Minerals1'Sngmeermg,Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.

367-379, 1997
Pergamon © 1997Publishedby ElsevierScienceLtd
Printedin GreatBritain.All rightsreserved
Plh S0892-6875(97)00014-9 0892-6875/97$17.00+0.00

STUDIES ON IMPELLER TYPE, IMPELLER SPEED AND AIR FLOW RATE

IN AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE FLOTATION C E L L . P A R T 4: E F F E C T O F
BUBBLE SURFACE AREA FLUX ON FLOTATION PERFORMANCE

B.K. GORAIN§, J.P. FRANZIDISt and E.V. MANLAPIG§

§ Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, Isles Rd, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Australia
~- Dept of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, South Africa
(Received 24 October 1996; accepted 16 December 1996)

ABSTRACT

The metallurgical performance of a 2.8m ~ portable industrial scale flotation cell was
measured when treating zinc cleaner feed at Hellyer concentrator in Tasmania, Australia.
The cell was fitted in turn with four different impeller-stator systems and operated over
a wide range of air flow rates and impeller speeds. Bubble size, gas holdup and
superficial gas velocity were measured at each of 64 different operating conditions along
with the metallurgical performance of the cell. When metallurgical performance was
expressed in terms of a kinetic constant, it was found that neither bubble size nor gas
holdup nor superficial gas velocity could be related toflotation rate individually; but when
taken together, they determine the bubble surface area flux in the cell, which could be
related to flotation rate extremely well. A linear relationship between flotation rate and
bubble surface area flux was found for all four impellers investigated: the slope of the line
was independent of the type of impeller used. The linear relationship was verified for
different size fractions of the ore: the slope of the straight line was different for different
size fractions, values being greater for the smaller size particles. The relationship was
also independently confirmed at another zinc cleaner operation. This finding has potential
practical application in flotation plant modelling, design and optimisation.
© 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords
Froth flotation; flotation bubbles; flotation kinetics; flotation machines

INTRODUCTION

The authors have recently carried out an investigation into the effect of impeller type, impeller speed and
air flow rate on some of the hydrodynamic conditions (bubble size distribution, gas holdup and superficial
gas velocity) pertaining to the gas dispersed phase in an industrial scale flotation cell. The cell was fitted
in turn with four different impeller-stator systems and operated at various combinations of impeller speed
and air flow rate. The details have been reported previously [1,2,3].

Concurrent with the above investigation, samples of feed, concentrate and tails were taken around the cell
and metallurgical performance determined at each of the different operating conditions investigated. This
paper examines the relationship between the measured hydrodynamic values and the metallurgical
performance (expressed as a flotation rate constant) obtained under the same conditions.

Presented at Minerals Engineering "96, Brisbane, Australia, August 26-28, 1996

367
368 B.K. Gorain et al.

It should be emphasised that these experiments were not conducted to compare the performance or
characteristics of the different impellers used. The impellers were not necessarily operated under optimum
(recommended) conditions, or in a cell of optimum design, and were utilised solely to provide a range of
hydrodynamic conditions for the study.

EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

Flotation cell, impellers and associated instrumentation

A 2.8 m 3 flotation cell designed at the JKMRC was used in the test program. Details of the cell can be
found in Gorain et al. [ 1]. A variable speed drive facilitated alteration of the impeller speed. Impeller speed
and torque were measured using a high precision transducer fitted on top of the cell pulley. Air was
delivered through a rotameter, at approximately 12 kPa.

Bubble size distributions were measured using a UCT bubble size analyser fitted with a bubble sampler,
as described by Tucker et al. [4]. Gas holdup was measured using a modified version of a device used by
Jameson and Allum [5]. Superficial gas velocity was measured using a long graduated perspex tube. Details
of all this measurement equipment can be found in Gorain et al. [1,2,3].

Feed and operating conditions

The test cell and its ancilliaries were installed at the Hellyer Concentrator in Tasmania, operated by
Aberfoyle Resources Limited. Feed to the cell was taken from the feed pipe to the zinc cleaner circuit; the
concentrates and tails from the cell were recycled to the same circuit. The zinc cleaner feed material was
of reasonably constant composition, having passed through copper and lead flotation stages. Feed solids
concentration was around 35%; P8o was 20 to 25 microns. The average zinc grade was 33.5%. No
chemicals were added to the the feed during any of the tests. The slurry feed rate to the test cell was
constant throughout, and the froth height was kept at 36 cm for the duration of the tests.

Metallurgical measurements

Samples of feed, concentrate and tailings were taken at each of the operating conditions using conventional
sampling methods. A lip sampler of approximately 80 mm x 250 mm was used to sample and measure the
volumetric flow rate of the concentrate. Split samplers were used to sample the feed and the tailings while
the volumetric flow rates were measured using 60 litre and 20 litre buckets, respectively.

