Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733

This article is also available online at:

www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Frother-related research at McGill University

J.A. Finch *, S. Gelinas, P. Moyo
Department of Mining Metals and Materials Engineering, McGill University, The Wong Building, 3610 University Ave.,
Montreal, Canada H3A 2B2

Received 15 July 2005; accepted 7 September 2005

Available online 8 November 2005

Abstract

Over the past ten years the Mineral Processing group at McGill University has developed techniques to determine gas dispersion
properties (gas superficial velocity, gas holdup, bubble size and bubble surface area flux) in flotation machines. This work is finding appli-
cation in metallurgical diagnostics and cell characterization. The picture, however, will remain incomplete until the impact of chemistry
on bubble production, and hence on gas dispersion, is understood. This has prompted investigations into frothers.
There are two areas addressed in this communication: frother analysis and frother characterization.
Coincident with the centenary, for 100 years there was no convenient frother analysis procedure. A colorimetric technique originally
developed for alcohols had been applied to MIBC (Parkhomovski, V.L., Petrunyak, D.G., Paas, L., 1976. Determination of methyl-
isobutylcarbinol in waste waters of concentration plants. Obogashchenie Rud 21 (2), 44–45). Using this as a starting point, the technique
was successfully extended to a wide range of commercial frothers and shown to be robust against most common ÔcontaminantsÕ. The
technique is readily used on-site and some observations from plant surveys are described.
Characterization of frothers has taken two routes, determining water carrying rate and investigating properties of thin bubble films.
Second only to transporting particles the recovery of water by bubbles has the most influence on metallurgy. The question posed was
whether this Ôwater carryingÕ property could be related to frother type. In a specially designed column the volume rate of water to the
overflow per unit cross-sectional area (Ôcarrying rateÕ, Jwo) and gas holdup (eg) at controlled froth depths were measured. The Jwo–eg
relationship proved approximately linear and dependent on frother type, with four frother ÔfamiliesÕ being identified.
Bubble thin films have been studied for soaps and the techniques were adapted for frothers. From infrared analysis it became apparent
that the frother molecule, while itself not seen, had an impact on organizing water molecules, apparently forming a film of bound water
on the bubble surface. Exploiting the interference pattern generated in UV/Vis the film thickness (d) was determined; for MIBC d was less
than 160 nm while for DF250 d was 600 nm. Taking a representative frother from the four families identified above, the water carrying
rate at a given gas holdup increased with film thickness.
Possible implications of the findings on the role of frother in bubble production are explored.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flotation machines; Flotation frothers; Flotation bubbles

1. Introduction
A rather uninspiring title but two topics which should be
of interest describing novel methods of frother analysis and
frother characterization will be introduced shortly. First,
however, let us consider the motivation for research in this
area.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 514 398 4492.
E-mail address: jim.finch@mcgill.ca (J.A. Finch).
For over ten years the McGill Mineral Processing group
(and others) has been developing tools (sensors) and tech-
niques to measure gas dispersion properties (the collective
term for gas superficial velocity, bubble size, gas holdup
and bubble surface area flux) (Gomez and Finch, 2002).
These measurements are finding increasing application in
improving flotation performance (e.g., Cooper et al.,
2004; Gorain, 2005) and characterizing cells. An example
of the latter is Fig. 1, taken from Nesset et al. (2005).
It shows bubble size (Sauter mean diameter, D32) as a

