Int. J. Miner. Process.

83 (2007) 1 11
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijminpro

Correspondence of gas holdup and bubble size in

presence of different frothers
F. Azgomi, C.O. Gomez, J.A. Finch
Mining, Metals and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 2B2
Received 25 September 2006; received in revised form 19 February 2007; accepted 12 March 2007
Available online 19 March 2007

Abstract

Frothers can be classified (ranked) according to the gas holdup vs. concentration relationship generated when gas is sparged into
a water column. One argument for using gas holdup is a correspondence with bubble size through the effect on bubble velocity: An
increase in gas holdup signifies a decrease in bubble velocity associated with a decrease in size. This correspondence is examined
in this communication. The method of determining bubble size is described. With MIBC as the example frother, two regions of the
gas holdup vs. concentration relationship were examined: low concentration where, rather than increasing, gas holdup varies little;
and high concentration where, rather than becoming constant, a steady increase in gas holdup occurs. The first was associated with
bubble size not having decreased sufficiently to reduce bubble velocity. In the second case the increase is associated with a steady
increase in the population of small bubbles that is not readily detected by the commonly used Sauter mean parameter. Lastly, the
bubble size at equal gas holdup for a suite of frothers was examined. Rather than being the same the bubble size showed significant
differences. This implies that there is a frother type (chemistry) effect, either on the velocity of the single bubble or the swarm. The
evidence for such a frother effect is discussed.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Frother; Bubble size; Gas holdup; Bubble rise velocity; Bubble swarms

1. Introduction velocity: As bubble size decreases bubble velocity de-

Frothers are a class of surfactants used in mineral
flotation to control (reduce) bubble size and promote
formation of froth. In a previous communication Azgomi
et al. (2006) showed that the gas holdup vs. frother
concentration relationship was strongly dependent on
frother type. This permitted a simple ranking of frothers,
which corresponded to those reported using other
procedures.
The use of gas holdup was predicated on its rela-
tionship with bubble size through its effect on bubble
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jim.finch@mcgill.ca (J.A. Finch).
0301-7516/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2007.03.002
creases and gas holdup increases. During that work three
observations were made that demanded the relationship
be explored. One observation was the insensitivity
of gas holdup at low concentration for low ranked
frothers (i.e., those where the rate of increase in gas
holdup with concentration was low); MIBC (methyl-iso-
butyl carbinol) was one such frother. The second
observation was the steady increase in gas holdup at
higher concentration, evident for all frothers, despite
being above CCC (critical coalescence concentration
(Cho and Laskowski, 2002)) when bubble size is ex-
pected to be minimum and constant and thus gas holdup
is expected to be maximum and constant. The third
observation was visual: At equal gas holdup the various
2 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111
frothers appeared to yield different bubble sizes, which
violates a common assumption, for example as im-
plicitly made by Azgomi et al. (2006) in the use of gas
holdup as a surrogate for bubble size. Previous re-
searchers have raised the possibility that different
frothers give different gas holdupbubble size depen-
dence (Zhou et al., 1991, 1992, 1993a,b). The data
related to these observations are introduced in this
communication.
To address the findings required measurement of
bubble size. The McGill bubble size analyzer (bubble
viewer) (Hernandez-Aguilar et al., 2004) was incorpo-
rated in the original (basic) set-up of Azgomi et al.
(2006). The basic set-up had to be modified for some
experiments where high concentrations of small bubbles
produced significant overlap that defeated the image
analysis software. The basic and modified test rigs are
described and tested to ensure the results are not
affected. To examine the first two observations MIBC is
used as the example frother. To aid interpretation a
Fig. 1. Experimental set-up: (a) basic; and (b) modified.
bubble disengagement technique is employed. To assess
the third observation, bubble size for a suite of frothers
is compared at equal gas holdup.
2. Experimental part
2.1. Apparatus
2.1.1. Basic and modified set-ups
The basic and modified test rigs are shown in Fig. 1.
The basic set-up employed a 238 cm high 10.16 cm
diameter Plexiglas column. The modification was de-
signed to reduce the number of bubbles entering the
bubble viewing chamber and thus improve bubble dis-
crimination and thus reliability of bubble size mea-
surement. The column was in three sections: bottom,
56 cm 10.16 cm; middle, 142 cm 5.08 cm; and top,
81 cm 10.16 cm. Gas holdup was measured in the
middle section and bubble images were taken from the
top section, where they had spread and thus the number
 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111 3

sampled and entering the viewing chamber was reduced.

