Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process.

, 59(6), 2023, 178234 Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing

ISSN 1643-1049
http://www.journalssystem.com/ppmp
© Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

Enhancing bubble bize prediction in flotation processes: a drift flux

model accounting for frother type

Claudio Leiva 1,2, Claudio Acuña 3, Saija Luukkanen 1, Constanza Cruz 3

1 Oulu Mining School, University of Oulu, 90570, Oulu, Finland
2 Departmento de Ingeniería Química y de Medio Ambiente, Universidad Católica del Norte, 1270709, Antofagasta, Chile
3 Departmento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, 2390123, Valparaíso, Chile

Corresponding author: [email protected] (C. Leiva)

Abstract: This communication presents a methodology, based on a modified drift flux model, to
determine bubble size distribution in column flotation. The modified drift flux model incorporates a
surfactant-type parameter. This parameter considers the impact of surfactant on bubble
hydrodynamics. The methodology aims to improve the accuracy of bubble size distribution prediction,
which presents deviation depending on surfactant type (i.e. polyglycolic based or alcoholic base). Many
authors have proposed different mathematical improvements to reduce de experimental data
deviations in the presence of different surfactants. However, from 1988 to 2022, the determination
coefficient, or the quality of the adjustments, from the proposed mathematical models is, at the most,
92% (relative error). The proposed methodology improves the quality of the adjustments to 98.6, adding
a single parameter for groups of surfactants. This methodology incorporates a single parameter in the
terminal velocity calculation that can compensate for the impact of surfactant type in bubble
hydrodynamic (bubble skin friction or drag coefficient, bubble wake, bubble shape, bubble rigidity).
This parameter is a function of the gas holdup calculated from gas velocity measured and the bubble
size distribution calculated (deviated) from gas holdup and gas velocity measured. The methodology is
validated with reported experimental results and proposed modifications from various authors. The
confidence interval (2 σ) is reduced from 0.11mm to 0.05mm in the case of (Yianatos, Banisi,
Ostadrahimi). In the case of the recently reported experimental results from Maldonado and Gomez,
the confidence interval is reduced from 0.31 mm to 0.09 mm. These results improve bubble size
estimation based on drift flux in column flotation, contributing to a better understanding of surfactant
impact on bubble swarm hydrodynamics.

Keywords: drift flux flotation, surfactant, bubble terminal velocity

1. Introduction

In flotation processes, bubble size is a critical parameter, significantly influencing efficiency and
performance (Yianatos, 2007; Deglon et al., 2000; Reis & Barrozo, 2016; Kracht et al., 2005; Verrelli et al.,
2011; Reis et al., 2019; Hassanzadeh et al., 2018). Factors such as superficial gas velocity, impeller speed,
and temperature directly affect bubble size distribution (Vinnett et al., 2014; Gorain et al., 1990; Gorain
et al., 1999; Han et al., 2002; Zhang, 2014; Wei & Finch, 2014; Shabalala et al., 2011; Quinn et al., 2007).
Consequently, accurately predicting and controlling bubble size remains a complex and evolving
challenge.
Image analysis techniques are commonly utilized to estimate bubble diameter and describe their
hydrodynamic behavior. Despite their wide use, these techniques are primarily limited to diagnostic
purposes (Hosseini et al., 2015). Challenges arise, for instance, when bubbles interacting with mineral
particles ascend in the viewing chamber, often causing turbidity increases that diminish the clarity and
quality of captured images (Tucker et al., 1994; Yianatos et al., 1988; Yianatos, 2005; Leiva et al., 2021).
Such turbidity necessitates periodic water replacement in the viewing chamber, rendering the technique

DOI: 10.37190/ppmp/178234
2 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

discontinuous. Furthermore, post-processing collected images is typically offline and time-consuming,

resulting in a temporal disconnect between data collection and result analysis (Araya et al., 2014; Wallis,
1969).
Bubble size estimation in flotation processes can be approached using practical techniques like
artificial vision and acoustics, which offer alternative avenues for measurement (Sovechles & Waters,
2015; Grau & Heiskanen, 2005; Hernandez-Aguilar et al., 2004; Leiva et al., 2010). Additionally,
mathematical methods provide a theoretical framework for estimation, leveraging operational
parameters such as gas holdup, superficial gas velocity, and flow density (Leiva et al., 2022; Leiva et al.,
2023; Vinnett et al., 2012; Wills & Napier-Munn, 2006; Wills & Finch, 2016).
Responding to the challenges of direct bubble size measurement in flotation plants, a practical and
alternative methodology becomes essential. This approach must emphasize accuracy, efficiency, and
ease of implementation, facilitating enhanced process control and optimization in industrial
applications. As an alternative, the drift flux model has been developed. This model utilizes gas velocity
and gas holdup, specifically tailored to the context of column flotation.
Drift flux modeling, a mathematical approach to estimating bubble sizes in column flotation, focuses
on the relationships between key parameters: gas velocity, gas holdup, and bubble behavior. This model
quantifies the drift velocity, representing the relative motion between gas and liquid phases. It
integrates factors like the drag coefficient, slip velocity, and hindered velocity to accurately predict the
distribution of bubble sizes, which is essential for optimizing flotation processes.
The development of drift flux analysis for bubble size estimation in column flotation is a consequence
of the progressive integration of foundational concepts and subsequent advancements in the field.
Initially, Schiller and Naumann's 1933 research on the drag coefficient for particles in fluids laid the
groundwork for understanding bubble-liquid interactions in flotation. This early study was crucial for
grasping the basics of bubble behavior in such environments. Their work was instrumental in
formalizing the theoretical underpinnings of bubble motion in such settings. Similarly, Richardson and
Zaki's 1954 exploration of hindered settling in particle-fluid systems contributed significantly to our
understanding of bubble motion, particularly in crowded environments like flotation columns where
interactions between bubbles and particles are complex and critical.
Wallis's 1969 contributions to two-phase flow further enriched this body of knowledge, providing
essential insights for modeling bubble behavior in flotation processes. The refinement of these principles
by Dobby et al. in 1987 and 1998, specifically tailored for column flotation, marked a significant
advancement in the field, particularly on bubble size estimation. Yianatos et al. 1988 further refined the
application of drift flux principles, enhancing the understanding of bubble dynamics in column
flotation. Their findings, which revealed variations in bubble behavior with different frother types,
indicated the dynamic nature of bubble interactions and the need for continuous refinement of the
models (Table 1).
The subsequent work by Ostadrahimi et al. in 2020 simplified the determination of bubble diameter
by assuming a constant value for the factor 'm', thereby streamlining the calculation process. This
simplification represented a move towards greater efficiency and practicality in bubble size estimation
(Table 2).
Most recently, Gomez and Maldonado in 2022, further adapted the drift flux model, particularly the
terminal rise velocity expression, using the Molerus model. This adaptation offered a more nuanced
understanding of bubble motion in column flotation, demonstrating these models' ongoing evolution
and refinement. Table 1 and 2 shows the different drift flux models.
These cumulative advancements underscore the necessity of continually adapting and refining the
models to incorporate the effects of surfactants. The quest for a hydrodynamic link to the molecular
structure remains an essential part of this ongoing research, highlighting the need for a comprehensive
approach that integrates both the macroscopic and molecular dynamics of bubble behavior in flotation
processes. This integrated approach is crucial for continually improving the accuracy and efficacy of
bubble size estimation, which is fundamental to optimizing column flotation processes. The enhanced
model should include a type of frother parameter directly related to the sliding velocity of bubbles in a
swarm and its hydrodynamics effects over holdup (skin friction, aspect ratio, surface tension, viscosity,
and density).
3 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Table 1. Yianatos et al and Banisis and Yianatos drift flux models

