See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275716222

CONTRIBUTION OF INTERCEPTIONAL EFFECT

TO COLLISION EFFICIENCY OF PARTICLE
BUBBLE ENCOUNTER IN FLOTATION

Conference Paper June 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1510.1603

CITATIONS READS

3 148

5 authors, including:

Sabri Kouachi Ahmad Hassanzadeh

OEB University Istanbul Technical University
7 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Behzad Vaziri Hassas Mehmet S Celik

University of Utah Istanbul Technical University
23 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS 225 PUBLICATIONS 3,183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of particle morphology on flotation View project

adsorption of different fatty acids and their use in flotation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Hassanzadeh on 04 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CONTRIBUTION OF INTERCEPTIONAL EFFECT TO COLLISION
EFFICIENCY OF PARTICLE BUBBLE ENCOUNTER IN FLOTATION

Sabri Kouachi1, Ahmad Hassanzadeh2, Moustapha Bouhenguel1, Behzad Vaziri

Hassas2, Mehmet S. elik2
1 Applied Chemistry and Materials Technology Laboratory, Larbi Ben M'hidi University, OEB 04000,
Algeria
2 Mineral Processing Department, Faculty of Mines, Istanbul Technical University, 34469, Istanbul,

Turkey

Abstract: Encounter of bubble-particle is the first step of particle collection by a rising bubble in
flotation process and has been generally predicted using approximate mathematical expressions. It is
based on three different mechanisms, i.e., the interceptional effect, the gravitational effect and the
inertial effect. In this study, the interceptional effect has been investigated using models developed by
assuming both mobile and immobile bubble surface. The results obtained for various flotation
parameters such as bubble size and bubble velocity and the bubble surface considerations were
compared and then discussed in the light of available models. The differences in collision efficiencies
assuming the interceptional mechanism for the various models were mainly explained by the mobility
of bubble surface and the type of fluid flow acting on the bubble surface.

Keywords: flotation, collision efficiency, interceptional effect, collision models, bubble surface.