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.09.027
 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733
3 taneous analysis de-coupled the two (and gave additional
Outokumpu TC 130 LDI
Bubble Size, D32 (mm)
2.5
2 tion. (What impact this alcohol had on gas dispersion (bub-
Bateman TC 50 Impala
1.5 Metso RCS 30 Impala
Outokumpu 28U Raglan
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Superficial Gas Velocity, Jg (cm/s)
Fig. 1. Cell characterization: Sauter mean bubble size as a function of gas
rate for four cell types. (Adapted from Nesset et al. (2005).)
function of gas rate (superficial gas velocity, Jg) for a vari-
ety of cells (all forced air). As Nesset et al. note, the rela-
tionship can only be properly interpreted when
ÔchemistryÕ is included. This largely means frother type
and dosage but could extend to some collectors and high
concentration of some salts. The importance of frother in
determining bubble size is well documented: Harris
(1976) at the A. M. Gaudin Memorial Symposium noted:
‘‘ . . . major factor determining bubble size . . . is neither
impeller speed nor air rate but frother concentration’’,
and recently Cho and Laskowski (2002) have used the
effect on bubble size to characterize frothers.
As steps towards including frother function in our gas
dispersion work two topics are discussed in this communi-
cation, frother analysis and frother characterization.
2. Frother analysis: procedure and plant experiences
For the one hundred years of flotation there has been no
convenient, on-site method of determining frother concen-
tration. This has arguably restricted engineering the use of
frother to achieve metallurgical targets. Approaches have
included: gas chromatography (Tsatouhas et al., 2005),
determining total organic carbon (Hadler et al., 2005),
and using calibrations of bubble size and gas holdup vs.
frother concentration (Weber et al., 2003). A literature
search identified a colorimetric method used for MIBC
(methyl-iso-butyl-carbinol) in wastewaters (Parkhomovski
et al., 1976). The technique was based on the Komarowsky
reaction employed in colorimetric analysis of aliphatic
alcohols (Coles and Tournay, 1942).
The procedure, described in detail elsewhere (Gelinas
and Finch, 2005), involves dehydration with sulphuric acid
followed by reaction with an aldehyde to form a coloured
compound. The technique proved amenable to a wide
range of frothers. Linear calibrations are given over a range
(e.g., up to 5 ppm Dowfroth 250) and there was no interfer-
ence from a range of inorganic and organic reagents and
contaminants typically encountered in sulphide flotation.
Site work encountered two compounds that did react, fuel
oil and butanol. However, the absorbance spectra were suf-
ficiently different from the frother that conventional simul-
727
information on both). The presence of butanol was as a
contaminant in the xanthate, apparently a common situa-
ble size) is a matter of speculation.)
Three plant surveys have been conduced to date which
have proofed the technique. After calibrating with the
plant frother and water, sampling, decantation and dilu-
tion are generally all that was necessary. (Some notion of
3 the dilution required is obtained from the dosage, usually
given in g/ton, and the per cent solids.) For MIBC it was
necessary to make the determination promptly as there
was evidence of loss over time (sealed samples brought
back to McGill showed no detectable frother) probably
due to evaporation. Current evidence is that Dowfroth
250 does travel.
Two examples will serve to illustrate the technique in
action. In Fig. 2 frother (MIBC) distribution down a bank
of 11 cells and between pulp and froth is shown. The bulk
of the frother is introduced in cell 1 (>90%) and clearly dis-
tributes down the bank, the concentration in the pulp
liquor remaining 5–7 ppm. The frother did concentrate
in the froth, notably towards the rear of the bank.
In Fig. 3 a distribution of frother down the 16-cell bank
was employed, with 50% in the first cell, 25% in cell 5, 15%
in cell 9 and 10% in cell 13. Process water (PW and QW)
showed residual MIBC was returning to the circuit. The
distribution scheme showed as step increases in concentra-
tion at each addition point (except the last) rising from
3.5 ppm to 5.5 ppm. The tails still showed 4 ppm.
The concentration was determined at two positions in some
cells, just below the froth (i.e., top, T) and near the impeller
(bottom, B) to check mixing in the cell. Clearly the frother
is well distributed in the cell.
Although mass balancing was not performed, the evi-
dence is that the bulk of frother remains in the pulp water.
Tsatouhas et al. (2005) have made the same observation. It
corresponds to the common experience that frother obvi-
ously works its way through a circuit from a limited num-
ber of addition points (sometimes only one, at the head
end). The observation is re-visited below.
One application of this new tool is to integrate with gas
dispersion measurements. The metallurgical gain applying
25
20
froth
MIBC, ppm
15
10
5
pulp
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cell Number
Fig. 2. Example of frother analysis: Distribution of frother down a bank
and between pulp and froth.
728 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733
Fig. 3. Example of frother analysis: Distribution down a bank and within cells.
a pattern in gas rate to cells in a bank (ÔJg profilingÕ) (Coo-
per et al., 2004; Gorain, 2005) may have a counterpoint in
profiling frother. A combination of gas rate and frother (to