Yianatos el al Banisi and Yianatos

𝐽# 𝐽$ 𝐽# 𝐽$
𝑈!" = + 𝑈!" = +
𝜀# (1 − 𝜀# ) 𝜀# (1 − 𝜀# )
('()) ('())
𝑔 ∙ 𝑑!% ∙ (𝜌$ − 𝜌! ) ∙ .1 − 𝜀# / 𝑔 ∙ 𝑑!% ∙ (𝜌$ − 𝜌! ) ∙ .1 − 𝜀# /
𝑈!" = 𝑈!" =
18 ∙ 𝜇$ ∙ 21 + 0.15 ∙ 𝑅𝑒"+,-./ 8 18 ∙ 𝜇$ ∙ 21 + 0.15 ∙ 𝑅𝑒"+,-./ 8

18 ∙ µ1 ∙ U02 ∙ [1 + 0.15 ∙ Re+.-./

2 ] 18 ∙ µ1 ∙ U02 ∙ [1 + 0.15 ∙ Re+.-./
2 ]
d0 = : (5())
d0 = : (5())
g ∙ (ρ1 − ρ0 ) ∙ .1 − ε4 / g ∙ (ρ1 − ρ0 ) ∙ .1 − ε4 /

𝑑! ∙ 𝑈!" ∙ 𝜌$ ∙ (1 − 𝜀# ) 𝑑! ∙ 𝑈!" ∙ 𝜌$ ∙ (1 − 𝜀# )
𝑅𝑒" = 𝑅𝑒" =
𝜇$ 𝜇$

𝑈!" = 𝑈6 ∙ (1 − 𝜀# )'() 𝑈!" = 𝑈6 ∙ (1 − 𝜀# )'()

𝑑! 𝑚=3
𝑚 = F4.45 + 18 ∙ H ∙ 𝑅𝑒!(+,)
𝑑7

1 < 𝑅𝑒! < 200

𝑚 = 4.45 ∙ 𝑅𝑒!(+,) 𝑔 ∙ 𝑑!% ∙ 𝜌$

𝑈6 =
18 ∙ 𝜇$ ∙ 21 + 0.15 ∙ 𝑅𝑒!+,-./ 8
200 < 𝑅𝑒! < 500

𝑔 ∙ 𝑑!% ∙ 𝜌$
𝑈6 =
18 ∙ 𝜇$ ∙ 21 + 0.15 ∙ 𝑅𝑒!+,-./ 8

2. Materials and methodology

2.1. Drift flux model proposed
In gas-liquid systems in which there is a net flow of both phases, the slip velocity, Ubs, is defined as the
mean bubble swarm velocity in Eq. 1.
# #
𝑈!" = $! + (&'$" (1)
! !)

where, 𝑈!" is the bubble swarm velocity [cm/s], 𝐽) and 𝐽* are gas and liquid superficial velocities [cm/s],
respectively, and 𝜀) is gas holdup. These parameters are experimentally obtained and essential for
studies on drift flux modelling and adjustment proposed over the years.
The drift flux model, an idealized representation of gas-liquid systems, assumes perfect counter-
current or co-current flow, simplifying the complex interactions between these phases. However,
practical scenarios often diverge from this idealization due to the heterogeneous nature of bubble size
distribution, which induces internal circulations within the liquid and among smaller bubbles. These
circulations deviate from the model's assumptions, leading to inaccuracies in bubble size estimation,
particularly at increased gas flow rates. Additionally, while correction factors for different frothing
agents were originally designed to accommodate variations in frother characteristics, they also partially
offset the errors stemming from these hydrodynamic deviations. Consequently, these factors, both from
modeling assumptions and frother impacts, are reflected in macro properties such as gas holdup,
highlighting the need for refined models that can more accurately capture the complex dynamics of gas-
liquid systems.
Yianatos et al. (1988) significantly extend the understanding of bubble dynamics. This research
adapted and validated Masliyah's (1979) model, initially developed for solid-liquid systems, by
applying it to bubble swarms in bi-dimensional columns. Yianatos et al.'s contribution proposes a
method to estimate bubble size within a swarm. The adapted drift flux model for bubbling columns was
achieved by employing a general expression for the velocity of a bubble swarm. In their approach, the
bubbles were considered spherical and rigid, submerged within an aqueous medium. This adaptation
and validation mark a critical step in comprehending bubble behavior in complex fluid dynamics
4 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Table 2. Ostadrahimi and Molerus drift flux models