From a practical view of industrial flotation, the

INTRODUCTION
The interactions between solid particles and air
bubbles in froth flotation separation process are
of significant academic and practical
importance. In this separation process, particles
of different physicochemical properties are
selectively separated on the basis of their
different affinities to air bubbles (Nguyen et al.
2004). Generally, flotation is considered to
consist of three major sub-processes, namely,
collision, attachment and stability of bubble
particle aggregate. Among the three successive
sub-processes of particle-bubble interaction, the
collision subprocess has been investigated most
extensively due to its significant role on flotation
rate constant and thereupon flotation recovery
(Duan et al. 2003). The collision involves the
approach of a particle to an air bubble in the
fluid flow.
Most attempts at developing theories of the
particle-bubble collision process have assumed
that bubbles move through the pulp so that there
is viscous or streamline flow of fluid around the
bubble, hence numerous models have been
proposed for the evaluation of the collision
efficiency. Even though different collision
efficiency models have been suggested,
however, due to their complexity, it is necessary
to utilize either accurate or simplified models.
Various assumptions and considerations on
hydrodynamic conditions make them look
differently.
bubble surface is assumed to be contaminated.
For this reason, majority of investigations on
particle-bubble encounter are focused on
immobile surface of bubble. In fact, bubble
surface can be retarded either by surfactants
such as collector and frother or by adsorbed
impurities from water. On the other hand, due to
low surfactant concentrations in froth flotation,
surface of intermediate bubble sizes are mobile.
Mobile bubbles can cause a quantitative change
in the mechanism of thin layer drainage and
affect the stability of particle-bubble aggregate.
These discussions demonstrate the significant
effect of bubble surface on froth flotation.
Despite many studies on particle-bubble
interactions (Schulze 1989, Dai et all 1999), the
interceptional effect still requires a thorough
understanding in flotation microprocesses. In
this study, the contribution of the interceptional
effect in the calculation of particle bubble
collision efficiency is discussed under different
hydrodynamics models of different fluid flow
regime and bubble surface type. Furthermore,
the effect of mobility or immobility of bubble on
collision efficiency in flotation process is
elaborated considering the effects of bubble
velocity and diameter.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
For small particles which their inertia could be
neglected, Sutherland proposed that collision
process occurred if the particle followed the
streamline near or approached to the bubble
surface called the "interception effect" (Schulze,
1989). Larger particles have a better chance of
intercepting the bubble and the calculated
collision rate was directly proportional to the
particle size. The encounter by interception
assumes that the particle centre follows the
water streamline which is compressed around
the bubble equator. The particle centre can
come to a radial distance from smaller than the
sum of the particle and bubble radii (Firouzi and
Nguyen 2011). This particle touches the bubble
due to the particles finite dimension. The
interception of a particle by a bubble can take
place only if the trajectory of the particle is within
a streaming cylinder of radius so-called collision
radius (RC). More expressions for RC have been
derived varying from model to the other
according to the flow around a bubble surface
as Stokes flow, potential flow, or intermediate
flow. Using the Ramsey equation for the
streamlines of a fluid moving past a spherical
particle, Sutherland derived an equation (Eq. 1)
for the collision radius of a grazing trajectory
from the line of motion of the bubble, expressed
as:
3d P d B
1
2
RC [1]
4 2
Assuming that the particle inertia can be
neglected and particles follow the streamlines of
the fluid (interceptional effect), the bubble
surface was completely mobile, and the fluid
