8
gangue minerals of this ultrafine phosphate slime sample
were mainly composed of quartz and muscovite. As dem-
onstrated by the grade-recovery relationships in Figure 13,
significantly improved flotation performance was achieved
used column rougher and rougher-cleaner flotation versus
mechanical cell rougher and 5-stage cleaner flotation. As
a result of the use of cavitation-tube sparger, wash water
and a deep froth phase, high recoveries were maintained at
much improved product grades.
Figure 14 displays the phosphate concentrate gangue
[Al2O3+Fe2O3] content and P2O5 recovery relation-
ships for the optimal bench-top and column flotation
tests performed on the Industries Chimiques du Senegal
(ICS) ultrafine slime tailings, a concentrate grade of 2.3%
[Al2O3+Fe2O3] and 36.0% P2O5 was achieved at 89.4%
P2O5 recovery. As illustrated by the grade-recovery rela-
tionships in Figure 14, an obviously higher flotation P2O5
recovery and lower [Al2O3+Fe2O3] content was achieved
using column flotation than benchtop mechanical flota-
tion. High amounts of [Al2O3+Fe2O3] in the phosphate
concentrate product will decrease the next stage wet process
plant capacity and phosphoric acid recovery. Generally, less
than 2–3% of [Al2O3+Fe2O3] is desired.
Both Figure 13 and Figure 14 demonstrate that cavi-
tation-tube flotation columns are superior to conventional
mechanical cells. In addition to lower ultrafine gangue
particle entrainment, the ultrafine bubble selectively floc-
culated ultrafine/fine phosphate particles encountered less
turbulence in the collection zone near the column flotation
feed point than in mechanical cell flotation, preventing the
break-up of formed phosphate particle flocs. Cavitation
tube generated fine and ultrafine bubbles can assist fine
hydrophobic particles to form flocs and thus improve fine/
ultrafine particle flotation kinetics and selectivity.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Microscopic observations of ultrafine phosphate slime flo-
tation froth with and without wash water demonstrate that
the entrained ultrafine gangue minerals such as iron oxide,
quartz, and muscovite particles can be minimized by using
wash water in column flotation.
In the three-factor (wash water rate, feed slurry solids
content, and feed particle size) three-level central com-
posite design experiment flotation tests, the best flotation
results were achieved at the middle-level feed solids content
(17.5%) and middle to high level wash water rate (400–
800 liter/minute).
Improved flotation performance was achieved for both
various ultrafine phosphate slime samples using column
flotation as compared to benchtop mechanical flotation.
The enhanced flotation performance was because of the
use of cavitation-tube sparger, wash water and a deep froth
phase in column flotation.
REFERENCES
[1] Kohmuench J, Christodoulou L, Fan M M, Mankosa
M, Luttrell G (2010) Advancements in coarse and fine
particle flotation. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual
Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference,
Ontario, Canadian Mineral Processors, pp.55–69.
[2] Wyslouzil H, Kohmeunch J, Christodoulou L, Fan M
M (2009) Coarse and fine particle flotation, COM
2009, 48th Conference of Metallurgists, August
23–26, Sudbury, Ontario.
[3] Wasmund E B (2014) Flotation technology for coarse
and fine particle recovery. I Congreso Internacional
De Flotacion De Minerales. Lima, Peru Aug 2014.
[4] Fan M M, Tao D (2008) A Study on picobubble
enhanced coarse phosphate froth flotation. Separation
Science and Technology 43:1–10.
[5] Fan M M, Tao D, Honaker R, Luo Z F (2010)
Nanobubble generation and its application in froth
flotation (part I): nanobubble generation and its effects
on properties of microbubble and millimeter scale
bubble solutions. Mining Science and Technology
(Now: Int J of Min Sci and Techn). 20(1):1–19.
[6] Fan M M, Tao D, Honaker R, Luo Z F (2010)
Nanobubble generation and its application in froth
flotation (part II): fundamental study and theo-
retical analysis. Mining Science and Technology
20(2):159–177.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Al
2 O
3 +Fe
2 O
3 (%)
Column Rougher-Scavenger Flotation
Column Rougher Only
Benchtop mechanical cell rougher-Scavenger
Figure 14. Flotation column vs benchtop mechanical cell
PO
2
5
Recovery
(%)
gangue minerals of this ultrafine phosphate slime sample
were mainly composed of quartz and muscovite. As dem-
onstrated by the grade-recovery relationships in Figure 13,
significantly improved flotation performance was achieved
used column rougher and rougher-cleaner flotation versus
mechanical cell rougher and 5-stage cleaner flotation. As
a result of the use of cavitation-tube sparger, wash water
and a deep froth phase, high recoveries were maintained at
much improved product grades.