Ostradahimi Molerus
𝐽# 𝐽$ 𝐽# 𝐽$
𝑈!" = + 𝑈!" = +
𝜀# (1 − 𝜀# ) 𝜀# (1 − 𝜀# )
('()) ('())
𝑔 ∙ 𝑑!% ∙ (𝜌$ − 𝜌! ) ∙ .1 − 𝜀# / 𝑔 ∙ 𝑑!% ∙ (𝜌$ − 𝜌! ) ∙ .1 − 𝜀# /
𝑈!" = 𝑈!" =
18 ∙ 𝜇$ ∙ 21 + 0.15 ∙ 𝑅𝑒"+,-./ 8 18 ∙ 𝜇$ ∙ 21 + 0.15 ∙ 𝑅𝑒"+,-./ 8
18 ∙ µ1 ∙ U02 ∙ [1 + 0.15 ∙ Re+.-./
2 ] 18 ∙ µ1 ∙ U02 ∙ [1 + 0.15 ∙ Re+.-./
2 ]
d0 = : (5())
d0 = : (5())
g ∙ (ρ1 − ρ0 ) ∙ .1 − ε4 / g ∙ (ρ1 − ρ0 ) ∙ .1 − ε4 /
𝑑! ∙ 𝑈!" ∙ 𝜌$ ∙ (1 − 𝜀# ) 𝑑! ∙ 𝑈!" ∙ 𝜌$ ∙ (1 − 𝜀# )
𝑅𝑒" = 𝑅𝑒" =
𝜇$ 𝜇$
𝑈!" = 𝑈6 ∙ (1 − 𝜀# )'() 𝑈!" = 𝑈6 ∙ (1 − 𝜀# )'()
𝑚=4 𝑑!
𝑚 = F4.45 + 18 ∙ H ∙ 𝑅𝑒!(+,)
𝑑7
1 < 𝑅𝑒! < 200
g ∙ d%0 ∙ (1 − ε4 )(9()) 𝑚 = 4.45 ∙ 𝑅𝑒!(+,)
U8 ′ =
18 ∙ µ1 ∙ 21 + 0,15 ∙ Re+,-./
2 8 200 < 𝑅𝑒! < 500
d0 () 𝑚 = 2.39
n = F4,45 + 18 ∙ H ∙ Re2
d: 500 < 𝑅𝑒!

scenarios (Eq.2a). The bubble size can be estimated from Eq.2b, which requires interactive calculation
for the swarm Reynolds number.
$ (&'()
)∙,# ∙(-" '-# )∙.&'$! /
𝑈!" = +,-./ (2a)
&0∙1" ∙2&34.&6∙78* 9

&0∙;0 ∙<12 ∙2&34.&6∙=>+.-./

2 9
d: = + (5'() (2b)
?∙(@0 '@1 )∙.&'A4 /

where, 𝑔 is gravitational acceleration [cm⁄sB ]; d: is bubble diameter [cm]; 𝑚 is a factor according to the
Reynolds number of a bubble; 𝜌* and 𝜌! are liquid and bubble density [g⁄cmC ], respectively; 𝜇* is liquid
viscosity [g⁄(cm ∙ s)]; and 𝑅𝑒" is defined as the Reynolds number of bubbles in a swarm, expressed by
Eq. 3.
,# ∙D#* ∙-" ∙(&'$! )
𝑅𝑒" = 1"
(3)
An expression relates rising velocity (U:E ) to the terminal rise velocity of a single bubble (𝑈F ),
expressed in Eq. (19).
𝑈!" = 𝑈F ∙ (1 − 𝜀) )G'& (4)
This expression was adapted for predicting the diameter of bubbles in a swarm since it is practically
equivalent to a Reynolds number lower than 500. Hence, factor m is estimated with Eq. 5 and 6,
according to the corrresponding Reynolds number interval.
,
𝑚 = <4.45 + 18 ∙ ,# A ∙ 𝑅𝑒!'4,& 1 < 𝑅𝑒! < 200 (5)
6
𝑚 = 4.45 ∙ 𝑅𝑒!'4,& 200 < 𝑅𝑒! < 500 (6)
5 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

where, 𝑑I is column diameter [cm] and Re: is defined as the Reynolds number of a particular bubble,
expresssed in Eq. 7.
,# ∙D7 ∙-"
𝑅𝑒! = (7)
1"

Finally, applying the relationship of velocities in Eq. 4, Eq. 8, which generalizes the terminal rise
velocity of a single bubble, is obtained.
$
)∙,# ∙-"
𝑈F = +,-./ (8)
&0∙1" ∙2&34.&6∙78# 9

In this expression, the Reynolds number is fitted for a single bubble (𝑅𝑒! ) unlike Eq. 2a, which uses
Reynolds number for bubbles in a swarm (𝑅𝑒" ).
Recognizing gas holdup's dependency on bubble swarm Reynolds number, this methodology
proposes a singular, encompassing parameter (𝐶J ) in the model to reflect these complex interactions
between surfactant and bubble hydrodynamics (skin friction, drag, shape, rigidity)
The proposed factor in the drift flux model is designed to encapsulate the influence of surfactants on
bubble hydrodynamics, including aspects like skin friction, drag coefficient, wake, shape, and rigidity.
This factor, grounded in empirical evidence, aims to accurately reflect the resultant variations in gas
holdup, thereby enhancing the model's predictive accuracy in surfactant-influenced systems (Eq.9)
K )∙,# $ ∙L8 ∙ (&'$! )&'( ∙[-" '-# ]
𝑈!" = &0∙1" ∙2&34.&6∙78* +.-./ 9
(9)

where, 𝐶J is a non-dimensional average parameter possibly depending on variables related to the

frother, such as type, concentration, and dosage.
Eq. 10 expresses the calculated quadratic difference between the rising velocity of the drift flux model
and the one proposed in this study, as described in Eq. 1 and 9, respectively.
K B
∆𝑈!" = J 𝑈!" (PQRSF S*TU) − 𝑈!" (VQWXW"8,) K (10)
For estimating parameter (𝐶J ) a mean squared error (MSE) range is defined, minimizing the squared
difference of velocities (∆𝑈!" ). The iterative process of the mathematical model proposed for drift flux
analysis is shown in Fig. 1, which estimate a gas holdup as close as the gas holdup measured with
experimental data on liquid velocity, gas velocity, and bubble diameter measured.