The angle connecting the two end sections to the mid-
section was shallow (7) to limit bubble collision and
possible coalescence especially in the lower transition.
Bubble generation was through a porous steel plate
sparger that covered the base.
Other than the bubble viewer (described below) the
instrumentation is the same in both set-ups. A pressure
sensor was placed 11.5 cm above the sparger to record
the total head (Pbot). A calibrated mass flow meter (F)
was used to control the air flow rate. Temperature sen-
sors (Thermopar type K) monitored input air (Tair) and
solution temperature (Tsol). All tests were conducted at
room temperature (20 3 C). The average of the
temperature between Tair and Tsol and the pressure Pbot
were used to correct the air mass flow meter reading to
the conditions of the test and then the volumetric flow
rate (Qg) was determined. The flow rate is reported per Fig. 2. McGill bubble size analyzer (bubble viewer).
unit cross-sectional area of column (i.e., superficial gas
velocity, Jg), that is
as that in the column (to preserve the bubble envi-
Qg
Jg 1 ronment and minimize bubble coalescence). The sample
A tube is immersed to the desired location below any froth
The area A for the modified set-up is that of the mid- that forms and the valve is opened. Bubbles rise into the
section. The usual unit is cm/s. A differential pressure viewing chamber by buoyancy where they spread into a
transmitter (P) (Bailey model PTSDDD) was used to near single plane after contact with the inclined window.
determine gas holdup (g) given by The sloped window is a unique feature of the McGill
bubble viewer that reduces bubble overlap and provides
DP an unambiguous focal plane. Using diffused back-
eg 1  2 lighting (note the filter), bubbles cast shadows, which
L
are imaged as the bubbles slide up the window.
where P is in cm of water and L (cm) is the distance Images were collected using a digital CCD camera.
between tapping points (indicated on Fig. 1). Gas Typically 3000 plus bubbles were processed for a given
holdup will be quoted as a percentage. experiment. Images were captured and analyzed using
All the instruments are connected to an interface and Empix Northern Eclipse v6.0 and in-house BSD (bubble
signal conditioner, Opto 22. Readings were taken under size distribution) software. Bubble size distributions are
steady state conditions (determined by steady pressure generated as a number distribution and represented by
signals) and outputs were recorded every second using the number mean (d10) and Sauter mean (d32) calculated
Intellution iFix installed in a PC. Data were processed as follows:
off-line.
iP
n
di
2.1.2. Bubble viewer i1
d10 in 3
The McGill bubble viewer (Fig. 2) consists of a P
ni
sampling tube attached to a viewing chamber with a i1
window inclined to the vertical (15 in this case). The
sampling tube (PVC) had an inner diameter of 2.54 cm iP
n
and length of 78 cm and was fitted with a globe valve. di3
The viewing chamber (31.7 22.1 13.0 cm) was con- d32
i1
4
iP
n
structed from PVC with two facing glass windows.
di2
To initiate operation the valve is closed and the i1
assembly filled with water of the same temperature and p
chemistry (i.e., the same frother type and concentration) where di 3 2 d
dmax min .
4 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111

Table 1
Summary of frother types, properties and suppliers
Frother Structure Formula Molecular Supplier
weight g/gmol
1-Pentanol Aliphatic 88.15 Sigma
alcohol Aldrich

MIBC Aliphatic 102.18 Sigma

alcohol Aldrich

1-Hexanol Aliphatic 102.18 Sigma

alcohol Aldrich

1-Octanol Aliphatic 130.22 Sigma

alcohol Aldrich

F150 Polyglycol H(PO)a7OH 425 Flottec, USA

a
PO = C3H6O.

