. Eng.
Sci., 34,1166-1168 (1979)

25. Levenspiel, O . Chemical Reaction Engineering. Wiley M.Y., Chapter 9, (1972).

26. Sastry K.U.S. and Furstenau D.V. Theoretical analysis of a countercurrent

flotation column. Trans. Soc. Min. Eng. AIME, 247 (1) 46-52 (1970).

27. Samyguin V.D., Filippov L.O. and Burstein M. Yu. Dispersion Axial Models of
Froth Flotation. Izvestiya Vuzov. Tsvetnaya Metallurgiya, 3, 3-8 (1985).

28. Ityokumbul M. T. A mass transfer approach to flotation column design Chemical

Engineering Science, 47( 13-14), 3605-3612 (1992).

29. Shekhirev, D.V. Filippov, L.O. Samyguin V.D. Mathematical Modelling the
Process of Separation of the Raw Materials in the Column Flotation Machine.
Proceedings XVIII International Mineral Processing Congress, Sydney Australia, 23-
28 mai 1993, Aus IMM, vol. 5, pp. 1357-1362 (1993).

30. FALUTSU M. and DOBBY G.S. Direct Measurment of Froth Dropback and
Collection Zone Recovery in a Laboratory Column. Minerals. Engineering, 2(3), 377-
386 (1989)

31. Falutsu, M., Dobby, G.S., "Froth Performance in Commercial-Sized Flotation

columns". Minerals Engineering, 5 (10-12) 1207-1223 (1992).

32. Yianatos, J.B., L.G.Berg and G.A.Cortés Froth zone modelling of an industrial
column . Min. Eng. 11 (5), 423-435 (1998).
33. Baird M.H.I., Rice R.G. Axial dispersion in large unbaffled columns. The
Chemical Engineering Journal, 9,171-174 (1975).

34. MANQUI Xu and FINCH J.A. (1991) Estimating Vessel Dispersion Number in
Flotation Columns. Column' 91, Sudbury, Canada, CIM (Agar G.E., Huls B.J., Hyma
D.B., and Herbst J.A. Editors), 2, p. 437-454.

35. YIANATOS J.B., FINCH J.A., DOBBY G.S. and MANQUI XV. Bubble Size
Estimation in a Bubble Swarm, Journal of Col. and Interf. Sci., 126 (1), 37-44 (1988)

36. ALFROD R.A., BIJOK A., BAGULEY and ARTONE Column Flotation Design at
Peak Gold. Proceedings Column'91 (G.E. Agar, B.J. Huls and D.B. Hyma Eds),
1991, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, p. 123-136 (1991).

37. Tuteja, R.K., D.J. Spottiswood and V.N. Misra . Mathematical models of the
column flotation process: a review . Minerals Engineering, 7 (12), 1459-1472
(1994).

38. Rubinstein J.B., Melik-Gaikazyon V.I., Matveenko N.V., Leonov S.B. Foam
separation and column flotation. Moscow: Nedra Publishers, p. 93-290

39. Filippov L.O. Column flotation of low cassiterite contained slime’s : Modelling and
Scale-up using pilot plant data. Developments in Mineral Processing’s”, Elsevier, vol.
3, pp. A3-8 – A3-15 (2000).

40. Filippov L.O. and Filippova I.V. Regularities in precipitate flotation in a column.
Proceedings of the XXII International Mineral Processing Congress, (L. Lorenzen and
D.J. Bradshaw Eds.), Cape Town, South Africa, September 28 - October 3, SAIMM,
2003, vol. 2, pp. 1072-1083.

41. Gomez, C.O. Uribe-Salas A., Finch J.A. and Huls B.J., Axial gas holdup profiles
in the collection zone of flotation columns, Miner. Metall. Process. 12 (1), 16–23
(1995)

42. L.O. Filippov, V.D. Samyguin, D.V. Krapivnyi, D.V. Shekirev. Determination of
hydrophobic and froths form properties of non ionic reagents from froth flotation
kinetics. (rus) Obogatshenie rud 41-48, (1990).