Fig. 1. Iterative model proposed for estimating parameter (𝐶; )

For estimating bubble diameter (𝑑! ) a mean squared error (MSE) range is defined, minimizing the
squared difference of velocities (∆𝑈!" ), as shown in Eq. 10. The iterative process of the mathematical
model proposed for drift flux analysis is shown in Fig. 2, which estimate a bubble diameter as close as
the bubble diameter measured with experimental data on liquid velocity, gas velocity, and gas holdup.
The model is particularly related to lab tests conducted in countercurrent flotation columns. Once the
analysis of the models is conducted, it is observed that, although their fits are acceptable, they show
significant errors in estimating bubble diameter.
First, an initial value is assumed for bubble diameter (𝑑! ). Rising velocity (𝑈!" ) is calculated with
Eq. 1, corresponding to the drift flux model of a countercurrent flotation system using operational data
6 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Fig. 2. Iterative model proposed for estimating bubble diameter (𝑑! )

for gas superficial velocity (J? ), liquid superficial velocity (𝐽* ), and gas holdup (𝜀) ) from Yianatos et al.
(1998). Reynolds number for bubbles in a swarm (𝑅𝑒" ) is calculated with Eq. 3.
On the other hand, using the bubble diameter assumed, the equation system is solved for the
Reynolds number of a single bubble (𝑅𝑒! ) and the terminal rise velocity with Eq. 7 and 8. Once Re: is
obtained, factor m is determined with Eq. 5 or 6, according to the corresponding range conditions.
K
A (𝐶J ) parameter from Fig. 1 and the adjusted rising velocity (𝑈!" ) is calculated using Eq. 9. Next, the
square difference between both velocities (∆𝑈!" ) is determined with Eq. 10. Finally, e range is defined
and compared with the squared differences of velocities. If the squared difference calculated is greater
than the range defined (∆𝑈!" > 𝑒), the iterative process is repeated from the beginning with the new 𝑑!
value. On the contrary, if the squared difference calculated is smaller than or equal to the range defined
(∆𝑈!" ≤ 𝑒), the iterative process ends, obtaining bubble diameter and the drift flux model parameter.

2.2. Measuring bubble diameter

Operational parameters were the same used by Yianatos et al. (1988). For their development, fluid
density (𝜌* ) was considered as 1 [g/cmC ] and viscosity (𝜇* ) as 0.01 [g/cm ∙ s]. Yianatos et al. (1988)
conducted lab tests, distributing different frothers and types of columns, whose characteristics and
dimensions are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Flotation column characteristics (Yianatos et al, 1988)

Height
Test number Type of frother Diameter [cm] Type of injector Column shape
[cm]
1-5 DOW 200 3.81 Ceramics Circular
6-7 DOW 180 2.5x10 Steel Rectangular
8-13 DOW 450 5.71es Ceramics Circular
14-18 TEB 200 3.81 Ceramics Circular
19-23 MIBC 200 3.81 Ceramics Circular
DOW, Dowfroth 250C (polypropylene glycol methyl ether); TEB, triethoxy butane; MIBC, methylisobutylcarbinol
(methylamyl alcohol)

Manometers were used for calculating gas holdup (ε? ) via pressure decrease, while gas and liquid
superficial velocities (𝐽) and 𝐽* , respectively) were measured with fluxometers, (Yianatos et al, 1988).
The bubbles were introduced via ceramics and stainless steel injectors. Bubble size was controlled with
frothing agents (DOW, TEB, and MIBC). Between 400 and 600 bubbles were quantified both naturally
7 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

and using an automatic digitizer. A plexiglass box full of water was placed around the system to reduce
optical distortion due to column curvature.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Drift flux model application
An adding a parameter to the iterative routine is proposed to obtain an adjustment for each test and
type of frother, as shown in Table 5. As can be seen using the dimensionless factor by type of frother 𝐶; ,
an R2 of 98.62 is obtained. Table 4 shows the parameter 𝐶J for each type of frother.

Table 4. 𝐶; for each type of frother

Type of frother 𝐶;
DOWN 1.003
TEB 0.973
MIBC 1.202

Table 5. Results of the drift flux model proposed

Measured Estimated
N° Type of frother ppm d5 d0< |∆d|
𝐶;
[mm] [mm] [mm]
1 5 1.20 1.22 0.02
2 10 0.86 0.85 0.01
3 DOW 15 0.77 0.77 0.00
4 20 0.69 0.65 0.04
5 25 0.73 0.72 0.01
6 10 1.51 1.57 0.06
DOW
7 15 1.13 1.003 1.15 0.02
8 15 0.62 0.66 0.04
9 15 0.67 0.69 0.02
10 15 0.70 0.71 0.01
DOW
11 15 0.74 0.74 0.00
12 15 0.81 0.80 0.01
13 15 0.88 0.90 0.02
14 5 0.97 0.95 0.02
15 10 0.85 0.83 0.02
16 TEB 15 0.85 0.973 0.85 0.00
17 20 0.82 0.86 0.04
18 25 0.71 0.74 0.03
19 20 0.78 0.82 0.04
20 30 0.75 0.77 0.02
21 MIBC 45 0.80 1.202 0.85 0.05
22 60 0.73 0.77 0.04
23 75 0.67 0.69 0.02
UUUUUU
|∆d| [mm] - - 0.01
% - 98.62 -
R : Determination coef. [%]