flow at the bubble surface was potential flow;
Sutherland developed a very simple model
which is very easy to use and only the
interception mechanism is considered and
expressed as: EC SU 3R , where R is the
interception number, defined as the ratio of the
particle to bubble radius, R RP RB . As
expected, the Sutherland model over-estimates
the collision efficiency as the particle size
increases (Sutherland 1948). Gaudin expressed
his collision model with assuming that flow
stream at bubble surface follows stokes regime
and neglecting inertial effect on bubble-particle
interaction (Eq. 2) (Gaudin, 1932).
EC GA (3 / 2)(d P / d B )2 [2]
By using the stream function given by Jenson
and Hamielec (Dai et al. 2000), Anfruns and
Kitchener proposed a hydrodynamic model for
the collision efficiency, with only combined
gravitational and interceptional effect were
considered (Anfruns and Kitchener, 1977). The
model is valid only for Stokes flow conditions
and the expression obtained is:
1 d P
2
d B 0 [3]
v 2
EC AK P c
vB d P
2
1 vP 1 d
vB B
Where c0 is the value of the stream function at
the bubble equator. Anfruns-Kitchener collision
model describes the interceptional effect of
small particles with the immobile bubble surface,
caused by the applicability range of the
particular stream function used in the model as
mentioned by Schulze (Schulze 1989). For
intermediate bubble Reynolds number with a
fully immobile or mobile surface, several models
were developed and considered the
interceptional effect such us the Yoon Luttrell,
Webber and Paddock and Schulze models. In
the model of Yoon Luttrell, the interceptional
effect was considered and a new stream
function was developed for intermediate
Reynolds numbers and a formula for collision
efficiency was derived and given by (Yoon,
Luttrell, 1989) (Eq. 4)
2
3 4 Re 0B.72
EC YL d P
15
[4]
dB
Weber and Paddok used numerical calculations
in order to take into account the gravitational
and interceptional effects for calculating collision
efficiency of spherical particles. This model has
been developed considering the intermediate
flow regime for mobile and immobile bubble
surface. They neglected electrical and surface
forces as well as they used the Stokes stream
function, and assumed that the fluid velocity at
the bubble surface determined by this stream
function depends on the mobility of the bubble
surface; however the mathematical expression
for the interceptional effect may be quite
different, reflecting different boundary
conditions. The EC-WP can be divided into two
main sections (Eq. 5).
EC WP ECgWP ECicWP [5]
The first one is the gravitational effect which is
g
related to settling velocity ( EC WP ) while the
second is connected to fluid velocity at rising
ic
bubble surface ( EC WP ). Another significant
effective parameter on fluid velocity at the
bubble surface is considered as either mobility
or immobility of bubble surface. As a matter of
fact, the collision efficiency for interceptional
effect for a completely mobile bubble surface is
given by:
2 d
ECmoWP 1 0.85
P [6]
1 37 Re B d B fluid (interception effect), so that the particle
Webber and Paddok (1983) proposed that Eq. 6
can be applicable in flotation in the first few
centimetres of bubble rise before the bubble
surface picks up surface active material. For a
completely immobile bubble surface, the
mathematical expression is given by ()
(3 16) Re B d P 2 [7]
ECimWP 1.5 1 0.56 d B
1 0.249 Re B
According to Schulze EC definition, interception
effect can be considered as the forces change
the particles velocity from the streamlines of
bubble without altering particles direction. This
effect implies that the particle trajectory and the
fluid streamline around the bubble are identical.
As a result of this, flow field around the bubble
will be the only effective factor in terms of
interceptional effect ( ECic SC ) which can be
characterized by bubble Reynolds number
(Schulze, 1989). Schulze proposed that the
general equation for collision efficiency based
on the interception effect is:
2 C
ECic SC [8]
1 vP vB vB Re2B
Where C is the value of the streamline stream
function.
For an immobile bubble surface and after a