2.2. Operation 2.3. Frother types

2.2.1. General
As the objective of the work reported by Azgomi
et al. (2006) was to establish gas holdup vs. frother
concentration, the gas rate and sparger porosity were
fixed. Unless otherwise stated the gas rate (Jg) was
0.85 cm/s and the nominal pore size 10 m. Conditions
were then selected to cover a frother concentration
range from zero to beyond the CCC. The temperature
was 20 3 C.
Table 1 gives the frothers used, chosen to give a wide
range in gas holdup vs. frother concentration based on
Azgomi et al. (2006). The frothers were commercial
grade and solutions were made in Montral tap water.
MIBC was used to explore the observations at low and
high concentrations and all were compared to address

2.2.2. Disengagement technique

To help investigate the size distribution when
encountering the large population of fine bubbles with
high frother concentration, at the end of a test the air was
switched off and the bubble images recorded over time
till the bubbles had exited the column. This is referred to
as a disengagement technique and the time to exit is the
disengagement time (the longer the time to exit the finer
the bubbles). Images were captured each second to
remove any duplication of bubbles in a sequence of
frames (a similar precaution is automatic in the bubble
sizing procedure). The disengagement time was deter-
mined by adapting the image analysis software to
indicate when a frame is free of bubbles. Fig. 3. Comparing gJg relationship for modified and basic set-ups.
 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111
Fig. 4. Comparing bubble size for basic (a) and modified (b) set-ups with 0.2 mmol/L MIBC.
the question of bubble size for each frother at equivalent
gas holdup. Pentanol is not used as a frother industrially
but is included as similar short chain alcohols that can
enter the system as contaminants in, for example,
xanthates. At higher concentrations than this short chain
alcohols are considered foaming agents (e.g., Parasu
Veera et al., 2004) so their possible frother role in
flotation is of interest.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Reproducibility
Full repeat tests (i.e., starting from making fresh
solution) were conducted at selected conditions. For gas
holdup, repeat tests were performed at two Jg (0.85 and
1.3 cm/s) at six MIBC concentrations. The pooled stan-
dard deviation was 0.36%. For bubble size, three repeats
were conducted at two conditions: 0.2 mmol/L MIBC in
the basic set-up and 0.1 mmol/L MIBC in the modified
set-up. The pooled standard deviations for d10 and d32
were 0.046 mm and 0.053 mm, respectively.
3.2. Comparing basic and modified set-ups
It is necessary to establish that the modification did
not alter the gas holdup or bubble size results. Fig. 3
shows that the gas holdup vs. concentration relationship
(measured in the mid-section of the modified column) is
the same for both set-ups. The difference is slightly
more than the precision in one column (standard devi-
ation 0.36%) but sufficiently close for current purposes.
Fig. 4 compares two images taken in the basic and
modified columns under identical operating conditions
(low enough in frother concentration that the image in
the basic set-up could be analyzed reliably). The im-
proved clarity of the image in the modified case (b)
compared to the basic (a) is evident. The mean sizes,
however, are the same (i.e., within the precision for one
set-up). The modified column, therefore, did not disturb
5
the fluid flow patterns sufficiently to alter the gas holdup
or promote bubble coalescence/breakage.
3.3. The gas holdupconcentration relationship
Fig. 5 is abstracted from Azgomi et al. (2006) to
show the gas holdup vs. concentration relationship for
the frothers in Table 1. It illustrates the strong depen-
dence on frother type. The general trend is noted: a
relatively slow increase in gas holdup at low concen-
tration for the weaker frothers (in regard to their effect
on gas holdup) and the continued increase at high con-
centration for all frothers. The concentration at which
the rate of increase starts to decline roughly corresponds
to the reported CCC for these frothers (Laskowski,
2003). All frothers reached a gas holdup of 6% and 8%
which were selected to compare the bubble sizes.
3.4. The observations at low and high concentrations
The frother selected was MIBC as it shows the effects
of interest at the low as well as high concentration
regions. Fig. 6 emphasizes the response using a 5 m