control bubble size, Db) may effectively mean the bubble
surface area flux (Sb) is profiled, perhaps fundamentally
the more appropriate metric than Jg (or Db). Care needs
to be exercised however, as frother is added to control
not only bubble size but also froth properties. The question
goes beyond just distributing frother to distributing frother
function, control of bubble size and froth properties. We
need tools to measure frother functions to augment frother
analysis. These are steps to what may be termed Ôgas dis-
persion managementÕ designed to improve flotation circuit
performance by controlling the physical variables.
3. Frother characterization
This topic is attracting growing attention, mainly in
accord with trying to understand the froth zone to devise
more robust flotation models. While fully recognizing the
range of frother (and froth) characterization work there
is no attempt to review it here. Rather two novel
approaches are described based on water transport and
properties of bubble thin films. The observations have
prompted speculation on how frothers may function to
control bubble size, which ends the paper.
3.1. Water carrying rate
Bubbles transport particles and water, which together
dictate the metallurgy (recovery and grade). Restricting
attention to air–water only, the factors that influence water
recovery include: gas rate (recovery increasing as Jg
increases), bubble size (increasing as Db decreases), froth
depth, Hf (increasing as Hf decreases) and, we can hypoth-
esize, frother type. To isolate frother type it is necessary to
control froth depth and account for gas rate and especially
bubble size effects as frother can modify Db and thus alter
water recovery.
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 4. The column
is equipped with an array of conductivity electrodes and
facility to control air and feed water rate and measure over-
flow water rate. The water carrying rate was defined as the
overflow rate divided by the column cross-section, Jwo. The
conductivity signals were used both to control froth depth
(by indicating the froth/water interface and manipulating
feed rate) and to determine gas holdup (eg) employing
MaxwellÕs model. The gas holdup reflects both gas rate
(increasing as Jg increases) and bubble size (increasing as
Hf
Water Overflow
Rate = Qwo
Conductivity
Jwo= Qwo/ A
gas holdup, eg
Feed (water)
Sparger
Air, Jg
Fig. 4. Apparatus to measure water carrying rate as a function of gas
holdup.
 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733
0.5
Hf = 7 cm
0.4
Jwo, cm/s
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
εg, %
Fig. 5. Water carrying rate as a function of gas holdup showing four
classes of frother.
Db decreases). It was argued that this metric could serve as
the independent variable to isolate the frother type effect.
This seems to be the case. Fig. 5 shows the summary
result for a range of frothers. The plot Jwo vs. eg was
approximately linear (with an intercept, a minimum gas
holdup below which no overflow at the given froth depth
was achieved) and divided the frothers into 4 classes (or
ÔfamiliesÕ). As representatives, in order of increasing water
carrying rate we have: pentanol < MIBC < Dowfroth
250 < F150 (similar to Dowfroth 425). We return to this
in the next section.
3.2. Bubble thin films
The procedure described for soap bubbles (Rödel, 1981;
Chattopadhyay, 2000) were adapted to study bubbles
blown in frother solutions (Gelinas et al., 2005). The bub-
ble was probed by infrared (for structure) and UV/Vis (for
film thickness using interferometry).
The general infrared (FT-IR) spectrum is shown in
Fig. 6. The first observation is that no fingerprint of the
frother molecule is seen, implying a low concentration
(adsorption density) which contrasts with the common
Fig. 6. The general FT-IR spectrum for frother bubble film.
729
Free Water
Bound Water
Pentanol
Hept, Hex, MIBC, DF200
Octanol, Ethoxy, DF250 Air Bubble
BUBBL
BUBBLEE Air
BUBBBubble
BUBBLE
LE
F150
Bulk Water
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. An interpretation of the physical picture based on IR results.
(a) Bubble in air, (b) bubble in water.
depiction of the bubble surface. The spectrum is interpreted
in terms of water structure. Some peaks are identified with
ÔfreeÕ water others with ÔboundÕ water indicative of H-bond-
ing induced by the polar group of the frother (e.g., OH in
the case of alcohols). The picture this suggests, Fig. 7a, is a
surface with an inner bound water layer surrounded by an
outer free water layer. Fig. 7b translates this to the situa-
tion of interest, a bubble blown in water; the bound later
remains but now the free water is the bulk water. While
the interpretation of water structure from infrared spectra
is problematic (Nancer et al., 2000), the picture is not unex-
pected since it is known that the polar group will induce
local re-organization of the water structure. In the case of
alcohols, this effect, and the consequences, can be quite
extensive (Wakisaka et al., 2001). The question is how large
is this layer?
This can be addressed from the interference pattern gen-
erated in the UV/Vis region. Results for MIBC and Dow-
froth 250 are given in Fig. 8. The measured (left) is the
combined bound and free water layers, which are de-cou-
pled (right). The layer thickness, d, is estimated from the
following for a beam passing through the center of the bub-
ble (i.e., at right angles to the surface):
730 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733