mathematical demonstration Schulze obtained
the same equation used by Weber and Paddock
(Eq.8).
Generally, the main purpose is to compare the
interceptional effects of collision probability in
different models, vz. Gaudin (EC-GA), Sutherland
(EC-SU), Anfruns-Kitchener (EC-AK), Webber-
Paddock (EC-WP), Yoon-Lutterell and (EC-YL) and
Schulze (EC-SC) and elaborate their contribution
in flotation systems.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Collision efficiencies models
As mentioned above, all of the selected collision
models in this study are based on a
hydrodynamic analysis of the particle-bubble
system, and the difference between is caused
by the various simplifications and assumptions
made in each case. These collision models
assume that particle inertia can be neglected
and thus particles follow the streamlines of the
trajectories and thus the collision efficiency can
be determined from the streamlines of the fluid.
Basically, in inertialess flotation, and also those
models involved in this assumption, collision
occurs mainly due to interceptional effect and
partially gravitational effect.
The collision efficiencies calculated as a function
of particle size according to the equations of
each models are shown in Fig. 1. The bubble
diameter and its velocity used in the calculation
of these models are 0.12 cm and 31.6 cm/s,
respectively.
Fig. 1 indicates that the collision supported with
interceptional effect is enhanced upon
increasing particle size for all the relevant
models. Nevertheless, the selective model
causes a quantitative change on the shape of
collision efficiency curve. This trend is in
agreement with the experimental results of
Anfruns, and Kitchener (Anfruns and Kitchener
1977). As shown in Fig.1 (a) the Sutherland
collision model is clearly overestimates collision
efficiency as it gives higher values than those of
other models and the divergence increases with
the particle diameter; this is due to the
assumption made by Sutherland which implies
that the collision can occur uniformly on the
entire upper half of the bubble surface.
However, this case is not approved by a new
research confirming that the maximum collision
angle can be smaller than 90 (Dai et all 1999).
Assuming a Stokes flow regime at the bubble
surface, both Gaudin and AnfrunsKitchener
collision models are plotted and compared as
shown in Fig.1 (b), for which the Gaudin model
gives a much lower estimation of the collision
efficiency than all the other models, as apparent
in Fig.1 (f). This can be explained by the fact
that, the Gaudins model is developed for
bubbles less than 100 m in diameter and
therefore is invalid for large bubbles of 0.12 cm
used in the present case. As shown in Fig.1 (c),
the WebberPaddock, YoonLuttrell and
Schulze models developed considering the
intermediate regime and immobile bubble
surface gives low values of collision efficiency
compared to Sutherland model and Webber
Paddock models for mobile bubble surfaces as
seen in Fig.1 (e). One possible reason which
Yoon and Luttrell collision efficiency model gives
higher estimation compared to Webber-Paddock
is because it assumes a uniform distribution of
collision over the entire upper half surface of the
bubble, which has been shown to be unrealistic WebberPaddock for immobile surface, and
(Schulze 1989). both models give the same results as shown in
Fig.1 (c, f). Since the AnfrunsKitchener
Fig.1 (f) illustrates the comparative results of all
collision model is valid only for Stokes flow
interceptional models. It can be seen that the
conditions, small particles, small bubble and
Gaudin model gives lower values as the Stokes
retarded bubble surface, they overestimated the
flow is invalid with the data input in this
collision efficiency and thus the values should
calculation i.e., bubble size and diameter.
be lower than the collision model of Yoon
Luttrell. In fact, Anfruns and Kitcheners data
plotted as efficiency of collection (EC), implies
that the experimental data may also include
adhesion by
0,25 0,25 0,25 (c)
(a) (b)
Gaudin model Webber & Paddock model (immo)
Sutherland model Anfruns & Kitchener model Yoon & Luttrell model
Schulze model
0,20 0,20 0,20
Collision efficiency, EC