The data fitting improvement is due to adding parameter (𝐶J ), which considers the effect of the
frother on the bubble size variation due to bubble hydrodynamic (bubble skin friction or drag
coefficient, bubble wake, bubble shape, bubble rigidity).
Fig. 3 shows the comparison between bubble diameters measured (𝑑!G ) and estimated (𝑑!X ). It can
be seen in the Fig. that the fit of the model is R2 is 0.9862. The model allows a better adjustment if the
type of frother used is considered as a parameter.
8 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Fig. 3. Fit model proposed

3.2. Drift flux models comparison

The results of the model proposed were compared with those of the model studied, as shown in Table
6.

Tabla 6. Fit model results

Yianatos et al. Banisi and Finch Ostadrahimi et

Measured Estimated
Type of (1988) (1994) al.(2020)
N°
frother d5 d0 |∆d| d0 |∆d| d0 |∆d| d0 |∆d|
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 1.20 1.11 0.09 1.14 0.06 1.14 0.06 1.22 0.02
2 0.86 0.87 0.01 0.88 0.02 0.89 0.03 0.85 0.01
3 DOW 0.77 0.76 0.01 0.77 0.00 0.78 0.01 0.77 0.00
4 0.69 0.77 0.08 0.78 0.09 0.79 0.10 0.65 0.04
5 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.75 0.02 0.76 0.03 0.72 0.01
6 1.51 1.40 0.11 1.47 0.04 1.48 0.03 1.57 0.06
DOW
7 1.13 1.11 0.02 1.14 0.01 1.15 0.02 1.15 0.02
8 0.62 0.55 0.07 0.54 0.08 0.55 0.07 0.66 0.04
9 0.67 0.64 0.03 0.64 0.03 0.65 0.02 0.69 0.02
10 0.70 0.69 0.01 0.70 0.00 0.71 0.01 0.71 0.01
DOW
11 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.75 0.01 0.77 0.03 0.74 0.00
12 0.81 0.80 0.01 0.83 0.02 0.85 0.04 0.80 0.01
13 0.88 0.87 0.01 0.93 0.05 0.95 0.07 0.90 0.02
14 0.97 0.98 0.01 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.03 0.95 0.02
15 0.85 0.86 0.01 0.87 0.02 0.88 0.03 0.83 0.02
16 TEB 0.85 0.81 0.04 0.83 0.02 0.83 0.02 0.85 0.00
17 0.82 0.72 0.10 0.72 0.10 0.74 0.08 0.86 0.04
18 0.71 0.65 0.06 0.66 0.05 0.67 0.04 0.74 0.03
19 0.78 0.86 0.08 0.88 0.10 0.88 0.10 0.82 0.04
20 0.75 0.86 0.11 0.87 0.12 0.88 0.13 0.77 0.02
21 MIBC 0.80 0.84 0.04 0.86 0.06 0.86 0.06 0.85 0.05
22 0.73 0.78 0.05 0.79 0.06 0.80 0.07 0.77 0.04
23 0.67 0.72 0.05 0.73 0.06 0.74 0.07 0.69 0.02
UUUUUU
|∆d| [mm] - 0.04 - 0.05 - 0.05 - 0.02
R% [%] 92.2 - 92.2 - 92.4 - 98.6 -
9 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Although the mean differences of the bubble diameters and determination coefficients of the models
studied show a good fit, they can be improved by adapting, with a factor by frother types. Also, the
models show similar statistical results, without significant variations, despite changes and
simplifications of mathematical calculations, with about 92% representation of real data. The model
proposed had a better adjustment with a determination coefficient of 0.986.
The comparison of bubble diameters resulting from the adjustments above and the experimental
ones obtained by Yianatos et al. (1988) is shown in Fig. 4, where dashed lines represent a ±15%
confidence interval, according to the bubble diameter measured.

Fig. 4. Fit model comparison

On the other hand, errors were identified in nomenclature and the use of measurement units, maybe
due to writing in the publications analyzed, which created confusion and ambiguity. Finally, it is
assumed that the model proposed by Yianatos et al. (1988); Banisi and Finch (1994); and Ostadrahimi et
al., (2020), can be used in a multi-species system, including bubbles in a swarm in a flotation column.
Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the errors obtained by frother type between the three mentioned
models and the proposed model. It can be seen that using the parameter by type of frother reduces the
errors in the proposed model.

Fig. 5. Error by frother type

10 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Fig. 6 shows the histogram of the errors obtained by frother type between the three mentioned
models and the proposed model. It can be seen that using the parameter by type of frother improve the
bubble size in the proposed model.
The analysis carried out on the data from previous investigations was compared with the data of
mathematical model proposed by Gómez and Maldonado (2022), as shown Table 7. it is worth
mentioning that the same procedure was carried out taking into in consideration frother type parameter.
The comparison of bubble diameters resulting from the adjustments above and the experimental
ones obtained by Gómez and Maldonado (2022) is shown in Fig. 7, where dashed lines represent a ±15%
confidence interval, according to the bubble diameter measured.
Yianatos et al Banisi and Yianatos

Ostadrahimi et al Estimated

Fig. 6. Histogram of error by frother type

Fig. 7. Fit model comparision

11 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Table 7. Comparative Gomez and Maldonado (2022) with method proposed