0.13
Bound water
MIBC
0.12

<160 nm
0.11

A 200 400 600 800 1000

0.10 Free water

0.09

0.08 200 400 600 800 1000

200 400 600 800 1000

Wavelength (nm)
0.12

Bound water
D250
0.10

~600 nm
0.08
A
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Free water
0.06

0.04

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength (nm)

Fig. 8. The interference pattern generated in UV/V is region by bubble film. Left: measured pattern; right, de-coupled ÔboundÕ and ÔfreeÕ water layers with
estimate of bound water thickness.

DN f k1 k2 modifies this much like changing from a hydrophobic to a

d¼ ; ð1Þ
2nðk1  k2 Þ hydrophilic solid will alter the adjacent water structure.
Table 1 gives results for the frothers representative of
where Nf is the number of cycles between wavelength k1
the four families identified in Fig. 5 along with the water
and k2 and n is the refractive index of water (assumed
carrying rate (at equal gas holdup). The macroscopic mea-
1.33 and independent of frother addition and of wave-
sure of water transport appears to be related to the micro-
length). The high frequency pattern is thus associated with
scopic (fundamental) measure of bound water film
the thicker film, attributed to the free water. The thickness
thickness.
is typically 6–7 lm, common to both frothers and soaps
(Chattopadhyay, 2000). In contrast, the bound water thick-
4. Frother and bubble production
ness (low frequency pattern) is different for the two fro-
thers, for MIBC d < 160 nm (ÔdÕ is below the k range of
Let us try to put the observations together to propose a
the instrument) compared to Dowfroth 250, d  600 nm.
mechanism of frother action in bubble production. A com-
The magnitude seems quite surprising, implying the influ-
mon theory is that frothers prevent coalescence, i.e., there
ence on water structure extends tens even hundreds of
is a primary process that generates fine bubbles and frother
nanometers.
interrupts a secondary process, coalescence.1 Coalescence
An attempt to depict the physical (molecular) picture
requires the out flow of liquid between adjacent bubbles.
suggested by the findings is given in Fig. 9. A lone MIBC
molecule assembles water molecules into an array with
1
some order extending about 160 nm. As a start to interpret- Coalescence itself may have two sub-categories. Coalescence of the
ing the larger film thickness of Dowfroth 250 it is depicted type described by Tse et al. (2003) occurs away from the point of
anchored via the polar end group with the chain extending generation and continues as long as bubbles encounter one another. This
is a relatively minor contributor to the overall bubble size compared to the
into the water, an orientation perhaps supported by a sec- coalescence of interest here, namely that associated with the moment of
ond molecule. An air surface, like a solid surface, perturbs bubble production. The former might be called secondary coalescence, the
the local water structure; the suggestion here is that frother latter, primary coalescence.
 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733
Fig. 9. Interpretation of formation of bound water layer resulting from
presence of frother.
Table 1
Water carrying rate and bubble film thickness
Frother Water carrying rate, Bound water
Jwo (cm/s) (at eg = 25%, Fig. 5) film thickness (nm)
n-Pentanol 0.07 <160
MIBC 0.18 <160
DF 250 0.25 600
F 150 0.35 1100
The mechanisms invoked that may retard (even reverse the
flow) include Gibbs elasticity and the Marangoni effect dri-
ven by surface tension gradients and increased surface vis-
cosity due to structural effects deriving from the nature of
the surfactant. Mostly these are discussed in terms of froth
stability, a relatively quiescent region compared to the
dynamic, turbulent region where bubbles are generated.
A speculation is offered on the latter.
An artistÕs impression of the plume of air downstream of
a rotating impeller blade is depicted in Fig. 10. This is
injected into a solution of frother, whose molecules, by
analogy with the picture in Fig. 9, are surrounded by a
region of ÔorganizedÕ water. By chance a nascent bubble
shearing from the air surface encounters a frother mole-
cule, or at least its Ôsphere of influenceÕ on the water struc-
ture. The bubble surface now has a ÔpatchÕ of bound water
which may be sufficient to hinder the drainage of the water
film between adjacent bubbles and prevent coalescence.
(This might be classed as a structural effect.) Once the bub-