The samples were weighed, filtered, dried and weighed again (to calculate % solids). Sub-samples were
analysed for zinc and iron. Sub-samples were also cyclosized to five different size fractions viz. +30, -
30 + 14.5, -14.5 +7.3, -7.3 +5 and -5 microns, and zinc and iron analysis carried out on each size fraction.
For each of the tests carried out, 'JK2DMBal' software was used to mass balance the streams on size by
assay basis. Zinc, iron and % solids were used as components as well as the measured flow rates of the
feed, concentrates and tailings in each test. Good agreement was found between the calculated and observed
grade and recovery values of zinc for each size fraction for the feed, concentrate and tailings.

RESULTS

Bubble sizes, gas holdup values and superficial gas velocities measured at different operating conditions
for different impellers/stators have been reported previously [1,2,3]. Tables la - ld show the "average"
values of Sauter mean bubble diameter d32 (and not average mean bubble diameter d b as reported in Gorain
et al. [1] for reasons which will be made clear below), gas holdup eg and superficial gas velocity jgl at
each set of operating conditions for the four impellers used in this study.
 Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate 369

TABLE la Metallurgical results and physical measurement data for Chile-X i m p e l l e r

Q g = air flow rate, 1/sec; N = impeller speed, rpm; R = Zn recovery, %; k = f l o t a t i o n rate, i / m i n ;
S b = Bubble surface area flux (m2/m 2 see), Jg = superficial gas velocity (cm/sec),
d32 = s a u t e r mean bubble diameter (ram), ~g = gas holdup %
* Indicates cell flooding condition

Qg N R Zn% k ~S Jg d32 Sb
16.5 140 43.9 48.3 0.103 3.64 0.68 1.02 40.0
28.3 140 62.6 47.4 0.227 6.13 1.94 1.30 89.5
42.5 140 64.7 44.5 0.262 11.06 2.77* 1.47 92.7
56.7 140 58.0 42.9 0.206 13.46 2.34* 1.48 94.9
16.5 160 43.4 48.8 0.101 5.17 0.65 0.90 43.3
28.3 160 60.0 47.8 0.205 8.74 1.42 0.95 89.7
42.5 160 74.2 44.4 0.431 11.77 2.99 1.21 148.3
56.7 160 73.5 42.5 0.427 16.86 3.07" 1.29 142.8
16.5 180 46.0 49.0 0.118 6.77 0.64 0.81 47.4
28.3 180 61.0 47.2 0.222 8.48 1.38 0.92 90.0
42.5 180 72.5 44.7 0.404 13.64 2.52 1.12 135.0
56.7 180 75.6 42.0 0.500 17.34 3.03* 1.22 149.0
16.5 200 50.4 49.2 0.140 6.46 0.80 0.79 60.8
28.3 200 57.3 47.2 0.185 9.38 0.98 0.79 74.4
42.5 200 68.6 45.4 0.326 15.06 1.68 0.98 102.9
56.7 200 77.1 40.4 0.544 20.05 3.06" 1.11 165.4

The corresponding overall zinc recovery and grade values are also presented in Tables l a - ld. The zinc
recovery values were used to calculate the flotation rate constant o f zinc at each operating condition using
the perfectly mixed model [6] as follows:

R
k = (1)
x(1 -R)

R = recovery o f zinc
z = mean residence time in the cell (min)
k = flotation rate constant (1/min)

Mean residence time was calculated as the ratio o f effective cell volume (subtracting the volume of air and
impeller/stator mechanism from the nominal cell volume o f 2.8 m 3) and the feed flow rate.

The calculated values o f k at the different operating conditions for the four different impellers appear in
Tables l a - l d .

1 The average Jg value reported in Gorain et al. [3] is the average of Jg measured at 6 different locations inside
the cell. Some of the values reported in Tables la-ld are slightly different from those values. These correspond
to operating conditions when the cell was visually found to be flooding. In these cases, only the Jg values at
locations 3 4 5 and 6 were used to calculate the average Jg. J_ values at locations 1 and 2 were excluded
because the gas at these locanons was und~spersedand therefore did not contribute to the flotation process. The
average Jg values pertaining to flooding conditions for different impellers are marked with an asterisk (*) in
Tables la-ld.
370 B.K. Gorain et al.

TABLE lb Metallurgical results and physical measurement data for Pipsa impeller
Q g = air flow rate, 1/sec; N = impeller speed, rpm; R = Zn recovery, %; k=flotation rate, 1/min;
Sb = Bubble surface area flux (m2/m2 sec), Jg = superficial gas velocity (cm/sec),
d32 =sauter mean bubble diameter (mm), eg = gas holdup %
* Indicates cell flooding condition

