5
three distinct outcomes represent 100% of the varying
biosurfactants tested. Recent research conducted by Silva
et al. (2023) demonstrated that combining different bio-
surfactants yields unique FVS, FLS, and R32 values. These
findings emphasize the potential for customizing biosur-
factant-based frothers to enhance the efficiency of the froth
flotation process.
Microflotation Cells Results
Figure 5 presents the iron recovery results in two distinct
scenarios: a) without the addition of biosurfactants, exam-
ining various pH levels along with combinations of Amine
and MIBC and b) with the biosurfactant Bio-FPL-02,
testing different proportions with Amine across various pH
levels. The results indicate that the use of biosurfactants
enhance overall recovery across all tested pH ranges.
Given the various variables and multiple possibilities
involved, the best approach in this situation is to utilize
“Numerical Optimization.” This method optimizes any
combination of one or more selected parameters, which can
pertain to either factors or responses. The potential objec-
tives that can be chosen include maximizing, minimizing,
targeting, staying within a range, having no specific goal
Table 4. Flotation Conditions – Denver Laboratory Cell
Description Denver
Cell Volume 2.5 L
%Solids 30%
Specific Gravity 4.7 Kg/dm3
Slurry density 1.31 Kg/dm3
Slurry mass 3.27 Kg
Solids Mass 0.982 kg
water volume 2.29 L
Process Water -pH 8.28
Process Water -Turbidity 0.16 NTU
Collector 0.2 lb/t
Frother 0.025 lb/t
Flotation pH 8.2
Type of Tests Kinetic/Regular
Figure 4. FrothBoost A and FrothBoost I-H Foam analyser screen shot comparison
three distinct outcomes represent 100% of the varying
biosurfactants tested. Recent research conducted by Silva
et al. (2023) demonstrated that combining different bio-
surfactants yields unique FVS, FLS, and R32 values. These
findings emphasize the potential for customizing biosur-
factant-based frothers to enhance the efficiency of the froth
flotation process.
Microflotation Cells Results
Figure 5 presents the iron recovery results in two distinct
scenarios: a) without the addition of biosurfactants, exam-
ining various pH levels along with combinations of Amine
and MIBC and b) with the biosurfactant Bio-FPL-02,
testing different proportions with Amine across various pH
levels. The results indicate that the use of biosurfactants
enhance overall recovery across all tested pH ranges.
Given the various variables and multiple possibilities
involved, the best approach in this situation is to utilize
“Numerical Optimization.” This method optimizes any
combination of one or more selected parameters, which can
pertain to either factors or responses. The potential objec-
tives that can be chosen include maximizing, minimizing,
targeting, staying within a range, having no specific goal
Table 4. Flotation Conditions – Denver Laboratory Cell
Description Denver
Cell Volume 2.5 L
%Solids 30%
Specific Gravity 4.7 Kg/dm3
Slurry density 1.31 Kg/dm3
Slurry mass 3.27 Kg
Solids Mass 0.982 kg
water volume 2.29 L
Process Water -pH 8.28
Process Water -Turbidity 0.16 NTU
Collector 0.2 lb/t
Frother 0.025 lb/t
Flotation pH 8.2
Type of Tests Kinetic/Regular
Figure 4. FrothBoost A and FrothBoost I-H Foam analyser screen shot comparison