bles start to move apart the opportunity for coalescence is
731
Fig. 10. Artists impression of gas plume downstream of rotating impeller
blade and formation of bound water patches due to frother which may
stabilize bubbles against coalescence at the moment of production (by
shear in this case). (Adapted from Schubert and Bischofberger, 1998.)
Reprinted from International Journal of Mineral Processing, Vol. 52, with
permission from Elsevier.
over. This stabilized bubble concept is depicted in the
Ôexploded viewÕ in Fig. 10.
This interpretation accommodates several features: that
apparently little frother is needed at the surface, indicated
by the plant frother analysis results and the FT-IR bubble
film spectra, and that the action is virtually instantaneous,
coincident with the moment of bubble production. The
frother may be considered, by altering local bulk water
properties, to have ÔconditionedÕ the water to become an
anti-coalescence medium. The frotherÕs modest surface
activity then helps it stay at the air surface, which is a plus.2
This argues against the periodic attempts to introduce
frother via the air (e.g., as an aerosol) to get it more rapidly
to the air–water interface; it is actually needed in the water.
On a practical side it seems as well that frothers are not
strongly surface active otherwise, given the large surface
area of gas injected into flotation cells, they would be
depleted rapidly, making it difficult to keep sufficient in
the system to perform the functions. (Frother remaining
in the water may be undesirable from environmental and
water recycling perspectives but those are other matters.)
The magnitude of anti-coalescence will be a function of
concentration, preserving the concept of a critical coales-
cence concentration (CCC) as a useful aid to thought
(Cho and Laskowski, 2002).
While an anti-coalescence property of frothers can be
demonstrated there are some questions applying it to bub-
ble production. One is the numbers involved. In a typical
experiment it is common for bubble size to reduce from
2.5 to 0.5 mm as frother is added up to the CCC. In
the coalescence model this means 0.5 mm is the primary
generation (i.e., starting) size. Since volume is preserved
this calculates to one hundred 0.5 mm bubbles ((2.5/0.5)3)
2
This modest surface activity may be the factor enabling frothers to
retard coalescence at much lower concentration that inorganic ions (salts)
some of which likewise can modify water structure and retard coalescence.
732 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733
Fig. 11. Evidence of small bubble generated as a consequence of coalescence. Reprinted from Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 58, Tse et al. (2003) with
permission from Elsevier.
coalescing to form the 2.5 mm bubble in the absence of
frother. While not impossible it goes give pause for
thought.
The alternative mechanism is break-up of the air stream.
From just observing the end result, fine bubbles, it is not
possible to distinguish an anti-coalescence action from
one of break-up. Perhaps we should entertain that frother
may condition the water as an air break-up medium.
Opening that door leads to the possibility of both anti-
coalescence and break-up mechanisms being at play. Such
an observation is reported by Tse et al. (2003). The act of
two bubbles coalescing was captured (Fig. 11) which
momentarily produced a sausage-like object (third image
in sequence) that recoiled to recover a more spherical shape
(to minimize interfacial energy) and so doing shed a small
bubble, 0.1 mm. This invites some questions: what is the
role of frother (apparently small bubbles persist (Machon
et al., 1997)); will the sampling followed by imaging tech-
nique capture these small bubbles; do they contribute
materially to flotation? Like most research often more
questions than answers arise.
5. Conclusions
Bubble production in flotation machines results from
the interaction of the generating mechanism and chemistry,
most importantly that of frother. A practical contribution
is made introducing a frother analysis technique, for the
first time suited to on-site determinations. Combined with
gas dispersion measurements, this promises better manage-
ment of flotation systems. A fundamental contribution is
made measuring water carrying rate and investigating bub-
ble thin film properties as a function of frother type. A
bound water layer is identified with a thickness that corre-