Qg N R Zn% eg Jg d32 Sb
16.5 105 33.5 47.5 0.068 4.54 0.66 1.11 35.7
28.3 105 53.4 44.8 0.157 5.66 1.93 1.39 83.3
42.5 105 69.3 41.7 0.321 9.92 3.15" 1.56 121.2
56.7 105 69.5 35.4 0.329 10.34 2.93* 1.79 98.2
16.5 120 47.1 47.1 0.119 5.55 0.87 1.02 51.2
28.3 120 55.6 44.7 0.114 7.01 1.55 1.20 77.5
42.5 120 75.5 37.9 0.438 9.68 3.19" 1.25 153.1
56.7 120 59.6 35.1 0.221 14.01 2.79* 1.74 96.2
16.5 140 38.1 46.9 0.084 7.31 0.67 0.95 42.2
28.3 140 61.4 44.6 0.223 8.23 1.74 1.09 95.8
42.5 140 73.4 37.1 0.398 10.8 2.74* 1.15 143.0
56.7 140 55.0 34.6 0.183 13.03 2.41" 1.63 88.7
16.5 160 42.1 47.3 0.101 8.05 0.68 0.85 48.0
28.3 160 66.4 45.4 0.282 9.26 1.78 1.08 98.9
42.5 160 79.8 39.4 0.570 11.13 2.77* 1.14 145.8
56.7 160 66.5 36.2 0.300 14.89 2.39* 1.34 107.0

Table lc: Metallurgical results and physical measurement data for Outokumpu impeller
Q g = air flow rate, 1/sec; N = impeller speed, rpm; R = Zn recovery, %; k=flotation rate, 1/min;
Sb = Bubble surface area flux (mE/m2 sec), Jg = superficial gas velocity (cm/sec),
d32 =sauter mean bubble diameter (mm), eg = gas holdup %
* Indicates cell flooding condition

Qg N R Zn% k e6 J~ d32 Sb
16.5 185 17.6 50.3 0.030 9.06 0.69 1.03 40.2
28.3 185 41.2 48.8 0.100 12.03 1.24 1.05 70.9
42.5 185 58.9 44.1 0.222 13.92 1.97 1.14 103.7
56.7 185 52.7 37.9 0.182 16.22 1.93" 1.17 99.0
16.5 205 36.0 49.9 0.079 9.91 0.68 0.78 52.3
28.3 205 44.1 50.2 0.117 12.73 1.18 1.05 67.4
42.5 205 60.9 45.1 0.255 14.55 1.60 1.09 88.1
56.7 205 51.3 38.4 0.177 18.69 1.68" 1.21 83.3
16.5 225 22.1 51.6 0.041 11.06 0.66 0.90 44.0
28.3 225 32.9 49.1 0.070 13.75 0.92 0.69 80.0
42.5 225 75.4 44.2 0.504 17.86 2.26 1.06 127.9
56.7 225 87.8 38.2 1.222 20.02 2.89 1.10 157.6
16.5 245 40.5 51.7 0.100 12.11 0.66 0.92 43.0
28.3 245 38.1 49.8 0.094 14.44 1.09 0.98 66.7
42.5 245 55.6 45.7 0.206 22.81 1.69 1.09 93.0
56.7 245 59.4 40.0 0.270 26.69 2.51 1.22 123.4
 Studies on impellertype, impellerspeed and air flow rate 371

TABLE ld Metallurgical results and physical measurement data for Dorr-Oliver impeller
Q g = air flow rate, l/sec; N = impeller speed, rpm; R = Zn recovery, %; k=flotation rate, l/rain;
S b = Bubble surface area flux (m2/m2 sec), Jg = superficial gas velocity (cm/sec),
d32 =sauter mean bubble diameter (ram), eg = gas holdup %
* Indicates cell flooding condition

Qg N R Zn% k ¢ J~ d32 Sb
16.5 235 39.1 50.2 0.082 4.~8 0.,,6 1.05 37.7
28.3 235 48.4 48.8 0.120 6.47 1.15 1.09 63.3
42.5 235 63.1 44.2 0.227 8.71 1.81 1.13 96.1
56.7 235 57.4 44.3 0.178 9.97 2.03* 1.25 97.4
16.5 255' 40.7 49.8 0.087 5.66 0.66 0.80 49.5
28.3 255 49.7 48.2 0.134 9.23 1.11 0.99 67.3
42.5 255 64.3 44.0 0.252 10.86 1.71 1.09 94.1
56.7 255 66.9 41.7 0.286 12.66 2.59 1.20 129.5
16.5 275 38.5 49.6 0.084 8.91 0.65 0.78 50.0
28.3 275 53.4 47.7 0.159 12.29 1.14 0.89 76.9
42.5 275 59.6 44.1 0.221 15.96 1.74 1.18 88.5
56.7 275 '73.5 39.3 0.427 18.99 2.80 1.15 146.1
16.5 295 36.1 49.9 0.076 10.72 0.65 0.73 53.4
28.3 293 51.7 48.6 0.148 15.37 1.06 0.81 78.5
42.5 295 65.4 44.3 0.279 17.19 1.87 1.11 101.1
56.7 295 81.7 36.2 0.685 20.55 3.73 1. I0 203.5

DISCUSSION

It is clear from Tables la - ld that the operating conditions investigated resulted in a wide range of
hydrodynamic conditions in the cell, and an equally wide range of metallurgical responses. What is of
interest in this paper is the relationship between measured hydrodynamic values and the flotation rates
obtained under the same conditions.

