Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Separation and Purification Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seppur

Hydrodynamic study of three-phase flow in column flotation using electrical T

resistance tomography coupled with pressure transducers
⁎
Balraju Vadlakonda, Narasimha Mangadoddy
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Kandi (V), Medak (Dist.), Telangana 502285, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Bubble size distribution, bubble rise velocity, gas and solids hold-up are the extensively used hydrodynamic
Column flotation parameters apart from floatability data for column flotation design and performance evaluation. In the current
Hold-up work, the combined solids and gas hold-up distribution characteristics are studied using non-intrusive electrical
Electrical resistance tomography resistance tomography (ERT) coupled with pressure transducers (PT) in a laboratory column flotation. The effect
Multi-phase flow
of superficial gas velocity, slurry feed flow rate and slurry height in the column on mean gas hold-up, combined
Hydrodynamics
solids-gas hold-up and its radial distribution is analysed for both two-phase and three phase slurry systems.
Slurry experiments are conducted for three different solids concentrations. Using the modified sensitivity back
projection (MSBP) algorithm, the measured raw voltage data has been reconstructed into conductivity data and
thereby estimating the equivalent phase concentration values by adopting Maxwell principle. Mean gas and
solids hold-ups extracted from ERT have been critically assessed for the column operating in various flow re-
gimes. The ERT measured mean gas hold-up and solids hold-up values are in close agreement with the data
estimated from pressure difference measurements. The results show an increment in the gas hold-up with an
increase in the superficial gas velocity, whereas solids hold-up distribution is almost homogeneous for high gas
velocities. The gas hold-up reduces with solids content at the fixed gas and slurry flowrates. The presence of
solids render the bubble rise velocity thereby decreases the local gas hold-up with the solids percent. Further
feed slurry flow rate and frother dosage effects on column hydrodynamics have been studied and the change in
the phase hold-ups is quantified.

1. Introduction
Column flotation is the most significant technological innovation in
flotation machinery and has been successfully used in mineral proces-
sing plants. There has been a lot of attention in understanding the
various mechanisms that take place during its operation. Column flo-
tation is found to yield better performance than the conventional me-
chanical flotation cells, particularly with fine particles [1]. Because of
its complex flow behavior in nature, the performance of column flota-
tion significantly influenced by flow characteristics of the process [2].
Previously research is mainly carried out to estimate the influence of
the hydrodynamic parameters on performance of column flotation [3].
Gas hold-up plays a significant role on the column performance.
Bubble size and its distribution plays a key role in determining the gas
hold-up. Therefore estimation of correct bubble size is critical [4–7].
The calculation of bubble size distribution by imaging methods is not
accurate because of overlapping of bubbles at intermediate and high
gas flow rates. Many techniques have been developed in the past to
estimate the gas hold-up for columns. Tomography techniques are well
sound to investigate the hydrodynamics for process equipment [8].
Among that, Electrical resistance tomography (ERT) is extensively used
in several industrial processes for visualization of the phase con-
centration profiles and characteristics of the hydrodynamics in gas–li-
quid two-phase systems [9–11]. ERT is an imaging technique used to
analyse the internal flow behavior non-intrusively. Due to its high speed
capability, low cost measurement, robust sensors, ERT is considered to
be the most dominant tool among other tomography techniques such as
positron emission tomography [12,13], magnetic resonance imaging
[14], optical [15] and infrared tomography [16]. Sharifi and Young
[17] made a detail discussion on the ERT applications in various pro-
cess industries.
In the past, many researchers attempted to characterize the two
phase flow in bubble column using the ERT. Bennett et al. [18] dis-
tinguished the flow behaviour by heterogeneity statistic (HIT) method
using electrical capacitance tomography (ECT) in a 56 mm bubble
column. Fransolet et al. [19] compared the gas hold-up obtained by