lates with water carrying rate. An anti-coalescence mecha-
nism based on bound water interrupting drainage between
adjacent bubbles is suggested. This accommodates the fact
that the bulk of frother remains in the water.
 J.A. Finch et al. / Minerals Engineering 19 (2006) 726–733
Acknowledgments
This work is funded by ÔChair RenewalÕ grant, under the
Collaborative Research and Development program of
NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada) sponsored by Inco, Noranda, Falcon-
bridge, Teck Cominco, COREM, and SGS Lakefield Re-
search. The ideas have germinated from discussions with
a series of talented students and colleagues. Points raised
by Prof. Jan Miller after the Keynote presentation are also
gratefully acknowledged. The engineers and operators who
enthusiastically supported the frother analysis site work are
also recognized.
References
Chattopadhyay, A., 2000. Time-dependent changes in a shampoo bubble.
J. Chem. Educ. 77 (10), 1339–1343.
Cho, Y.S., Laskowski, J.S., 2002. Effect of flotation frothers on bubble
size and foam stability. Int. J. Miner. Process. 64, 69–80.
Cooper, M., Scott, D., Dahlke, R., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A. 2004. Impact
of air distribution profile on banks in Zn cleaning circuit, CIM Bull.
Vol. 97 (1083), extended abstract p. 73, full paper. Available from:
<www.cim.org>.
Coles, H.W., Tournay, W.E., 1942. The Komarowsky color reaction for
aliphatic alcohols. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 14 (1), 20–22.
Gelinas, S., Finch, J.A., 2005. Colorimetric determination of common
industrial frothers. Miner. Eng. 18 (2), 263–266.
Gelinas, S., Finch, J.A., Gouet-Kaplan, M., 2005. Comparative real-time
characterization of frother bubble thin films. J. Coll. Interface Sci. 291
(1), 187–191.
Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2002. Gas dispersion measurements in flotation
machines. CIM Bull. 95 (1066), 73–78.
Gorain, B., 2005. Optimisation of flotation circuits with large flotation
cells. In: Jameson, G., Yoon, R.-H. (Eds.), Centenary of Flotation.
Proceedings of International Conference. SME-AusIMM, Brisbane,
pp. 843–852.
733
Hadler, K., Aktas, Z., Cilliers, J.J., 2005. The effects of frother and collector
distribution on flotation performance. Miner. Eng. 18, 171–177.
Harris, C.C., 1976. Flotation machines. In: Fuerstenau, M.C. (Ed.), A.M.
Gaudin Memorial Volume, vol. 2. SME of AIME, pp. 753–815.
Machon, V., Pacek, A.W., Nienow, A.W., 1997. Bubble sizes in electrolyte
and alcohol solutions in a turbulent stirred verssel. Trans. Inst. Chem.
Eng. 75 (Part a), 339–348.
Nancer, M., Sperline, R.P., Miller, J.D., 2000. Anomolous dispersion
effects in the IR-ATR spectroscopy of water. Appl. Spectrosc. 54 (1),
138–143.
Nesset, J.E., Hernandez-Aguilar, J.R., Acuna, C., Gomez, C.O., Finch,
J.A., 2005. Some gas dispersion characteristics of mechanical flotation
machines. In: Jameson, G., Yoon, R.-H. (Eds.), Centenary of
Flotation. Proceedings of International Conference. SME-AusIMM,
Brisbane, pp. 243–250.
Parkhomovski, V.L., Petrunyak, D.G., Paas, L., 1976. Determination of
methylisobutylcarbinol in waste waters of concentration plants.
Obogashchenie Rud 21 (2), 44–45.
Rödel, K., 1981. Proof of boundary surface water and its effect on
colloidal-chemical properties: IR spectroscopy of foam films. Tenside
Det. 18 (3), 141–148.
Schubert, H., Bischofberger, C., 1998. On the microprocesses air disper-
sion and particle-bubble attachment in flotation machines as well as
consequences for the scale-up of macroprocessses. Int. J. Miner.
Process. 52, 245–259.
Tsatouhas, G., Grano, S.R., Vera, M., 2005. Case studies on the
performance and characterization of the froth phase in industrial
flotation circuits. In: Jameson, G., Yoon, R.-H. (Eds.), Centenary of
Flotation. Proceedings of International Conference. SME-AusIMM,
Brisbane, pp. 377–384.
Tse, K.L., Martin, T., McFarlane, C.M., Nienow, A.W., 2003. Small
bubble formation via a coalescence dependent break-up mechanism.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 275–286.
Wakisaka, A., Komatsu, S., Usui, Y., 2001. Solute–solvent and solvent–
solvent interactions evaluated through clusters isolated solutions;
preferential salvation in water–alcohol mixtures. J. Mol. Liq. 90, 175–
184.
Weber, T., Gomez, C.O., Finch, J.A., 2003. A frother concentration
meter, In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Mineral Processors (division of CIM), Jan 21–23, pp. 639–652.