3646 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
traditionally used for mechanical cells seems to
have severe limitations. If we take the inefficiency
away, flotation is fundamentally not time depen-
dent as particles won’t need multiple chances to
collect particles. Inefficient equipment and pro-
cesses make flotation dependent on time. With the
advent of new generation of efficient machines, the
impact of time on flotation is vastly reduced. From
this perspective, the concept of slow floating and
fast floating doesn’t make sense if we were to collect
particles efficiently. No doubt, there are differences
in flotation potential for different particles, but it
is our inability to provide the right conditions to
make them float in the same cell is the reason why
different particles float differently. Kinetics model-
ling is a result of our inability to provide the right
conditions and hence rate constants don’t actually
quantify the potential to float.
2. The rate constant concept is unidimensional. This
concept is only applicable for cells down-the-bank.
Flotation in fact is about enrichment and when
it comes to cleaning or upgradation, the kinetics
modelling approach is not useful. It is important to
emphasize that the kinetics approach characterized
by a time-recovery profile, doesn’t allow modelling
of cleaning stages. There is essentially no provision
for mineral concentrate upgradation in the kinet-
ics approach. Since the kinetics approach stems
from chemical engineering, this is understandable.
It is time that flotation modelling should focus on
upgradation and recovery simultaneously to model
the process effectively.
3. Kinetics modelling can be complicated as the
parameter estimations are indirect measurements,
which makes benchmarking very challenging for
complex ore bodies.
Integrating Traditional, Modelling and Simulations
with Non-Kinetics Based Flotation Modelling
This section will focus on some of the basic concepts that
captures flotation behavior that are easy to understand and
has direct relevance to various flotation process behavior,
making non-kinetics-based modelling more realistic.
The following concepts will be discussed in this paper:
• Mass recovery (MR): This is the percentage of total
solids in the feed that is recovered to the concen-
trate. This is also known as mass pull. The flotation
rougher feed is used as the reference point for all mass
recovery calculations for both cells-down-the-bank
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Flotation time (min)
Test 3 Bench Air 5l/min Deepfroth NormalPulling
Test 4 Bench Air 10l/min Deepfroth NormalPulling
Test 5 Bench Air 15l/minShallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 6 Bench Air 7.5l/min Shallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 7 Bench Air 5.0l/min Shallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 8 Bench Air 5.0l/min Deepfroth TimedPulling
Test 9 Bench Air 10l/min Deepfroth TimedPulling
Test 10 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth NoPulling ExtraFrother
Test 11 Bench Air 15l/min Deepfroth TimedPulling
Test 12 Bench Air 15l/min Deepfroth NormalPulling
Test 13 Bench Air 5l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 14 Bench Air 15l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 15 Bench Air 15l/min Shallowfroth NoPulling Extrafrother
Test 16 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 17 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 18 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 19 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth NoPulling Extrafrother
Figure 1. Impact of cell operating conditions on flotation rate for the same ore type and reagent conditions
Au
Recovery%
traditionally used for mechanical cells seems to
have severe limitations. If we take the inefficiency
away, flotation is fundamentally not time depen-
dent as particles won’t need multiple chances to
collect particles. Inefficient equipment and pro-
cesses make flotation dependent on time. With the
advent of new generation of efficient machines, the
impact of time on flotation is vastly reduced. From
this perspective, the concept of slow floating and
fast floating doesn’t make sense if we were to collect
particles efficiently. No doubt, there are differences
in flotation potential for different particles, but it
is our inability to provide the right conditions to
make them float in the same cell is the reason why
different particles float differently. Kinetics model-
ling is a result of our inability to provide the right
conditions and hence rate constants don’t actually
quantify the potential to float.
2. The rate constant concept is unidimensional. This
concept is only applicable for cells down-the-bank.
Flotation in fact is about enrichment and when
it comes to cleaning or upgradation, the kinetics
modelling approach is not useful. It is important to
emphasize that the kinetics approach characterized
by a time-recovery profile, doesn’t allow modelling
of cleaning stages. There is essentially no provision
for mineral concentrate upgradation in the kinet-
ics approach. Since the kinetics approach stems
from chemical engineering, this is understandable.
It is time that flotation modelling should focus on
upgradation and recovery simultaneously to model
the process effectively.
3. Kinetics modelling can be complicated as the
parameter estimations are indirect measurements,
which makes benchmarking very challenging for
complex ore bodies.
Integrating Traditional, Modelling and Simulations
with Non-Kinetics Based Flotation Modelling
This section will focus on some of the basic concepts that
captures flotation behavior that are easy to understand and
has direct relevance to various flotation process behavior,
making non-kinetics-based modelling more realistic.
The following concepts will be discussed in this paper:
• Mass recovery (MR): This is the percentage of total
solids in the feed that is recovered to the concen-
trate. This is also known as mass pull. The flotation
rougher feed is used as the reference point for all mass
recovery calculations for both cells-down-the-bank
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Flotation time (min)
Test 3 Bench Air 5l/min Deepfroth NormalPulling
Test 4 Bench Air 10l/min Deepfroth NormalPulling
Test 5 Bench Air 15l/minShallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 6 Bench Air 7.5l/min Shallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 7 Bench Air 5.0l/min Shallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 8 Bench Air 5.0l/min Deepfroth TimedPulling
Test 9 Bench Air 10l/min Deepfroth TimedPulling
Test 10 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth NoPulling ExtraFrother
Test 11 Bench Air 15l/min Deepfroth TimedPulling
Test 12 Bench Air 15l/min Deepfroth NormalPulling
Test 13 Bench Air 5l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 14 Bench Air 15l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 15 Bench Air 15l/min Shallowfroth NoPulling Extrafrother
Test 16 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 17 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth NormalPulling
Test 18 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth TimedPulling
Test 19 Bench Air 10l/min Shallowfroth NoPulling Extrafrother
Figure 1. Impact of cell operating conditions on flotation rate for the same ore type and reagent conditions
Au
Recovery%