Rate constant k is plotted against the average value of Sauter mean bubble diameter, gas holdup and
superficial gas velocity for each of the four different impellers in Figures 1 to 3 respectively. In each plot,
the sixteen points represent the results at four different air flow rates at each of four impeller speeds, for
a particular impeller. A straight line was fitted through the 16 points on each of the plots using a simple
linear regression: the R 2 values (statistical criteria to evaluate 'goodness of fit' ) are shown in Table 2. As
can be seen the R 2 values vary considerably for each of the aspects of the dispersed phase investigated,
as discussed below in detail.

TABLE 2 Summary of R 2 values using linear regression for different physical variables
Jg=superficial gas velocity; Sb = bubble surface area flux

Impeller Bubble size Gas holdup Jg Sb

Chile-X 0.19 0.81 0.84 0.96
Dorr-Oliver 0.24 0.61 0.89 0.95
Outokumpu 0.10 0.22 0.60 0.74
Pipsa 0.05 0.28 0.65 0.87
372 B.K. Gorain et al.

Effect of bubble size on overall flotation rate constant

Figure 1 shows the plots of flotation rate constant k against Sauter mean bubble diameter d32 for the four
impellers at the different operating conditions investigated. The plots clearly show scattering of the data
points indicating that there is no relationship between bubble size and rate constant over the range of
operating conditions investigated. This observation is supported statistically by low R 2 values ranging from
0.05 for the Pipsa impeller to 0.24 for the Dorr-Oliver impeller, as can be seen from Table 2.

Pipsa impeller Outokumpu impeller

•r , , , , , . . . . . . . , , ,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' '

•.., 0.8 -0.8

"~ 0.6 ~0.6

o
o

o i
0.4 i
0.4
o o !o o

..
0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.. . . . . . . . . .
~0.2
°.
.................................................... i . . . ~ % ........................................
o o ~ o oc~e
. o o o :
o io
0 o 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Sauter mean bubble diameter (mm) Sauter mean bubble diameter (mm)

Dorr-Oliver impeller Chile-X impeller

, , , , , , , . . . . . . . . .

v-¢

~0.8 ........................................................................................... 0.8

0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~o.6
o o
o

0.4 ........................................................ '~ ........................................ ~ 0.4 .................................................... :....~ ..~. 9 ................

#o i o!
0.2 ........................ ~o0.2 .................................. ,.....90. i............... e.......,~ ........................
.~ qmO o ' .~
o ~ ° o ~.1

_~0 I i I ~ , i J i i I i , , , i i o 0 1 i , i i i i A i i , , , , , ,

0 0.5 1.5 2 ~-, 0 0.5 1.5 2

Sauter mean bubble diameter (mm) Sauter mean bubble diameter (mm)

Fig. 1 Variation of flotation rate constant with Sauter mean bubble diameter
for four different impellers, each at 16 different operating conditions

Effect of gas holdup on overall flotation rate constant

Figure 2 shows the plots of flotation rate constant k against gas holdup for the four impellers. It is clear
from these plots that there is little or no correlation between rate constant and gas holdup, as also evident
from the low values of R 2 as shown in Table 2. However, the range of values, from 0.22 to 0.81, indicates
that k relates better to gas holdup than to bubble size. Even so, the values are not large enough to indicate
a statistically meaningful relationship between flotation rate and air holdup.

Effect of superficial gas velocity on overall flotation rate constant

Figure 3 shows the plots of flotation rate constant k against superficial gas velocity, for each of the four
impellers. A cursory look at the plots indicates some degree of relationship as compared to the plots of k
against bubble size and air holdup (Figures 1 and 2 above). The R 2 values are also much greater, between
0.60 and 0.89, than those for bubble size and gas holdup, indicating that k can be related to superficial gas
velocity with much more confidence than to bubble size or air holdup. It can also be seen from Figure 3
that for each of the impellers there is a trend of increasing flotation rate with increase in superficial gas
velocity at low air flow rates. At higher air flow rates the trend fades away, making any definite
 Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate 373

relationship b e t w e e n flotation rate and superficial gas velocity difficult. A similar p h e n o m e n o n was observed
b y Laplante et al. [7] where the flotation rate constant was found to increase with increase in air flow rate
or superficial gas velocity but this trend ceased to exist at high air flow rates.

1 .11' Pipsaimpeller .~ , , ,
Outokumpu impeller
. . . . , , , . . . . . , . . . . . . .
. . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . , , , 1

"-" 0 . 8 ................................. ~.................................................................... 0.8

[]

0.6 .................................i~..~-................................................................ ~ 0.6

3 ~ 3 o

0.4 .................................
i'*".............i.................................................. ~ 0.4
: o: o
=0.2 ...............~" o : ~ io: .................................................
: ........................ , ; . = 0.2 ............... =.................
: o : .o
. ................. i...e~......- ~ ..................
'
~ ...............