pore sparger that reveals the insensitivity of gas holdup
at low concentration more clearly.
3.4.1. Low concentration region
Fig. 6 indicates that gas holdup is little influenced by
MIBC dosage up to ca. 0.08 mmol/L when it starts to
increase. The corresponding bubble size decreases
continuously over this same concentration range to ca.
1.5 mm. The lack of impact on gas holdup is not because
the bubble size is not changing, but rather, it is sug-
gested, is related to the dependence of bubble velocity
on bubble size. From the relationship between bubble
size and terminal velocity (Clift et al., 2005), terminal
velocity is essentially constant for db N 1.5 mm (up to
ca. 10 mm) and decreases with size for bubbles db b
1.5 mm. The region of limited gas holdup response
appears to be related to the bubble size being greater
6 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111
than ca. 1.5 mm and thus the rise velocity is insensitive
to size.
3.4.2. High concentration region
Figs. 5 and 6 show the steady increase in gas holdup
at high frother concentration. This was not initially
expected as the concentration is above the CCC and
bubble size is expected to be constant and so, in con-
sequence, should be bubble velocity and gas holdup.
Fig. 6 does suggest a constant Sauter mean (d32) bubble
size (above ca. 0.15 mmol/L) which is the common
measure used in flotation studies (Finch and Dobby,
1990; Grau et al., 2005). The d10 and fraction less than
1 mm, however, do indicate the size is decreasing as
concentration increases (Table 2). The d10 is more
sensitive to the presence of fine bubbles than the d32;
thus together with the %-1 mm these measures do sup-
port that the population of fine bubbles is growing as the
increasing gas holdup implies. For reference, the bubble
size predicted from the gas holdupgas rate combina-
tion using drift flux analysis (Banisi and Finch, 1994) is
included in the table: It decreases roughly in accord with
the d10.
The increase in fineness of the bubble population
with increasing concentration was confirmed using the
disengagement technique. The result for two concentra-
tions, 0.1 and 1 mmol/L, is shown in Fig. 7. The bubble
size in the image decreases over time as the larger, faster
moving bubbles disengage first. It evidently takes
longer for disengagement at the higher concentration
compared to the lower although the final, minimum
size in the population is essentially unchanged (ca.
0.38 mm). (For reference, the minimum bubble size
resolved with the set-up is ca. 0.2 mm.)
Fig. 5. Comparing gas holdup vs. concentration for the frothers in
Table 1 (taken from Azgomi et al., 2006).
Fig. 6. Gas holdup and bubble size (Sauter mean) vs. frother
concentration for MIBC (Jg = 0.85 cm/s; pore size 5 m).
The disengagement time is plotted in Fig. 8 as a
function of MIBC concentration. The trend (dashed
line) is clearly to an increasing time. The fact that it
takes longer to disengage at higher concentration means
a lower swarm velocity which corresponds to the in-
crease in gas holdup. An interpretation is that the longer
time indicates more fine bubbles (although not finer
bubbles), which simultaneously hinder the swarm bub-
ble rise (causing gas holdup to rise) and decrease the
mean size d10.
Combining the evidence, the conclusion is that the
continued increase in gas holdup with concentration
does indicate a bubble population becoming finer. This
means that bubble size continues to decrease above
CCC, which appears to be hinted at recently by others
(Grau et al., 2005).
This does not invalidate CCC as a working concept.
When frother concentration reaches the near-plateau in
the gas holdupconcentration plot (or bubble size
concentration plot), taken as the CCC, it is likely that the
primary coalescence event (that at the moment of bubble
production) has been suppressed and the effects observed
at higher concentration (i.e., continued slow bubble size
decrease) correspond to secondary events.1 From a prac-
tical point of view, plants would rarely choose to operate
above the CCC so it retains the notion of a practical upper
limit, such that concentration relative to CCC becomes a
potential guide to where the plant is operating.
1
This assumes that coalescence is the principal mechanism
controlling bubble generation but speculation on break-up mechan-
isms has also been advanced (Grau et al., 2005; Finch et al., 2006).
 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111 7