Measured Drift flux Molerus Estimated

Type of
N° d5 d0 |∆d| d0 |∆d| d0 |∆d|
frother
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 F140 2.063 1.437 0.626 1.787 0.276 2.004 0.059
2 1.581 1.214 0.367 1.451 0.130 1.636 0.055
3 1.045 0.903 0.142 1.028 0.017 1.002 0.043
4 0.884 0.749 0.135 0.824 0.060 0.926 0.042
5 0.721 0.655 0.066 0.707 0.014 0.688 0.033
6 0.607 0.567 0.040 0.599 0.008 0.662 0.055
7 0.584 0.556 0.028 0.584 0.000 0.620 0.036
8 F150 1.993 1.567 0.426 1.993 0.000 2.030 0.037
9 1.527 1.355 0.172 1.654 0.127 1.576 0.049
10 1.055 1.011 0.044 1.168 0.113 0.999 0.056
11 0.894 0.850 0.044 0.954 0.060 0.936 0.042
12 0.621 0.599 0.022 0.639 0.018 0.654 0.033
13 0.547 0.538 0.009 0.565 0.018 0.588 0.041
14 0.527 0.517 0.010 0.541 0.014 0.508 0.019
15 F160-05 2.012 1.618 0.394 2.086 0.074 2.077 0.065
16 1.821 1.558 0.263 1.972 0.151 1.789 0.032
17 1.212 1.128 0.084 1.345 0.133 1.256 0.044
18 0.922 0.862 0.060 0.976 0.054 0.973 0.051
19 0.703 0.634 0.069 0.686 0.017 0.755 0.052
20 0.607 0.565 0.042 0.597 0.010 0.662 0.055
21 0.579 0.523 0.056 0.548 0.031 0.534 0.045
22 F160-10 2.231 1.667 0.564 2.051 0.180 2.197 0.034
23 1.637 1.404 0.233 1.659 0.022 1.680 0.043
24 1.101 0.976 0.125 1.128 0.027 1.045 0.056
25 0.807 0.661 0.146 0.714 0.093 0.851 0.044
26 0.62 0.588 0.032 0.626 0.006 0.655 0.035
27 0.582 0.552 0.030 0.581 0.001 0.545 0.037
28 0.566 0.543 0.023 0.568 0.002 0.617 0.051
29 F160-13 2.079 1.622 0.457 2.057 0.022 2.148 0.069
30 1.637 1.415 0.222 1.746 0.109 1.662 0.025
31 1.054 1.010 0.044 1.166 0.112 1.016 0.038
32 0.841 0.811 0.030 0.903 0.062 0.897 0.056
33 0.655 0.600 0.055 0.639 0.016 0.731 0.076
34 0.569 0.545 0.024 0.575 0.006 0.537 0.032
35 0.541 0.523 0.018 0.548 0.007 0.595 0.054
36 F173 1.744 1.557 0.187 1.943 0.199 1.699 0.045
37 1.292 1.240 0.052 1.491 0.199 1.358 0.066
38 0.837 0.796 0.041 0.894 0.057 0.894 0.057
39 0.741 0.716 0.025 0.785 0.044 0.793 0.052
40 0.625 0.600 0.025 0.641 0.016 0.660 0.035
41 0.63 0.574 0.056 0.609 0.021 0.573 0.057
42 0.627 0.567 0.060 0.600 0.027 0.689 0.062
UUUUUU
|∆d| [mm] - 0.13 - 0.06 0.05

R% [%] 97.1 - 97.2 - 99.2

12 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the errors obtained by frother type between the two mentioned
models and the proposed model. It can be seen that using the parameter by type of frother reduces the
errors in the proposed model. Therefore, the arithmetical mean of the parameters per type of frother
was used for the model proposed, as shown in Table 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, resulting in an about 99.2%
determination coefficient, increasing fit significantly, as compared with the models studied. So, it is
possible to state that the drift flux model better fitting experimental data is the one proposed in this
study.

Fig. 8. Error by frother type

4. Conclusions and future work

This study deals with drift flux adjustment modelling, based on reagents in a flotation process, by
adding a parameter per type of frother to the expression relating the rising velocity of bubbles in a
swarm with the bubble diameter in countercurrent flotation columns. A drift flux adjustment model
was developed, according to Dowfroth 250C (DOW), triethoxybutane (TEB), and
methylisobutylcarbinol (MIBC) frothers, corresponding to polyglycol, alkoxy, and aliphatic alcohols,
respectively, by adding parameter (𝐶J ) for each type of frother in the drift flux model proposed.
The adjusted model was validated with operational data from lab tests for the different
concentrations and types of frothers provided by Yianatos et al. (1987), obtaining a 0.01 [mm] diameter
difference as the absolute mean and a 99% determination coefficient. Thus, the model estimated fits
better in diameter estimation, according to the adjustments analyzed throughout the modelling. Lab
tests using other types of frothers are recommended to obtain new operational data and a new
parameter fitting and validating the models published. In addition, other tests should be made, using a
variety of frothers of the same nature as the ones analyzed to validate the parameter proposed. Finally,
further analysis should be conducted to determine if the parameter proposed is related to the physical
and/or chemical characteristics of the type of frother, such as structures and types of links to find the
physical explanation relating these characteristics.
The authors of this article consider the followings topics for future research:
- Perform additional tests to verify if the (𝐶J ) parameter can be used under the same conditions
using the same frothers.
- Study if the (𝐶J ) factor has any relationship with the type of frother based on its chemical
composition or hydrophile-lipophile balance (HLB).

Acknowledgments
This study received external funding from INNOVA CORFO 17-CONTEC-78906: “Desarrollo
Tecnológico para la medición en línea de velocidad superficial de gas en celdas de flotación.” The
13 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

authors wish to acknowledge the material support provided by Universidad Técnica Federico Santa
María and the financial support from 545-VRIDT-UCN provided by the Universidad Católica del Norte.

Appendix 1: Nomenclature
𝐶J Adimensional parameter by frother type
db Bubble diameter, cm
dc Column diameter, cm
g Gravity acceleration, cm/s2
Jg Superficial gas rate, cm/s
Jl Superficial liquid rate, cm/s
m Factor according to the Reynolds
ro Characteristic dimension of the particles
Reb Reynolds number of bubbles
Res Reynolds for a bubble in a swarm
Ubs Bubble swarm velocity, cm/s
Ut Terminal velocity of a single bubble cm/s
b Dimensionless bubble size
d Pores
𝜀) Holdup
𝜌! Bubble density, g/cm3
𝜌" Liquid density, g/cm3
z Packing parameter
𝜇" Liquid viscosity, g/cm s

Appendix 2: Data Yianatos et al.

