2708
Exploring Froth Zone Performance in Flotation
Circuit Optimization
B. McFadzean, S. Geldenhuys, N. Buthelezi
Centre for Minerals Research, University of Cape Town, South Africa
N.P. Lima
Vale S.A., Av. Dr. Marco Paulo Simon Jardim, Bairro Piemonte, Nova Lima, Brasil
ABSTRACT: Quantifiable measurement of froth zone performance has posed persistent challenges for flotation
circuit optimization and modelling. While at the laboratory scale, the batch flotation cell has long served as
the conventional tool for flotation test work, it has obvious inherent issues when it comes to assessing froth
characteristics, including shallow froth depths and non-equilibrium froths. At full scale, various methods for
measuring froth recovery or using proxies have been employed, each yielding varying levels of success. This
paper explores simple and practical methods for estimating froth zone performance using examples from iron
and PGM ores.
INTRODUCTION
The measurement of froth recovery remains problematic
in flotation modelling. Most models of flotation perfor-
mance use some measure of froth zone performance and,
in most cases, this measure is the froth recovery. There have
been various methods attempted to measure froth recovery.
Some of these include:
1. Direct measurements of bubble load (Falutsu and
Dobby, 1992 Seaman et al., 2006 Yianatos et al.,
2008 Rahman et al., 2013),
2. Mass balance estimations of bubble load (Savassi
et al., 1997),
3. The method of varying froth depth (Feteris et al.,
1987 Vera et al., 1998),
4. Air recovery, which has been linked in various ways
to froth recovery (Neethling, 2008 Quintanilla et
al., 2021), and sometimes used directly as a froth
recovery measurement, which is questionable
(Oosthuizen et al., 2021),
5. Using froth retention time (FRT) as shown in
Equation 1, where β is an empirical fitting param-
eter (Gorain et al., 1998),
R e
f
FRTh =b- ^(1)
6. Using the froth retention time (FRT) modified
for some form of froth stability measurement as
shown in Equation 2, where t1/2 is the measured
froth half-life time (Tsatouhas et al., 2006 Zanin
et al., 2009).
R e /2
f
t1
FRT =b- `j (2)
In the current paper, the objective is to use the simplest and
easiest of methods to measure froth recovery and, therefore,
Exploring Froth Zone Performance in Flotation
Circuit Optimization
B. McFadzean, S. Geldenhuys, N. Buthelezi
Centre for Minerals Research, University of Cape Town, South Africa
N.P. Lima
Vale S.A., Av. Dr. Marco Paulo Simon Jardim, Bairro Piemonte, Nova Lima, Brasil
ABSTRACT: Quantifiable measurement of froth zone performance has posed persistent challenges for flotation
circuit optimization and modelling. While at the laboratory scale, the batch flotation cell has long served as
the conventional tool for flotation test work, it has obvious inherent issues when it comes to assessing froth
characteristics, including shallow froth depths and non-equilibrium froths. At full scale, various methods for
measuring froth recovery or using proxies have been employed, each yielding varying levels of success. This
paper explores simple and practical methods for estimating froth zone performance using examples from iron
and PGM ores.
INTRODUCTION
The measurement of froth recovery remains problematic
in flotation modelling. Most models of flotation perfor-
mance use some measure of froth zone performance and,
in most cases, this measure is the froth recovery. There have
been various methods attempted to measure froth recovery.
Some of these include:
1. Direct measurements of bubble load (Falutsu and
Dobby, 1992 Seaman et al., 2006 Yianatos et al.,
2008 Rahman et al., 2013),
2. Mass balance estimations of bubble load (Savassi
et al., 1997),
3. The method of varying froth depth (Feteris et al.,
1987 Vera et al., 1998),
4. Air recovery, which has been linked in various ways
to froth recovery (Neethling, 2008 Quintanilla et
al., 2021), and sometimes used directly as a froth
recovery measurement, which is questionable
(Oosthuizen et al., 2021),
5. Using froth retention time (FRT) as shown in
Equation 1, where β is an empirical fitting param-
eter (Gorain et al., 1998),
R e
f
FRTh =b- ^(1)
6. Using the froth retention time (FRT) modified
for some form of froth stability measurement as
shown in Equation 2, where t1/2 is the measured
froth half-life time (Tsatouhas et al., 2006 Zanin
et al., 2009).
R e /2
f
t1
FRT =b- `j (2)
In the current paper, the objective is to use the simplest and
easiest of methods to measure froth recovery and, therefore,