Table 2
Various bubble size parameters as a function of MIBC concentration
and corresponding gas holdup (Jg = 0.85 cm/s; pore size 10 m)
MIBC g % %- d32, mm d10, mm db, mm calculated
mmol/L 1 mm measured measured (drift flux analysis)
0 4.47 8.1 a 4.28 3.20 2.28
0.05 5.17 0.8 2.16 2.01 1.94
0.065 5.85 12.7 1.35 1.26 1.69
0.1 8.62 72.2 0.99 0.87 1.13
0.2 9.94 73.4 1.02 0.86 0.99
0.4 11.23 76.5 1.03 0.85 0.89
0.7 12.26 80.3 1.00 0.84 0.82
1 12.54 80.7 1.04 0.80 0.81
a
The high %-1 mm in water alone is commonly observed and results
from a coalescence induced bubble breakup mechanism (Tse et al.,
2003) that frother suppresses.
Fig. 8. Disengagement time as a function of frother concentration and
corresponding bubble size.
3.5. Bubble size at equal gas holdup

Figs. 9 and 10 show images and mean sizes for the
five frothers at 6% and 8% gas holdups, respectively
(the concentrations needed to achieve this equivalent
gas holdup are also indicated), and Figs. 11 and 12 show
the corresponding cumulative (number) frequency
distributions. There is a clear difference in size, at the
extreme F150 producing about twice the mean bubble
size as Pentanol. The order of bubble size is the same as
the gas holdup in Fig. 5, with the two C6 alcohols
(MIBC and Hexanol) having similar gas holdup also
displaying similar bubble size. Figs. 11 and 12 indicate
the size distributions for the alcohols having a similar
shape while that for F150 is broader.
The common assumption is that there is a unique
relationship among gas holdup, gas rate and bubble size,
Fig. 7. Disengagement test: bubble size as a function of time after air is
shut off.
i.e., it would be independent of frother (surfactant) type.
This is employed, for instance, when using drift flux
analysis to estimate bubble size (Banisi and Finch,
1994). This was challenged by Zhou et al. (1991, 1992,
1993a,b) who noted that a higher gas holdup does not
necessarily mean that a smaller size of bubble is pro-
duced in a column for different frother systems (Zhou
et al., 1993a). The present results support that claim.
The effect may be related to the velocitysize rela-
tionship for the individual bubble or the bubble swarm.
Consider first the individual bubble. The velocity could
refer to either a transient (non-equilibrium) or the steady
state (terminal) value. Sam et al. (1996) showed that the
rise velocity of a bubble can display a notable decel-
eration stage as frother accumulates which varied with
frother type. A possibility is that the effect shown in
Figs. 9 and 10 results from bubbles in each frother
system being at different positions in this deceleration
stage. This is ruled out for the moment as the concen-
trations in question appear well above those for which
marked deceleration was observed by Sam et al. (1996).
If the phenomenon is related to the individual bubble it
appears to be related to its terminal velocity.
The common correlations for the terminal velocity
size relationship (ubdb) distinguish between clean
water and contaminated water, generally without fur-
ther discussion as to nature of the contaminant, other
than it being surface active (Clift et al., 2005). The effect
of surfactant is generally related to the following se-
quence of events: surfactant adsorbs and is concentrated
towards the rear surface of a rising bubble due to the
mobility of its surface; as a consequence a surface
tension gradient is generated that creates a force that
opposes the mobility, i.e., increases bubble surface
8 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111
Fig. 9. Bubble images and size measurements at equal 6% gas holdup for different frothers (note, sizes are in mm).
rigidity; there is then a corresponding increase in drag
coefficient (CD) which causes the bubble rise velocity to
decrease (Duhkin et al., 1998). According to Karamanev
(1994), for bubble Reynolds number (Reb) above ca.
130 CD 0.95, and for Reb b 130 the values can be
taken from the standard drag curve for settling solids.
For three frothers (pine oil, MIBC, Dowfroth 250)
(Zhang et al., 1996) and Triton X-100 (Zhang et al.,
2003) this correlation proved a reasonable fit to the
measured terminal velocities. That is, no dependence on
frother type was suggested.
Zhou et al. (1992) introduced an empirical contam-
ination factor to allow for a frother effect to establish a
fit to bubble velocity vs. size data. There may be a
question whether terminal velocity was reached in
deriving these factors (Sam et al., 1996). The literature
does not appear to support that surfactant type controls
the ubdb relationship. The agreement with Karamanev
noted above is one example and the ability to predict
bubble size being not greatly improved by using the
contamination factor approach (Finch et al., 1995) is
another. Sam et al. (1996) and Zhang et al. (1996) did
find consistent differences in terminal velocity among
pine oil, MIBC and Dowfroth 250 but the differences
appear too small (b 2 cm/s for a 1.5 mm diameter
bubble) to imply the effects seen in Figs. 912. Malysa
et al. for a series of alcohols (up to 9 carbon) (Krzan and
Malysa, 2002) and other surfactants (Krzan et al., 2004)
likewise appeared to find no significant difference in
terminal velocity attributable to surfactant type. Never-
theless, it seems prudent to check by generating single
bubble terminal velocity vs. size data for the range in
surfactants used here. It is known that different frothers
bind different amounts of water to a bubble (Finch et al.,
2006) suggesting varying degrees of interaction with the
water (via the frother hydrophilic groups) that depend
on frother chemistry and could induce a frother-
dependent surface viscosity that influences rise velocity,
as speculated by Zhou et al. (1991). This role of surface
viscosity is usually deemed negligible compared to the
rigid bubble mechanism but the possibility is still
considered (Duhkin et al., 1998).
The effect may not be on the individual bubble,
however, but on the swarm behaviour. Bubbles interact
to hinder (slow) rise velocity and this interaction may be
reflective of frother type. To attack the hypothesis we
 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111 9

