Correspondence of gas holdup and bubble size in presence of different frothers

Frothing behavior of aqueous solutions of oleic acid

“…However, it should be noted that gas hold-up does not reach a plateau value for any of the reagents and tends to continuously increase with concentration. This result was reported for several typical frothers and the reasons for this gradual increase at higher surfactant concentrations, or when the average bubble size does not significantly change, are not entirely clear (Azgomi et al, 2007).…”

“…At low concentrations, below 20 mg/L, the effect of the surfactants is insignificant but at higher concentrations the gas hold-up values increase more sharply. This weak effect of low surfactant concentration on gas hold-up is a characteristic result for weak frothers (Azgomi et al, 2007). For comparison, gas hold-up values for MIBC (at J g = 0.4 cm/s) were reported to be on the order of 9-10% using the same experimental set-up (Azgomi et al, 2007), which again shows that sodium oleate and tall oil are very weak frothers.…”

“…This weak effect of low surfactant concentration on gas hold-up is a characteristic result for weak frothers (Azgomi et al, 2007). For comparison, gas hold-up values for MIBC (at J g = 0.4 cm/s) were reported to be on the order of 9-10% using the same experimental set-up (Azgomi et al, 2007), which again shows that sodium oleate and tall oil are very weak frothers. This overall trend also follows the changes in the bubble size data shown in Fig.…”

“…A set of bubble size data for methyl-isobutyl carbinol, MIBC, (Azgomi et al, 2007) is included in Fig. 1 for comparison.…”

The Online Determination of Bubble Surface Area Flux Using the CiDRA GH-100 Sonar Gas Holdup Meter

“…For example, it is has been reported that the relationship between gas holdup, gas rate, and bubble size defined by the drift flux equations are specific to the frother type and the electrolyte concentration of the water phase (Azgomi et al, 2007). The empirical method of Finch et al does not have a pulp density and viscosity component, and this likely introduces error in the inferred d b and S b values.…”