2020
DOI: 10.3390/min10110978
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of an Attachment–Detachment Kinetic Model for Flotation

Abstract: This paper compares model predictions from a novel kinetic model with data from five fundamental single-mineral literature flotation datasets. The empirical correlations proposed by Safari and Deglon (2018) are modified to improve their robustness, requiring only a single best-fit regression coefficient per mineral type. Experimental and model-predicted rate constants were compared on a parity chart where a reasonable linear correlation was observed, with a gradient of 0.95 and an overall R2 value of 0.97. The… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Physical froth flow modifiers can change the rate of drainage (bubble lamellae drainage and plateau border drainage) and the rate of bubble coalescence and therefore they can influence the local detachment and attachment processes [4,33,[38][39][40][41][42]. Thus, physical froth flow modifiers can therefore influence the quantity, type, and composition of particles that finally report to the concentrate.…”
Section: Brief Overview Of Froth Phase Sub-processesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Physical froth flow modifiers can change the rate of drainage (bubble lamellae drainage and plateau border drainage) and the rate of bubble coalescence and therefore they can influence the local detachment and attachment processes [4,33,[38][39][40][41][42]. Thus, physical froth flow modifiers can therefore influence the quantity, type, and composition of particles that finally report to the concentrate.…”
Section: Brief Overview Of Froth Phase Sub-processesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order for hydrophobic particles to be successfully captured by bubbles, particles and bubbles must first be close enough, that is, particles and bubbles must collide effectively, which is usually determined by the hydrodynamics of the flow field where particles and bubbles are located [21]. Secondly, the hydration film between the hydrophobic particles and the bubbles becomes thin and breaks, and a three-phase contact periphery begins to form and reaches a stable state, that is, the particles adhere to the surface of the bubbles and form particle-bubble aggregates [22]. Finally, when the external force exerted on the particles is greater than the force between the particles and the bubbles, the particles will break away from the surfaces of the bubbles.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The decline in the recovery of coarse particles (>100 µm) is attributed to many reasons, including poor liberation [12][13][14], the low carrying capacity of bubbles [15,16], and the detachment of bubble-particle aggregates due to high turbulence [17][18][19][20]. The poor recovery of fines (<10 µm) is attributed to low collision efficiencies with relatively large bubbles [21,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%