Fig. 10. Bubble images and size measurements at 8% gas holdup for the different frothers (note, sizes are in mm).

are devising ways to track individual bubbles in a swarm
as well as measuring the swarm velocity itself.
At this stage, therefore, there are insufficient data to
explain the differences in bubble size at equal gas
holdup. We are left with the remarkable observation
that, at the concentrations used, Pentanol can produce
fine bubbles but they rise with little retardation com-
pared to F150 that did not produce such small bubbles
but introduced significant retardation; that is, Pentanol
acts as a strong surfactant with regard to bubble size
reduction and F150 acts as a strong surfactant (con-
taminant) with regard to retarding rise velocity.

Fig. 11. Cumulative number frequency for the five frothers at 6% gas Fig. 12. Cumulative number frequency for the five frothers at 8% gas
holdup (conditions as in Fig. 9). holdup (conditions as in Fig. 10).
10 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111
There are two implications related to the present
results that also need further data: In Fig. 5, at high
concentrations the bubble size is probably similar for
each frother (Moyo, 2005) while the gas holdups are
very different (this is a corollary of the observations in
Figs. 912); and, the explanation given above for the
limited response at low concentration may hold for
MIBC but not for frothers that are stronger (e.g., F150)
and weaker (e.g., Pentanol). The observation discussed
here stems from work on bubble columns and it will be
important to extend to stirred reactors (i.e., mechanical
flotation machines). Future investigations promise to
reveal more intriguing properties on this class of sur-
factants, flotation frothers, which have received consid-
erably less attention than their counterparts, collectors,
in the flotation process.
4. Conclusions
Measurements of bubble size were used to help
interpret the gas holdup vs. frother concentration rela-
tionships reported in a previous communication
(Azgomi et al., 2006). The findings are:
1. The relatively slow increase in gas holdup at low
concentration shown by some frothers appears to
result from bubbles having a diameter greater than ca.
1.5 mm where bubble velocity is insensitive to size.
2. The continued increase in gas holdup at concentra-
tions above the CCC corresponds to a continued
(if slow) increase in the population of fine bubbles.
This is supported by an increase in the fraction of
bubbles less than 1 mm and increase in disengage-
ment times as frother concentration increases.
3. A difference in bubble size for different frothers at
equal gas holdup is confirmed. There are insufficient
data at present to resolve the origin but it would seem
to be an important characteristic of this class of
surfactants.
Acknowledgements
Funding was through the Chair in Mineral Processing
at McGill University, under the Collaborative Research
and Development program of NSERC (Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada) with
industrial sponsorship from Inco (now CVRD Inco),
Teck Cominco, Falconbridge/Noranda (now Xstrata
Nickel), COREM and SGS Lakefield Research. Exten-
sive discussions with Jan Nesset, Stphanie Glinas,
Pamela Moyo, J. Quinn (McGill) and Frank Cappuccitti
(Flottec) are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Azgomi, F., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2006. Characterizing frothers
using gas holdup. 6th UBCMcGillUA Symposium on Mineral
Processing Fundamentals (Eds. Z. Xu and Q. Liu), Montreal,
pp. 429442.
Banisi, S., Finch, J.A., 1994. Technical note: reconciliation of bubble size
estimation methods using drift flux analysis. Minerals Engineering 7,
15551559.
Cho, Y.S., Laskowski, J.S., 2002. Effect of flotation frothers on bubble
size and foam stability. International Journal of Mineral Processing