Jg Eg Jl dc Frother ppm d 32 measured

1.000 9.50 0.91 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 5 1.200
1.000 12.90 0.85 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 10 0.860
1.000 15.80 0.82 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.770
1.000 15.50 0.85 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 20 0.690
1.000 16.20 0.77 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 25 0.730
2.100 15.70 0.30 10.31 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 10 1.510
1.500 14.00 0.30 10.31 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 1.130
0.500 12.30 1.00 5.71 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.620
0.800 17.00 1.00 5.71 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.670
1.000 20.00 1.00 5.71 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.700
1.200 23.40 1.00 5.71 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.740
1.500 28.00 1.00 5.71 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.810
1.800 32.00 1.00 5.71 1.000 0.0010 0.010 1 15 0.880
1.000 11.20 0.96 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 2 5 0.970
1.000 13.20 0.88 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 2 10 0.850
1.000 14.40 0.91 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 2 15 0.850
1.000 17.70 0.87 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 2 20 0.820
1.000 21.50 0.83 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 2 25 0.710
1.000 13.20 0.90 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 3 20 0.780
1.000 13.30 0.90 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 3 30 0.750
1.000 13.60 0.91 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 3 45 0.800
1.000 15.30 0.91 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 3 60 0.730
1.000 18.00 0.96 3.81 1.000 0.0010 0.010 3 75 0.670
14 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

Appendix 3: Gomez and Maldonado

Jg Eg Jl dc Frother ppm d 32 measured

0.605 4.17 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 2 2.063
0.601 4.96 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 5 1.581
0.604 6.82 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 10 1.045
0.602 8.71 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 15 0.884
0.601 10.46 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 30 0.721
0.604 13.21 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 60 0.607
0.604 13.84 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 4 100 0.584
0.606 3.82 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 5 2 1.993
0.601 4.44 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 5 5 1.527
0.602 6.05 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 5 10 1.055
0.601 7.42 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 5 15 0.894
0.606 11.90 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 5 30 0.621
0.610 14.26 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 5 60 0.547
0.612 15.13 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 5 100 0.527
0.609 3.69 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 6 2 2.012
0.604 3.85 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 6 5 1.821
0.609 5.29 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 6 10 1.212
0.607 7.18 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 6 15 0.922
0.611 10.66 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 6 30 0.703
0.606 13.25 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 6 60 0.607
0.611 14.91 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 6 100 0.579
0.585 3.75 0.00 10.00 1.000 0.0013 0.014 7 2 2.231
0.581 4.49 0.00 10.00 1.000 0.0013 0.014 7 5 1.637
0.605 6.23 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 7 10 1.101
0.600 10.40 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 7 15 0.807
0.607 12.28 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 7 30 0.620
0.606 13.86 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 7 60 0.582
0.602 14.69 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 7 100 0.566
0.600 3.72 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 8 2 2.079
0.601 4.24 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 8 5 1.637
0.600 6.05 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 8 10 1.054
0.600 7.87 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 8 15 0.841
0.602 12.08 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 8 30 0.655
0.610 13.70 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 8 60 0.569
0.610 14.93 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 8 100 0.541
0.598 3.90 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 9 2 1.744
0.603 4.85 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 9 5 1.292
0.610 7.84 0.00 10.00 0.998 0.0012 0.011 9 10 0.837
0.604 9.16 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 9 15 0.741
0.607 11.84 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 9 30 0.625
0.607 12.78 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 9 60 0.630
0.607 13.14 0.00 10.00 0.999 0.0012 0.012 9 100 0.627

References
ARAYA, R., GOMEZ, C., FINCH, J., 2014. Measuring gas dispersion parameters: Selection of sampling points. Minerals
Engineering. 65. 172–177.
15 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