.o_ oiO o o i "~

-o 0 .... i ........ , ........... ~ o
...... /, o?°,o°i ...........
0 5 10 15 20 25 3(3~ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
G a s holdup % G a s holdup %

~- Dorr-Oliverimpeller , , , , ,
Chile-X
, . . . . . . .
impeller. . . . . . . . . , ,

0m 8 ...................................................................... ~.................. ............... el

N io N

0.6 ......................................................................................................~ 0.6

[] ;
o= o= i o
0.4 .................................................................
°.................................... ~ 0.4 ................................. ".....9.....a,...i.....~ ............................................

N
• o o o t_
........................... ~...i ................. ~..~ ............................................... ...............~...........% - ..............~...................................................
= 0.2 ! o o~ o ~ = 0.2
." ,.2
.F.
o o o ~o ~ "--_ °i ~ i i
o
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30~ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Gas holdup % Gas holdup %

F i g . 2 Variation o f flotation rate constant with gas h o l d u p for four

different impellers, each at 16 different operating c o n d i t i o n s

Pipsa impeller ~ Outokumpu impeller

....;
-_
1

0.8
.... ! ....

i
v ....

i
i .... ~ ........

i
...........; ...........~........................~.............~.....................................
i ........ . ~

O.
'"l

i
............

"....................i..........................................................................
, ........ i ....

i
t'"

[] 0 . 6 • ' !
...............................................................
i""'~ ' ' .= 0 . 6
................................................... ~..............................................................................

0.4 .......... ~ ............ ÷ ............ ÷ ............ ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . =

p...-o-.--.~ °
............ = ..........

: ! ~o .
= 0.2 . . [] 0 . 2 ..........~............~.............i ' 8 " ~ ............÷............t ........................
........................," t........... ;i ..........
............ . .
,.~......L~.......
-~ 0 ,,,i .... i .... i .... i .... , .... ; ...... ~ 0 ,,.i,~,,i .... i .... i .... i ............ •
o 0
E., 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4E., 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Superficial g a s v e l o c i t y (cm/se¢) Superficial gas velocity (cm/sec)

Dorr-Oliver impeller ~ Chile-X impeller

~ 1 ....... i ............ , . . . . . . . . ,,,, "- ' .......... ' ........ i '"'
~'B 0 . 8 .....................................
~............i.............i .............~............~.......... 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .;............i.............~.............i............~.....................................

0.6 ..................................................................................................... ~ 0.6 - .........~.................................................................

~ .....................

0.4 ......................................................................
* ........................... ~ 0.4 ..........~.....................................................
.e..........~ ......................
' . i i
o*** i o , " ~ .i i
= 0.2 ....................................
, ............~ ......................................t .......... = 0.2 ..........~...........~-.-.-.--.~,i...........'~L.....,...':............" .......................
' ' ' ! o

; 0 ,, ,~,,.i ........ ~ ............ i,,, ~ 0 ,.,,i .... ~ .... ~ ........ i ........ ~ ....
o
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4~ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Superficial g a s v e l o c i t y ( c m / s e c ) S u p e r f i c i a l gas v e l o c i t y ( c m / s e c )

F i g . 3 Variation of flotation rate constant with superficial gas velocity

for four different impellers, each at 16 different operating conditions
374 B.K. Gorain et al.

Bubble Surface Area Flux

It is interesting to note how poorly the flotation rate correlates with bubble size and how this correlation
improves on going from bubble size to gas holdup and superficial gas velocity. However, it is not
unexpected that bubble size on its own would not significantly correlate with k. Somehow the amount or
volume of air in the cell should also come into the picture, i.e. one would expect the flotation rate to
increase on going from one to several million bubbles (of the same size) per unit volume.

Gas holdup (which is a measure of the amount of air per unit volume o f pulp) does correlate better with
k than does bubble size. However, gas holdup on its own also does not correlate very well with k. This
also is to be expected; in this case, bubble size needs to come into picture. Millions of small bubbles in
a cell, with a cumulative volume of 20 cm 3, would be expected to produce a much greater flotation rate
than a bubble of 20 cm 3 in the same cell.

Of the three indicators of cell hydrodynamics investigated, the one which correlated best with flotation rate
was the superficial gas velocity. This is more than just the volumetric proportion of air in a cell, it is a
measure o f the rate at which the air passes through the cell (volumetric air flow rate divided by cell cross-
sectional area). Once again, though, whether this air is made up of a few large bubbles or millions o f small
ones would be expected to have a significant influence o f the flotation rate constant.

A term which incorporates both the superficial gas velocity and the Sauter mean diameter is the bubble
surface area flux, S b, which is defined 2 as [8]:

6J
S h --- ~ (2)

where S b = B u b b l e surface area flux (m2/m 2 sec)

Jg = Superficial gas velocity (m/sec)
d32 = Sauter mean bubble diameter (m).

