8
The results indicated that some biosurfactant products
can enhance both recovery and selectivity. Some products
lead to a significant increase in recovery along with a slight
rise in the SiO2 content of the final concentrate, while oth-
ers demonstrate strong selectivity, significantly reducing the
amount of SiO2 in the final concentrate. Overall, the first
and last results suggest a dual action of biosurfactants, func-
tioning as both collectors and frothers.
To normalize the results, we calculated the separa-
tion efficiency, as defined by the coefficient of perfection
(Gaudin, 1932) and plotted it against the selectivity index
(also Gaudin, 1932). The data shows that all biosurfactant
products exhibit greater separation efficiency and selectiv-
ity index compared to the baseline. Notably, FrothBoost
AAP4 and FrothBoost AAP1 S0 achieved the highest values
in both metrics.
Figure 10 presents the results from kinetic tests, spe-
cifically illustrating the relationship between SiO2 and mass
pull fast kinetics in Figure 10(a). By analyzing these two
parameters, we can assess improvements in kinetics and
gain insights into efficiency, especially since the main min-
eral we are floating in this case is quartz. When the kinetic
constant for SiO2 is similar to or higher than the baseline,
and the mass pull kinetic constant is lower, this indicates
reduced entrainment when using biosurfactant products.
Figure 10(b) shows the water recovery over time. It is evi-
dent that all the biosurfactant product results have lower
water recovery compared to the baseline. This lower water
recovery can be associated with entrainment, in the sense
that having a higher water recovery means a higher entrain-
ment, this result indicates a good performance of biosurfac-
tant products which supports the previous finding.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this research are backed by a robust multi-
dimensional methodology that includes Design of
Experiments (DOE) as a custom-designed, high-perfor-
mance foam analyzer, microflotation, and laboratory bench
flotation.
Figure 9. Separation efficiency (Coefficient of Perfection -Gaudin (1928) Mineral Dressing – SE =
(%recovery of values in conc) +(%removal of waste in tails) – 100 ® (R+R
gt – 100)) vs Selectivity
Index (Gaudin (1930) Mineral Dressing- R Rgt R Rgthi 100 #'#--_^^100 h
Figure 10. a) SiO2 and Mass Pull fast kinetics, and b) water recovery over time
The results indicated that some biosurfactant products
can enhance both recovery and selectivity. Some products
lead to a significant increase in recovery along with a slight
rise in the SiO2 content of the final concentrate, while oth-
ers demonstrate strong selectivity, significantly reducing the
amount of SiO2 in the final concentrate. Overall, the first
and last results suggest a dual action of biosurfactants, func-
tioning as both collectors and frothers.
To normalize the results, we calculated the separa-
tion efficiency, as defined by the coefficient of perfection
(Gaudin, 1932) and plotted it against the selectivity index
(also Gaudin, 1932). The data shows that all biosurfactant
products exhibit greater separation efficiency and selectiv-
ity index compared to the baseline. Notably, FrothBoost
AAP4 and FrothBoost AAP1 S0 achieved the highest values
in both metrics.
Figure 10 presents the results from kinetic tests, spe-
cifically illustrating the relationship between SiO2 and mass
pull fast kinetics in Figure 10(a). By analyzing these two
parameters, we can assess improvements in kinetics and
gain insights into efficiency, especially since the main min-
eral we are floating in this case is quartz. When the kinetic
constant for SiO2 is similar to or higher than the baseline,
and the mass pull kinetic constant is lower, this indicates
reduced entrainment when using biosurfactant products.
Figure 10(b) shows the water recovery over time. It is evi-
dent that all the biosurfactant product results have lower
water recovery compared to the baseline. This lower water
recovery can be associated with entrainment, in the sense
that having a higher water recovery means a higher entrain-
ment, this result indicates a good performance of biosurfac-
tant products which supports the previous finding.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this research are backed by a robust multi-
dimensional methodology that includes Design of
Experiments (DOE) as a custom-designed, high-perfor-
mance foam analyzer, microflotation, and laboratory bench
flotation.
Figure 9. Separation efficiency (Coefficient of Perfection -Gaudin (1928) Mineral Dressing – SE =
(%recovery of values in conc) +(%removal of waste in tails) – 100 ® (R+R
gt – 100)) vs Selectivity
Index (Gaudin (1930) Mineral Dressing- R Rgt R Rgthi 100 #'#--_^^100 h
Figure 10. a) SiO2 and Mass Pull fast kinetics, and b) water recovery over time