Air at hydrophobic surfaces and kinetics of three phase contact formation

Krasowska, Marta; Zawała, Jan; Małysa, K.

doi:10.1016/j.cis.2008.10.003

Cited by 128 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of movement of the three-phase contact (TPC) line depends on the surface chemistry and roughness of the particle (Krasowska et al, 2006). As noted before, surfaces of mineral particles are known to be heterogeneous in terms of chemistry (Piantadosi et al, 2000), shape, and roughness (Sedev et al, 2004;Krasowska et al, 2009). These heterogeneities may result in differences in wetting behaviour (Miller et al, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Benchmarking flotation performance: Single minerals

Muganda

Zanin

Grano

2011

International Journal of Mineral Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Benchmarking flotation performance: Single minerals

Muganda

Zanin

Grano

2011

International Journal of Mineral Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The attachment of a particle to a bubble is influenced by the contact angle and surface roughness. The surfaces of mineral particles are heterogeneous in terms of chemistry (Piantadosi et al, 2000) and roughness (Sedev et al, 2004;Krasowska et al, 2009), resulting in differences in wetting behaviour (Miller et al, 1996). Particles of the same mineral and narrow size fraction prepared under the same conditions may be assumed to have very similar physical properties in terms of shape and roughness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of particle size and contact angle on the flotation of chalcopyrite in a laboratory batch flotation cell

Muganda

Zanin

Grano

2011

International Journal of Mineral Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It was recently shown, however, that even at the solid/liquid interfaces of high hydrophobicity (contact angle above 100°) immersed in distilled water the duration of the TPC formation, i.e., the total time needed for bubble attachment to solid surface, can vary by over order of magnitude [5][6][7]. The bubble could be either attached to the solid surface immediately during the first collision or four to five bouncing periods were observed before the bubble attachment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On mechanism of the bubble bouncing from hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces

Zawała¹,

Zawała²,

Małysa³

2015

Annales UMCS, Chemia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The kinetics of collision and bouncing of an air bubble on hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces immersed in distilled water is reported. We carried out the experiments and compared the bubble collision and bouncing courses on the stagnant and vibrating, with a controlled frequency and amplitude, solid/liquid interface. For stagnant interface differences in the outcome of the bubble collisions with hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces are resulting from different stability of the intervening liquid film formed between the colliding bubble and these surfaces. The liquid film was unstable at Teflon surface, where the three-phase contact (TPC) and the bubble attachment were observed, after dissipation of most of the kinetic energy associated with the bubble motion. For vibrated solid surface it was shown that kinetics of the bubble bouncing is independent on the hydrophilic/hydrophobic properties of the surface. Similarly like at water/glass hydrophilic interface, even at highly hydrophobic Teflon surface time of the bubble collisions and bouncing was prolonged almost indefinitely. This was due to the fact that the energy dissipated during the collision was re-supplied via interface vibrations with a properly adjusted acceleration. The analysis of the bubble deformation degree showed that this effect is related to a constant bubble deformation, which determined constant radius of the liquid film, large enough to prevent the draining liquid film from reaching the critical thickness of rupture at the moment of collision. The results obtained prove that mechanism of the bubble bouncing from various interfaces depends on interrelation between rates of two simultaneously going processes: (i) exchange between kinetic and surface energies of the system and (ii) drainage of the liquid film separating the interacting interfaces.

show abstract

Air at hydrophobic surfaces and kinetics of three phase contact formation

Cited by 128 publications

References 95 publications

Benchmarking flotation performance: Single minerals

Benchmarking flotation performance: Single minerals

Influence of particle size and contact angle on the flotation of chalcopyrite in a laboratory batch flotation cell

On mechanism of the bubble bouncing from hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About