64, 6980.
Clift, R., Grace, J.R., Weber, M.E., 2005. Bubbles, Drops, and
Particles. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York. 380 pp.
Duhkin, S.S., Miller, R., Loglio, G., 1998. Physico-chemical hydro-
dynamics of rising bubble. In: Mbius, D., Miller, R. (Eds.), Drops
and Bubbles in Interfacial Research. Studies in Interfacial Science,
vol. 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 367375.
Finch, J.A., Dobby, G.S., 1990. Column Flotation. Pergamon Press,
Oxford. 180 pp.
Finch, J.A., Uribe-Salas, A., Xu, M., 1995. Column flotation. In:
Matis, K.A. (Ed.), Flotation Science and Engineering. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp. 57100.
Finch, J.A., Glinas, S., Moyo, P., 2006. Frother-related research at
McGill University. Minerals Engineering 19, 726733.
Grau, R.A., Laskowski, J.S., Heiskanen, K., 2005. Effects of frothers on
bubble size. International Journal of Mineral Processing 76, 225233.
Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Coleman, R.G., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A.,
2004. A comparison between capillary and imaging techniques for
sizing bubbles in flotation systems. Minerals Engineering 17, 5361.
Karamanev, D.G., 1994. Rise of gas bubbles in quiescent liquids.
AIChE Journal 40, 14181421.
Krzan, M., Malysa, K., 2002. Profiles of local velocities of bubbles in
n-butanol, n-hexanol, and n-nonanol solutions. Colloids and
Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 207,
279291.
Krzan, M., Lunkenheimer, K., Malysa, K., 2004. On the influence of
the surfactant's polar group on the local and terminal velocities
of bubbles. Colloids and Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects 250, 431441.
Laskowski, J.S., 2003. Fundamental properties of flotation frothers. In:
Lorenzen, L., Bradshaw, D. (Eds.), Proceedings 22nd Int. Min.
Proc. Congress Cape Town, Sept.29Oct.3, pp. 788797.
Moyo, P., 2005. Characterization of frothers by water carrying rate.
M. Eng. Thesis, McGill University.
Parasu Veera, U., Kataria, K.L., Joshi, J.B., 2004. Effect of superficial
gas velocity on gas hold-up profiles in foaming liquids in bubble
column reactors. Chemical Engineering Journal 99, 5358.
Sam, A., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 1996. Velocity profiles of single
bubbles. International Journal of Mineral Processing 47, 177196.
Tse, K.L., Martin, T., McFarlane, C.M., Nienow, A.W., 2003. Small
bubble formation via a coalescence dependent break-up mecha-
nism. Chemical Engineering Science 58, 275286.
Zhang, Y., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 1996. Terminal velocity of bubbles:
approach and preliminary investigations. In: Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A.
(Eds.), Column '96: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Column Flotation Met. Soc. CIM, Montreal, Aug. 2628, pp. 6373.
Zhang, Y., Sam, A., Finch, J.A., 2003. Temperature effect on single
bubble velocity profile in water and surfactant solution. Colloids and
Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 223, 4554.
Zhou, Z.A., Egiebor, N.O., Plitt, L.R., 1991. On bubble size
determination in a flotation column. In: Agar, G.E., Huls, B.J.,
 F. Azgomi et al. / Int. J. Miner. Process. 83 (2007) 111 11

Hyma, D.B. (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on
Column Flotation vol. 1, 249262.
Zhou, Z.A., Egiebor, N.O., Plitt, L.R., 1992. Frother effect on bubble
motion in a water column. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 31,
1116.
Zhou, Z.A., Egiebor, N.O., Plitt, L.R., 1993a. Frother effects on bubble
motion in a swarm. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 32, 8996.
Zhou, Z.A., Egiebor, N.O., Plitt, L.R., 1993b. Frother effects on
bubble size estimation in a flotation column. Minerals Engineering
6, 5567.