The Sauter mean bubble diameter (d32) is defined as [91

I=ll

~ dj 3
i=1
d32- (3)
i=n
2
i=I

where d i =Equivalent spherical bubble diameter

n = S a m p l e size

It is calculated as the ratio of total volume of bubbles collected in burette and the total surface area o f
bubbles measured using the UCT bubble sizer [4] as:

6,v h
d32 = (4)
Ah

where V b = Total volume of bubbles collected in burette (ml)

A b = Total bubble surface area measured by the bubble sizer (mm 2)

Sb can also be defined in terms of Jg and eg as Sb = (aJg) / eg)

where a = total bubble surface area per unit cell volume
 Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate 375

By definition, Sauter mean bubble size (d32) and not arithmetic mean bubble size (db) is the correct
dependent variable necessary to calculate bubble surface area flux. Therefore d32 is used in this paper and
not d b as reported previously in Gorain et al. [1].

Values of S b were calculated from the values o f Jg and d32 for each of the operating conditions investigated
and are shown in the last column in Tables la-ld. (note that a corrected Jg value is used for cell flooding
conditions marked with an asterisk *, see Footnote 1).

Effect of b u b b l e surface a r e a flux on overall flotation rate constant

Figure 4 shows the plots of flotation rate constant k against S b for each of the four impellers at the different
operating conditions investigated. The plots clearly show a linear relationship between flotation rate and
S b for all the four impellers. It may also be seen from Table 2 that the R 2 values are much greater than
for bubble size, air holdup and superficial gas velocity, being around 0.74 to 0.96. Therefore the
confidence with which flotation rate can be related to bubble surface area flux is much greater than
compared to bubble size or air holdup or superficial gas velocity individually.

Pipsa i m p e l l e r Outokumpu impeller

.~o.8 i
.~'0.8
l=
el
~0,6 ......................................... i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "¢~i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~0.6
3 o

~0.4 ................... ! ..................... ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e ' ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .................. ..=0.4

i d~,o a i
o

= 0.2 :0.2 ..................~.............~..,~..................~.........................................

i o .

O ................... I ............. o ' ~ " ~ .............................................................. O

oOd' o i
0 .... i .... i ............ ~ 0 , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

o
0 50 100 150 200 250~ 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250
B u b b l e s u r f a c e a r e a f l u x ( m ~ / m ~ see) B u b b l e surface area f l u x ( m Z / m 2 sec)

Dorr-Oliver impeller Chile-X impeller

E 1

.0.8 ~0.8
es

~=0.6 ~0.6
o
3
0.4 ...................,.....................:...................o!......................~.................. ~0.4
J ~

o~ o : Ol
¢~0.2
=
=02 ..................~_.._..o....ao~,
"- - ~ . . .....................i.........................................
~.'° i i
"$ o , I t ] I I I I ~ I I I I I I l I I [ I I I .... I .... I .... I . . . . . . . .
0 50 1 O0 150 200 250 0 50 1O0 150 200 250
B u b b l e s u r f a c e area f l u x ( m 2 / m 2 sec) Bubble surface area flux (m2/m 2 see)

Fig.4 Variation of flotation rate constant with bubble surface area flux
for four different impellers, each at 16 different operating conditions

Interestingly, if the four different plots in Figure 4 are plotted on the same axes, as in Figure 5, the results
fall on the same straight line. This shows that the relationship between flotation rate k and bubble surface
area flux is independent of the type of impeller used. This implies that if different impellers generate the
same bubble surface area flux inside a cell, they will produce the same flotation kinetics as long as the
particles in the cell are in suspension. This also suggests that bubble surface area flux is a good measure
or descriptor of the hydrodynamic conditions in a flotation cell, certainly as far as gas dispersion properties
are concerned.
376 B.K. G o r a i n et al.

, f , , j , i F , [ , ~ ' I ' i , i b J , ,

E o Pipsa i
So.8
=
[] Chile-X i
x Outokumpu .........~i. . . . . . . . i ............
0 Dorr-Oliver ii ::o
~ o.6 ............................................................ i ............................

o °i t2
× 0
~ o.4
L

o 0.2

_o o |,,, ~1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 50 1 O0 150 200 250

Bubble surface area flux (m2/m 2 sec)

Fig.5 Variation of flotation rate constant with bubble surface area flux for four
different impellers at 16 different operating conditions plotted on the same axes

Effect of bubble surface area flux on flotation rate constant for different size fractions

Equation (1) was used to calculate the zinc flotation rate constants from the zinc recovery values for the
different size fractions produced by cyclosizing. The k values obtained were plotted against Sb for all four
impellers for each of the five size fractions, as shown in Figure 6. Each plot contains 64 points,
corresponding to 16 different operating conditions for each of the four different impellers.

A close look at these plots suggests that a linear relationship exists between k and Sb for each size fraction.
Moreover, for each size fraction the relationship between k and Sb is independent of impeller type. This
finding is similar to that found when the overall flotation rate constant k was plotted against Sb. A straight
line was fitted to all the datapoints for each size fraction and the slopes obtained are shown in Table 3. The
values of the slopes differed for each size fractions; the values being greater for the smaller size fractions.
This difference in slope for different size fractions is believed to account for some of the scatter of data
points in the overall k vs Sb plots (Figures 4 and 5).