Collision efficiency, EC

0,15 0,15 0,15

Collision efficiency, EC
0,10 0,10 0,10

0,05 0,05 0,05

0,00 0,00 0,00

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
dp(m) dp(m) dp(m)

0,25 (e) Sutherland model

Gaudin model
0,25 Afruns & Kitchener model
Webber & Paddock model (mo) Webber & Paddock model (immo)
Yoon & Luttrell model
0,20 Schulze model
Webber & Paddock model (mo)
0,20
Collision efficiency, EC

(f)
0,15
Collision efficiency, EC

0,15

0,10
0,10

0,05
0,05

0,00 0,00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
dp(m) dp(m)

Figure 1, Calculated collision efficiency as functions of particle for interception effect with v B = 31.6 cm/s dB=0.12
cm. (a) Sutherland model (potential flow and mobile bubble surface), (b) (Gaudin and Anfruns & Kitchener
models) (Stokes flow regime), (c) W&P, Y&L and Schulze models (intermediate flow regime for immobile bubble
surface), (e) Webber & Paddock model for mobile bubble surface, (f) Collision efficiencies curves for all models.

In the developing of the interceptional model, sliding and stability effects. Anfruns and
Schulze found the same expression used by Kitchener compared their model prediction with
experimental results obtained for the capture of
methylated quartz particles and glass beads by
single bubbles. Reasonable agreement was
found between the theory and experiment for
angular quartz particles but not for glass beads.
Nguyen-Van and Kmet also state: In our
opinion, the experimental results done by these
authors [Anfruns and Kitchener] refer rather to
[a] collection efficiency than to [a] collision one.
The divergence observed between theory and
experimental data increased with particle and
bubble diameter. This may be the result of
neglecting particle inertial forces as well as the
use of a stream function which is only valid for
Reynolds numbers representing small bubbles.
In Webber-Paddock model, EC decreases
dramatically in the case of immobile bubble
surface. This is attributed to differences
observed in fluid velocities at mobile and
immobile bubble surfaces.
Bubble surface mobility and effect of
fluid flow regime
The bubble surface during flotation is completely
retarded by the presence of collector, frother, or
surface active impurities from the water (Dai et
al 2000). Fig.2 (a) shows the effect of bubble
0,24 (a)
Webber & Paddock model (immo)
Yoon & Luttrell model (immo)
Schulze model (immo)
0,20 Webber & Paddock model (mo)
0,16
Collision efficiency, EC
0,12
0,08
0,04
0,00
0 20 40 60 80
dp(m)
Figure 2, Calculated collision efficiency as functions of particle for interception effect. (a) bubble surface mobility
surface type on collision efficiency. The model
takes into account the mobility of bubble surface
which is increasingly high compared to those
developed by assuming the immobilised bubble
surface. Due to the surface mobility of the
flotation bubbles, their rising velocities are
sufficiently high and, therefore, the fluid flow
regime near the bubble surface is more
appropriately characterized by the potential flow
(Dukhin 1989), as it is expected that the collision
efficiency models developed considering the
potential flow exceed those for Stokes and
intermediate flow regimes, as seen in Fig.2 (b).
The YoonLuttrell model in Fig.2 (a) gives
higher EC values compared to the other models
for immobilized bubble surface, since it assumes
a uniform distribution of collision over the entire
upper half surface of the bubble, which has
been shown to be unrealistic (Schulze 1989). It
has been shown that the bubble surface
immobilization decreases the collision efficiency
approximately ten times (Schulze 1993). When
the bubble interface is immobilized by surfactant
or particle contamination, collision efficiencies
are found to be about one thousand times lower
than those observed for a clean surface (Sarrot
et al, 2005).
0,25 Sutherland model (potential)
Gaudin model (stokes)
Yoon & Luttrell model (intermediate)
0,20 (b)
(d)
Collision efficiency, EC
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
100 0 20 40 60 80 100
dp(m)
effect, (b) fluid flow regime effect.
Bubble size and velocity effect One reason can be ascribed to single bubble
behavior. It is known that, bubbles smaller than
It should be mentioned that, if bubble surface 0.12 cm rise in a straight line but at highr
is immobile, the only effective factor on EC is bubble diameters above this threshold, the
interceptional effect. It can be seen from Fig. 3 bubble motion becomes oscillatory (zigzag or
(c) that for all three values of bubble velocity spiral). When the bubble exhibits zigzag or
(vB), for both models, EC-WP and EC-YL at particle spiral motion, it also changes its orientation. As
sizes finer than 15 m is very low (roughly a matter of fact, the probability of collision
zero). In fact, according to Webber-Paddock between particles and bubble declines.
and Yoon-Luttrells models, in particle size For ultra-fine particles (1-10 m) and even for
range, EC is independent of bubble velocity. fine particle sizes (10-20 m), there is no
However, for intermediate particle sizes, appreciable difference between EC of models
enhancing bubble velocity leads to either EC-WP even though gravitational effect is considered
or EC-YL, increase. Generally, in terms of in EC-AK, but neglected in EC-G calculation. This
bubble velocity, the increase in E C-WP is lower emphasizes the weak effect of gravitational
than EC-YL. The only exception for this order forces on particles finer than 20 m. The
with EC-YL occurs at the bubble velocity of 18 reason for poor collision probability of ultra-fine
cm/s, except EC-WP, which occurs at 31.4 cm/s; particles is attributed to small mass and high
this indicates that, even though the EC of specific surface area and as a result the
particles in the intermediate flow obeys Yoon- required high surface energy per unit. The
Luttrell collision model at vB=18 cm/s, EC-YL results reveal that the collision efficiency of
become equal to EC-WP only at vB=31.6 cm/s. ultra-fine particles (1-10 m) is generally
This is the only condition where EC overlaps in improved with bubbles of finer sizes, e.g.
both models. dB=0.08 cm compared to those of larger sizes,
It is shown in Fig. 3 (d) that, the maximum EC e.g. dB=0.12 and dB=0.15 cm. Moreover, in the
in both Gaudin and AnfrunsKitchener models case of EC-GA, by increasing the bubble size,
occurs at coarser particles. In all bubble differences between the resultant collision
diameters EC-G is always much lower than EC- efficiencies become close. In Anfruns
AK. However, for each model EC increases with
Kitchener, at a critical particle diameter,
decreasing bubble diameter. increasing bubble velocity only, EC-AK
diminishes dramatically.