42. L.O.Filippov and R.Houot. Synergistic effects of a non ionic reagent with
heteropolar collectors on the non sulphide ores flotation Proceedings of the XX
International Mineral Processing Congress, (H., Hoberg and H. von Blottnitz Eds.),
Aachen, Germany, September 21-26, 1997, vol. 3, pp. 427-436.(1997)

43. Samyguin, V.V.,Tchertilin, B.D., Nebera, V.P. Kolloidnyi Zh., 39, (6), 1101-1107.
(1977).
44. Samygyin V.D, L.O.Filippov, B.S.Tchertilin. Kinetic of equal rate particles
flotation under frothless conditions in respect of rising bubble velocity’s Izvestiya
Vuzov. Tsvetnaya Metallurgiya, 5, 4-9 (1982)

45. ESPINOSA-GOMEZ R., FINCH J.A., YIANATOS J.B. and DOBBY G.S.
Column Carring Capacity : Particle Size and Density effect. Minerals Engineering,
1(1), p. 77-79, (1988)
46. ESPINOSA-GOMEZ R., JOHNSON N.W., FINCH J.A. (1989) Evaluation of
Flotation Column Scale-Up at Mount Isa Mines Limited. Minerals Engineering, 2(3),
p. 369-375.

47. Espinosa-Gomez, R and Johnson, N W, 1991. Technical Experiences with

Conventional Columns at Mount Isa Mines Ltd. Proceedings Column'91 (G.E. Agar,
B.J. Huls and D.B. Hyma Eds), 1991, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, Vol. 2, pp511-523.

48. Del VILLAR R., GOMEZ C., FINCH J.A. et ESPINOSA R. Etudes de faisabilité et
Conception Préliminaire des Colonnes de Flottation. Mines et Carrières, Les
Techniques, 2/3, p. 92-96. (1990)

49. Sastri S. R. S. Carrying capacity in flotation columns, Minerals Engineering, 9 (4)

465-468 (1996).

50. Bouchard, J., Desbiens, A., del Villar,R., Nunez E. Column flotation simulation
and control: An overview Minerals Engineering, 22( 6), 519-529 (2009).
51. J. Bouchard, A. Desbiens, R. del Villar Recent advances in bias and froth depth
control in flotation columns. Minerals Engineering, (18), (7), 709-720 (2005).

52. ADEL G.T., M.J. MANKOSA, M.J. LUTTRELL, G.M. YOON, R.H.,
Full-Scale Testing of Microbubble Column Flotation. Proceedings Column'91 (G.E.
Agar, B.J. Huls and D.B. Hyma Eds), 1991, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, p. 263-274.
(1991)

53. Laplante, AR, Yianatos, J. and Finch, JA, 1988. On the mixing haracteristics of
the collection zone in flotation columns. Proc. of an Int. Column Flotation Symp.
Phoenix, Arizona, Jan., Chap. 9, pp. 69 – 79.

54. Luttrell, G., Mankosa, M., Yoon, R.-H., 1993. Design and scale-up criteria for
column flotation. In: XVIII International mineral Processing Congress, Sydney, pp.
785–791.

55. Luttrell, G., Yoon, R., A flotation column simulator based on hydrodynamic
principles. International Journal of Mineral Processing 33, 355–368 (1991).

56. Mankosa, M.J., Luttrell, G.H., Adel, G.T., and Yoon, R.-H. "A Study of Axial
Mixing in Column Flotation," International Journal of Mineral Processing, vol. 35, pp.
51-64 (1992).

57. Yoon, R.-H., Luttrell, G.H., Adel, G.T., and Mankosa, G.T., The Application of
Microcel Column Flotation to Fine Coal Cleaning, Coal Preparation, 10, 177-188
(1992).

58. YIANATOS J.B., LAPLANTE A.R. and FINCH J.A. Estimation of Local Holdup in
the Bubbling and Froth Zones of a Gaz-Liquid Column. Chem. Eng.Sci., 40(10), p.
1965-1968. (1985)

59. Finch, J. A., Dobby, G.S. Column flotation: A selected review. Part I.
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 33, (1-4) 343-354 (1991).
60. Flint, R.L. and Howarth, W.J., The Collision Efficiency of Small Particles with
Spherical Air Bubbles. Chemical Engineering Science, 26, 1155-1168 (1971)
61. O’Connor C.T. , Mills P.J.T., Cillier J.J. Prediction of large scale column flotation
cell performance using pilot plant data. Chem. Eng. J., 59, 1-6

62. Mills P.J.T., C.T. O'Connor .The use of the axial dispersion model to describe
mixing in a flotation column. Minerals Engineering, 5 (8), 939-944 (1992).

63. Sastry, K.V., Lofftus, D.D., Mathematical modeling and computer simulation of
column flotation. In: Sastry, K.V.S. (Ed.), Column Flotation’88. SME, Littleton, CO,
USA, pp. 57–68. (1988)

64. Koh P. T. L., Schwarz M. P. CFD modelling of bubble–particle collision rates and
efficiencies in a flotation cell. Minerals Engineering, 16 (11) 1055-1059 (2003).

65