T A B L E 3 Fitted values of slope (k and Sb) for different size fractions

Size (microns) P
+ 30 microns 1.51
-30+ 14.5 microns 2.51
-14.5 +7.3 microns 3.03
-7.3 + 5.0 microns 2.99
-5.0 microns 3.36
 S t u d i e s o n i m p e l l e r t y p e , i m p e l l e r s p e e d a n d air f l o w rate 377

-5 microns -7.3+5 microns

"" 1

"" 0.8

~ 0.6
~ .

0.4 ...............:............... e - ......... ~-----':..................................

: O: o ~ i ................ i ................. . ~ " ~ ; * ~ .................. t ................
i ~, x i !
~_ ~ o~. : :
0.2 ...............~....=.~ll.~.. ............... .".................. ~............... - t
•- ~
" x' ( : - o :
.@ 0
0 50 1 O0 150 200 25q~ 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250
Bubble surface area flux (mZ/m z sec) Bubble surface area flux (m2/mZ s e e )

-14.5+7.3 microns °i
-30+14.5 microns
E 1
p-4

oo C ho ir lre- -OXl i v e r
D J...........................................
i o c~°_x I i
''0.8 .. 0.8 u Dorr-Oliver J......... i .................. ? ................
x
x Outokumpu
x Outokumpu [ i .~
"=0.6
=
o ~ip. i i 0.6 o Pipsa [......... i .................. : ................
o
ca
i i xo'i °
0.4 ..................................
,./i: .................i................ 0.4
................ i .................. i ............... ~ * ................ -~................
xO L. X • o

-~0.2 ................"'"o' ' = ' ' ~ ..................................................... =o 0.2

,~, ~° : ..
i o 0 ,,,~i ....
,( i
i .... i .... ] ....
.,~
~ 0
0
, , , ~Xl
50
, , , j l , , , ~ I , , , , I ~ , , ~
100 150 200 250
0 50 1O0 150 200 250E
Bubble surface area flux (m2/m 2 sec) Bubble surface area flux (mZ/m z sec)

+30 microns
"" 1
E
..0.8 n Dorr-Oliver t ........ i ................. [ ................
¢= " _O=°~n'Pul J i
~e~0 . 6 * Pipsa J.......... .i.................. "................
o
0.4 .........................................................................................
@
t'=
. *i
x Xo qoo
=
@ 0.2
................i.............~ ~ : ~ ..................i................
¢1
~ 0
0 50 1 O0 150 200 250
Bubble surface area flux (mZ/m z sec)

F i g . 6 V a r i a t i o n o f f l o t a t i o n rate c o n s t a n t w i t h b u b b l e surface a r e a flux

f o r d i f f e r e n t size f r a c t i o n s , for all 6 4 o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s

Validation work at Scuddles Mine

A n i n d e p e n d e n t test p r o g r a m m e w a s c a r r i e d o u t at S c u d d l e s M i n e in W e s t e r n A u s t r a l i a to v a l i d a t e t h e
f i n d i n g s f r o m t h e H e l l y e r test w o r k . T h e s a m e 2 . 8 m 3 test cell w a s i n s t a l l e d in the p l a n t a n d t h e p l a n t z i n c
378 B.K. Gorain et al.

cleaner feed stream was used as feed to the cell. The cell was operated at different conditions of impeller
speed and air flow rate for three different impellers, viz. Batequip, Outokumpu and Dorr-Oliver. For each
operating condition bubble size and superficial gas velocity were measured to determine the value of Sb.
Metallurgical samples of feed, concentrate and tailings were collected to calculate the value of flotation rate
constant for each operating conditions investigated.

The results clearly showed that a linear relationship does exist between bubble surface area flux and
flotation rate constant [ 10]. Moreover the relationship was independent of impeller type, as found in the
Hellyer test work. In addition, data from published literature also show a linear relationship between k and
Sb for columns and laboratory mechanical cells [11].

Implications of k and S b relationship

The most significant result obtained in this test-work is that a linear relationship exists between k and Sb
which is independent of the impeller type. If this is assumed to be true for all ores, then in order to obtain
the same kinetics from different flotation machines for a particular ore, each machine must be manipulated
with respect to its design and operating parameters (impeller speed, air flow rate) to produce the same
bubble surface area flux. Moreover, optimisation of existing flotation cells may be achieved by controlling
the bubble surface area flux, through variation of impeller speed and air flow rate, keeping all other
conditions constant.

Another implication of the k and Sb relationship is that it allows the effect of reagent type and concentration
to be investigated and modelled. An investigation in a 3 litre batch cell using quartz as a probe ore has
revealed that the slope of the straight line (between k and Sb ) changes with variation in chemical conditions
[12]. By quantifying the change in slope for a particular ore type, the effect of chemical conditions on
flotation rate could be modelled effectively and reliably.