BANISI, S., AND FINCH, J., 1994. Technical note reconciliaton of bubble size estimation methods using drift flux analysis.
Mineral Engineering. 7, 1555-1559.
DOBBY, G.S., YIANATOS, J.B., FINCH, J.A., 1998. Estimation of bubble diameter flotation columns from drift flux
analysis. Can. Metall. Q. 27 (2), 85–90.
DOBBY, G., YIANATOS, J., FINCH, J., 1987. Estimation of bubble diameter in flotation columns from drift flux analysis.
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly. 27(2), 85-90.
DEGLON, D., EGYA-MENSAH, D., FRANZIDIS. J.P., 2000. Review of hydrodynamics and gas dispersion in flotation
cells on South African platinum concentrators. Miner. Eng. 13 (3) 235–244.
GRAU, R., HEISKANEN, K., 2005. Bubble size distribution in laboratory scale flotation cells. Miner. Eng. 18 (12), 1164–
1172.
GOMEZ, C. O., MALDONADO, M., 2022. Modelling Bubble Flow Hydrodynamics: Drift-Flux and Molerus Models.
Minerals, 12(12), 1502.
GORAIN, B., FRANZIDIS, J., MANLAPIG, E., 1990. Studies on impeller type, impeller speed and air flow rate in an
industrial scale flotation cell. Part 1: effect on bubble size distribution. Miner. Eng. 8 (6) 615–635.
GORAIN, B., FRANZIDIS, J., MANLAPIG, E., 1999. The empirical prediction of bubble surface area flux in mechanical
flotation cells from cell design and operating data. Minerals Engineering, 12(3), 309-322.
HAN, M., PARK, Y., LEE, J., SHIM, J., 2002. Effect of pressure on bubble size in dissolved air flotation. Water Sci. Technol.
Water Supply 2 (5–6) 41–46.
HASSANZADEH, A., KOUACHI, S., HASANZADEH, M., CELIK, M.S., 2017. A new insight to the role of bubble
properties on inertial effect in particle-bubble interaction, J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 38 (7) 953–960.
HERNANDEZ-AGUILAR, J., COLEMAN, R., GOMEZ, C., FINCH, J., 2004. A comparison between capillary and
imaging techniques for sizing bubbles in flotation systems, Miner. Eng. 17, 53–61.
HOSSEINI, M.R., HAJI AMIN SHIRAZI, H., MASSINAEI, M., MEHRSHAD, N., 2015. Modeling the relationship
between froth bubble size and flotation performance using image analysis and neural networks, Chem. Eng. Commun.
202 (7), 911–919.
KHOSHDAST, H., ABBAS, S., 2011. Flotation Frothers: Review of their classifications, porperties and preparation. The
Open Mineral Processing Journal. 4. 25-44.
KRACHT, W., VALLEBUONA, G., CASALI, A., 2005. Rate constant modeling for batch flotation: as a function of gas
dispersion properties, Miner. Eng. 18, 1067–1076.
LEIVA, C., ACUÑA, C., 2021. Dispositivo sensor y sistema para la medición en línea de la distribución del tamaño de
burbujas en celdas de flotación, Chile Granted Patent, CL2018003886.
LEIVA, C., ACUÑA, C., BERGH, L., LUUKKANEN, S., DA SILVA, C., 2022. Online Superficial Gas Velocity, Holdup,
and Froth Depth Sensor for Flotation Cells. Journal of Sensors.
LEIVA, C., ACUÑA, C., 2023. Dispositivo sensor y sistema para la medición en línea de la velocidad de gas superficial,
profundidad de espuma, densidad aparente y holdup en celdas de flotación, Chile Granted Patent, CL2018003886
LEIVA, J., VINNETT, L., CONTRERAS, F., YIANATOS, J., 2010. Estimation of the actual bubble surface area flux in
flotation, Miner. Eng. 23, 888–894.
MASLIYAH, J., 1979. Hindered settling a multi-species particle system. En J. Maliyah, Chemical Engineering Science.
Pergamon Press.
OSTADRAHIMI, M., FARROKHPAY, S., GHARIBI, K., DEHGHANI, A., 2020. A new empirical model to calculate
bubble size in froth flotation columns. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 594,
124672.
QUINN, J.J., KRACHT, W., GOMEZ, C.O., GAGNON, C., FINCH, J.A., 2007. Comparing the effects of salts and frother
(MIBC) on gas dispersion and froth properties, Miner. Eng. 20, 1296-1302.
REIS, A.S., BARROZO, M.A.S., 2016. A study on bubble formation and its relation with the performance, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 161 112–120.
REIS, A.S., REIS FILHO, A.M., DEMUNER, L.R., BARROZO, M.A.S., 2019. Effect of bubble size on the performance
flotation of fine particles of a low-grade Brazilian apatite ore, Powder Technol. 356 (2019) 884–891.
RICHARDSON, J. F., ZAKI, W. N., 1954. The sedimentation of a suspension of uniform spheres under conditions of viscous
flow. Chemical Engineering Science, 3(2), 65-73.
SHABALALA, N., HARRIS, M., LEAL FILHO, L., DEGLON, D., 2011. Effect of slurry rheology on gas dispersion in a
pilot-scale mechanical flotation cell, Miner. Eng. 24, 1448–1453.
SCHILLER, L., NAUMANN, A., 1933. Drag coefficient for spherical shape. VDI Zeits, 13, 318.
16 Physicochem. Probl. Miner. Process., 59(5), 2023, 178234

SOVECHLES, J.M., WATERS, K.E., 2015. Effect of ionic strength on bubble coalescence in inorganic salt and seawater
solutions, AIChE J. 61, 8.
TUCKER, J., DEGLON, D., FRANZIDIS, J., HARRIS, M., O’CONNOR, C., 1994. An evaluation of a direct method of
bubble size distribution measurement in a laboratory batch flotation cell, Miner. Eng. 7 (5,6) 667–680.
VERRELLI, D., KOH, P., NGUYEN, A.V., 2011. Particle-bubble interaction and attachment in flotation, Chem. Eng. Sci.
66, 5910–5921.
VINNETT, L., CONTRERAS, F., YIANATOS, J., 2012. Gas dispersion pattern in mechanical flotation cells, Miner. Eng.
26 (2012) 80–85.
VINNETT, L., YIANATOS, J., ALVAREZ, M., 2014. Gas dispersion measurements in mechanical flotation cells, Industrial
experience in Chilean concentrators, Miner. Eng. 57, 12–15.
WALLIS, G., 1969. One dimensional two-phase flow. New York: McGraw-Hill.
WEI, Z., FINCH, J.A., 2014. Effect of solids on pulp and froth properties in flotation, J. Cent. South Univ. 21, 1461–1469.
WILLS, B.A., NAPIER-MUNN T.J., 2006. Mineral Processing Technology (Seven edition ed.). Elsevier Science and
Technology Books.
WILLS, B.A., FINCH, J.A., 2016. Mineral Processing Technology (Eighth Edition ed.). Elsevier Ltd.
YIANATOS, J., 2005. Flotación de Minerales. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Departamento de Procesos
Químicos, Biotecnológicos y Ambientales.
YIANATOS, J., 2007. Fluid Flow and Kinetic Modelling in Flotation Related Processes: Columns and Mechanically Agitated
Cells—A Review. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 85. 1591–1603
YIANATOS, J.B., FINCH, J.A., DOBBY, G.S., XU, M., 1988. Bubble size estimation in a bubble swarm. Journal of Colloid
and Interface Science. 126(1), 37-44.
ZHANG, W., 2014. Evaluation of effect of viscosity changes on bubble size in a mechanical flotation cell, Trans.
Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 24 (9) 2964–2968.