0,15 (c)
(c) 0,24
Gaudin model (d)
Webber & Paddock model dB=0.08cm (b)
vB=18cm/s dB=0.10cm
vB=24cm/s 0,21
dB=0.12cm
0,12 vB=31.6cm/s Anfruns & Kitchener model
Yoon & Luttrell model dB=0.08cm
0,18
vB=18cm/s dB=0.10cm
vB=24cm/s dB=0.12cm
vB=31.6cm/s
0,15
Collision efficiency, EC

0,09
Collision efficiency, EC

0,12

0,06
0,09

0,06
0,03

0,03

0,00 0,00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
dp(m) dp(m)

Figure 3, Calculated collision efficiency as functions of particle for interception effect. (c) bubble velocity effect
(d) bubble size effect.
 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, various collision models
developed for interceptional effect have been
analyzed. These models have been
systematically interpreted to reveal their
distinct features as follows. It was found that
(EC-GA) and (EC-SU) are the most
underestimated and overestimated models
associated with the interceptional effect,
respectively. Compared to other models, EC-WP
for mobile bubble surface and EC-SU for
immobile surface predict higher interceptional
effect at particles finer than 20 m. A
significant difference between the calculated
EC in the case of bubble surface mobility
occurs in the flow regime.
Particles coarser than 50 m experience better
chance of collision under the interceptional
effect. At higher bubble velocities the
interceptional effect improves the collision
probability of particles with bubbles.
The probability of collision at constant particle
size under the interceptional effect is higher for
smaller bubble size.
Sutherland K.L., Physical Chemistry of Flotation-
Kinetics of the Flotation Process, J. Phys.
Chem., 52, 1948, 394-425.
Schulze H.J., Hydrodynamics of bubble, mineral
particle collisions, Min. Process. Extractive.
Metall. Rev. 5, 1989, 43-76.
Schulze H.J., Flotation as a heterocoagulation
process: possibilities of calculating the
probability of flotation, Surfactant Science
Series (Coagulation and Floculation), 47, 1993,
321-354.
Sarrot V., Guirauda P., Dominique Legendre
Determination of the collision frequency
between bubbles and particles in flotation.
Chemical Engineering Science, 60, 2005,
61076117
Weber M.E., Paddock D., Interceptional and
gravitational collision efficiencies for single
collectors at intermediate Reynolds numbers, J.
Colloid Interface Sci. 94, 1983, 328-335.
Yoon R.H., Luttrell G.H., The effect of bubble size
on fine particle flotation, Min. Process.
Extractive Metall. Rev. 5, 1989, 101-122.

References
Anfruns J.F., Kitchener J.A., Rate of capture of
small particles in otation Trans. Inst. Min.
Metall. (Sect. C) 86, 1977, 915.
Dai Z., Fornasiero D., Ralston J., Particlebubble
collision models a review, Adv. Colloid Interf.
Sci, 85, 2000, 231256.
Dai Z., Dukhin S., Fornasiero D., Ralston J., The
inertial hydrodynamic interaction of particles
and rising bubbles with mobile surface, J.
Colloid Interface Sci. 197, 1998, 275-292.
Dai Z., Fornasiero D., and Ralston J., Particle-
bubble attachment in mineral flotation, journal of
colloid and interface science, 217, 1999, 70-76.
Duan J., Fornasiero D., Ralston J, Calculation of the
flotation rate constant of chalcopyrite particles
in an ore, Int. J. Miner. Process. 72, 2003, 227
237.
Firouzi M., Nguyen A.V., Hashemabadi S.H., The
effect of microhydrodynamics on bubble
particle collision interaction, Minerals
Engineering, 24, 2011, 973986
Gaudin A.M., Flotation, McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc,
New York, 1932.
Nguyen A.V., Evans G.M., Nalaskowski J., Miller,
J.D., Hydrodynamic interaction between an air
bubble and a particle: atomic force microscopy
measurements. Experimental Thermal and
Fluid Science, 28, 2004, 387394.
Nguyen A.V, Kmet S., Collision efficiency for fine
mineral particles with Single Bubble in a
Countercunent Flow Regime, mt. J. Miner.
Process, 35, 1992, 205- 223.

View publication stats