Conceptually Sb is an indication of how well gas is dispersed in flotation cells and is a better representation
than bubble size or gas holdup or superficial gas velocity individually. Air flow number ( Q/ND 3, where
Q = air flow rate, N = impeller speed and D = impeller diameter) which in concept is similar to gas
holdup [13] has been used in the past as a criterion for scale-up of flotation cells from a metallurgical
standpoint; but in the light of the results of the present investigation, bubble surface area flux could be even
a better criterion for scale-up. Moreover, S b in a flotation cell could be one of the several criteria for
impeller comparison, selection and design, or sparger design in flotation column cells.

CONCLUSIONS

A study of hydrodynamics was conducted in a 2.8 m 3 portable sub-aeration flotation cell, treating zinc
cleaner feed at the Hellyer Concentrator in Tasmania. The cell was fitted in turn with four different
impeller-stator systems and operated over a wide range of air flow rates and impeller speeds. The three
indicators of hydrodynamic conditions in the cell, viz. bubble size, gas holdup and superficial gas velocity,
were measured at each of the 64 different operating conditions, along with the metallurgical performance
of the cell.

When metallurgical performance was expressed in terms of a kinetic constant, it was found that these
indicators could not easily be related to flotation rate individually; but when taken together, these properties
determine the bubble surface area flux (Sb) in the cell, which could be related to flotation rate constant
extremely well. A linear relationship between flotation rate constant and Sb was found for all the four
different impellers investigated. Moreover, and importantly, the relationship was found to be independent
of the type of impeller used. This implies that if different impellers generate the same bubble surface area
flux in a flotation cell, they will produce the same kinetics as long as the particles are in suspension.

A size by assay analysis of the data showed that the linear relationship between flotation rate constant and
S b also holds for different size fractions. The slope of the straight line was found to vary with particle size.
 Studies on impellertype, impellerspeed and air flow rate 379

However, the slope obtained for each size fraction was found to be independent of impeller type. This
clearly implies that each size fraction behaves in accordance with the bubble surface area flux produced
in the cell irrespective of the conditions necessary to generate this flux by different impellers.

Some of the implications of the k and Sb relationship could be in flotation modelling, cell optimisation,
scale-up from a metallurgical standpoint and impeller or column sparger design, comparison and selection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the following people and organisations:

-Geoff Richmond and John Glen of Aberfoyle Resources for their full support during the test work at
Hellyer concentrator

- Roy Francis and Ashley Kidd of Scuddles Mine for their help during the Scuddles work

- AMIRA (P9K Project) and ARC for their financial support

- Stephen Gay of JKMRC and Michael Andrusiewicz of JKtech for their help in using the
'JK2DMBAL' software to balance the data sets on size by assay basis.

REFERENCES

1. Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.-P. & Manlapig, E.V., Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and
air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 1: Effect on bubble size distribution".
Minerals Engineering, 8(6), 615-635 (1995).
. Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.-P. & Manlapig, E.V., Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and
air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 2: Effect on gas holdup." Minerals
Engineering, 8(12), 1557-1570 (1995).
. Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.-P. & Manlapig, E.V., Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and
air flow rate in an industrial scale flotation cell. Part 3: Effect on superficial gas velocity"
Minerals Engineering, 9(6), 639-654 (1996).
. Tucker, J.P., Deglon, D.A., Franzidis, J.P., Harris, M.C. & O'Connor, C.T. An evaluation of
a direct method of bubble size distribution measurement in a laboratory batch flotation cell,
Minerals Engineering, 7(5/6), 667-680 (1994).
. Jameson, G.J. & Allure, P., A survey of bubble sizes in industrial flotation cells, Report for
Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA), 32-37 (1984).
6. Levenspiel, O., Chemical Reaction Engineering, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1972).
7. Laplante, A.R., Toguri, J.M. & Smith, H.W., The effect of air flow rate on the kinetics of
flotation. Part 2: The transfer of material from the froth over the cell lip, Int. Jour. Min. Proc.,
11,221-234 (1983).
. Finch, J.A. & Dobby, G.S., Column flotation, Pergamon Press: Elmsford, New York (1990).
9. Barigou, M. & Greaves, M., Bubble size in the impeller region of a Rushton turbine, Trans I
ChemE, Part A, 70, 153-160 (March 1992).
10. Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.P. & Manlapig, E.V., Bubble surface area flux: A new criterion to
evaluate flotation cell performance, SAIMM Conference, Minerals and Materials'96, Cape Town,
South Africa, 324-336 (July-August 1996).
11. Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.P. & Manlapig, E.V., The effect of gas dispersion properties on the
kinetics of flotation, 35th Annual Conference of Metallurgists, Column '96, Montreal, Canada, 299-
313 (August 1996).
12. Bacus, I.E. & Dalvie, M.A., The correlation of flotation performance with pulp phase
characteristics, Technical Report, Chemical Engineering Department, University of Cape Town,
South Africa (1995).
13. Fallenius, K., A new set of equations for the scale-up of flotation cell, In: J.Laskowski (Editor),
Xlll Inter. Min. Proc. Cong., Warsaw, 1353-1376 (1989).