Figure 14 displays the phosphate concentrate gangue
[Al2O3+Fe2O3] content and P2O5 recovery relation-
ships for the optimal bench-top and column flotation
tests performed on the Industries Chimiques du Senegal
(ICS) ultrafine slime tailings, a concentrate grade of 2.3%
[Al2O3+Fe2O3] and 36.0% P2O5 was achieved at 89.4%
P2O5 recovery. As illustrated by the grade-recovery rela-
tionships in Figure 14, an obviously higher flotation P2O5
recovery and lower [Al2O3+Fe2O3] content was achieved
using column flotation than benchtop mechanical flota-
tion. High amounts of [Al2O3+Fe2O3] in the phosphate
concentrate product will decrease the next stage wet process
plant capacity and phosphoric acid recovery. Generally, less
than 2–3% of [Al2O3+Fe2O3] is desired.
Both Figure 13 and Figure 14 demonstrate that cavi-
tation-tube flotation columns are superior to conventional
mechanical cells. In addition to lower ultrafine gangue
particle entrainment, the ultrafine bubble selectively floc-
culated ultrafine/fine phosphate particles encountered less
turbulence in the collection zone near the column flotation
feed point than in mechanical cell flotation, preventing the
break-up of formed phosphate particle flocs. Cavitation
tube generated fine and ultrafine bubbles can assist fine
hydrophobic particles to form flocs and thus improve fine/
ultrafine particle flotation kinetics and selectivity.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Microscopic observations of ultrafine phosphate slime flo-
tation froth with and without wash water demonstrate that
the entrained ultrafine gangue minerals such as iron oxide,
quartz, and muscovite particles can be minimized by using
wash water in column flotation.
In the three-factor (wash water rate, feed slurry solids
content, and feed particle size) three-level central com-
posite design experiment flotation tests, the best flotation
results were achieved at the middle-level feed solids content
(17.5%) and middle to high level wash water rate (400–
800 liter/minute).
Improved flotation performance was achieved for both
various ultrafine phosphate slime samples using column
flotation as compared to benchtop mechanical flotation.
The enhanced flotation performance was because of the
use of cavitation-tube sparger, wash water and a deep froth
phase in column flotation.
REFERENCES
[1] Kohmuench J, Christodoulou L, Fan M M, Mankosa
M, Luttrell G (2010) Advancements in coarse and fine
particle flotation. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual
Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference,
Ontario, Canadian Mineral Processors, pp.55–69.
[2] Wyslouzil H, Kohmeunch J, Christodoulou L, Fan M
M (2009) Coarse and fine particle flotation, COM
2009, 48th Conference of Metallurgists, August
23–26, Sudbury, Ontario.
[3] Wasmund E B (2014) Flotation technology for coarse
and fine particle recovery. I Congreso Internacional
De Flotacion De Minerales. Lima, Peru Aug 2014.
[4] Fan M M, Tao D (2008) A Study on picobubble
enhanced coarse phosphate froth flotation. Separation
Science and Technology 43:1–10.
[5] Fan M M, Tao D, Honaker R, Luo Z F (2010)
Nanobubble generation and its application in froth
flotation (part I): nanobubble generation and its effects
on properties of microbubble and millimeter scale
bubble solutions. Mining Science and Technology
(Now: Int J of Min Sci and Techn). 20(1):1–19.
[6] Fan M M, Tao D, Honaker R, Luo Z F (2010)
Nanobubble generation and its application in froth
flotation (part II): fundamental study and theo-
retical analysis. Mining Science and Technology
20(2):159–177.
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Al
2 O
3 +Fe
2 O
3 (%)
Column Rougher-Scavenger Flotation
Column Rougher Only
Benchtop mechanical cell rougher-Scavenger
Figure 14. Flotation column vs benchtop mechanical cell
PO
2
5
Recovery
(%)