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: narasimha@iith.ac.in (N. Mangadoddy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.04.039
Received 20 June 2017; Received in revised form 16 March 2018; Accepted 15 April 2018
Available online 16 April 2018
1383-5866/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy
Pressure Transducers (PT) and optical probe with ERT data in a bubble
column. Further they [20] calculated the gas hold-up for non-New-
tonian fluids by ERT technique in the bubble column and found that an
increase in the liquid viscosity reduces the gas hold-up value and
reaches minimum. Homogeneous flow regime tends to disappear and
large bubbles are formed due to coalescence phenomena. Wang et al.
[21] measured the gas volume fraction and velocity distributions in
swirly, bubbly air-water flows in a 80 mm bubble column using ERT.
Jin et al. [22] adopted ERT to explain the effect of air superficial ve-
locity and liquid velocity on the mean gas hold-up and radial gas hold-
up distribution at different flow regimes. ERT based gas hold-up values
are cross validated against the differential pressure transducers data. In
another study, Jin et al. [23] measured the Sauter mean bubble size and
bubble rise velocity using Dynamic gas disengagement (DGD) technique
based on ERT experiments in a 56 mm diameter bubble column. Vijayan
et al. [24] has explored the influence of sparger geometry on the void
fraction to identify the flow regimes in the bubble column. Jin et al.
[25] also investigated the influence of the viscosity and surface tension
on the gas hold-up. It was observed that mean gas hold-up decreased
with an increase in the surface tension and increased with an increase
in the viscosity. Parvareh et al. [26] studied different two phase flow
regimes in vertical and horizontal tubes using both ERT and numerical
techniques. Meng et al. [27] is estimated the air-water two phase flow
measurements such as void fraction, mass flow rate fraction of air in
pipe (mass quality) and mass flow measurement by combination of
venture meter with ERT. Jin et al. [28] assessed the influence of the
various sieve plates with different free areas and hole diameters on the
local gas hold-up in the multistage bubble column with the help of ERT.
Sharaf et al. [29], Faraj et al. [30] and Jia et al. [31] measured the void
fraction using ERT and wire-mesh sensor and observed very close va-
lues. Lucas et al. [32] measured the local and mean solids volume
fraction distribution and solids axial velocity distribution in a vertical
pipe. It was observed that gas hold-up and solid hold-up can be ex-
plored by using ERT coupled with differential pressure transducers
[33].
Babaei et al. [34,35] measured the gas hold-up using the ERT at
different levels of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the activated
sludge system. Based on DGD technique, Sauter mean bubble diameter
and bubble rise velocity was estimated. Mixing time has been measured
in the activated sludge column and noted decrement with an increase in
the air superficial velocity. Hamood-ur-Rehman et al. [36,37] discussed
the effect of design and operating parameters on mixing time, gas hold-
up in the airlift bioreactor using ERT. Hashemi et al. [38,39] presented
the bubble behavior and gas hold-up variation in aerated mixing vessel.
It was observed that the impeller speed, gas superficial velocity and
number bubble size classes parameters influence the gas hold-up.
Mixing characteristics have been studied in the mechanically stirred
vessel by considering the effect of two coaxial configuration and its
rotation modes, viscosity, gas flow rate and impeller speed. Khalili et al.
[40] discussed the influence of impeller speed, gas flow rate, and fluid
rheology on bubble size distribution, gas hold-up in aerated mixing
systems using ERT coupled with DGD technique. Various types of im-
pellers were tested to study the effect on the gas dispersion in the highly
viscous and non-Newtonian biopolymer solution.
Specific to column flotation, a significant research has been done
related to gas hold-up by Professor James Finch group at McGill
University [41–47] with the help of point based electrical conductivity
probe and conductivity cell, where the conductivity data is related to
the volumetric fraction of the gas phase (the non-conducting phase) in
the dispersion [48]. Most of these studies were focussed on sectional
average gas hold-up and global gas and solids hold-up. A general trend
of decrease in the gas hold-up upon adding solids was observed [49].
The common explanation for the decrease in gas hold-up was the coa-
lescence induced by solids creating larger bubbles which rise faster and
the same has been attributed to the possibility of reduced bubble
breakup [50]. The increase in bubble size was usually inferred, very
275
Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288
rarely measured [51] and may be sufficient to actually cause a change
in bubble velocity.
One of the pioneer works by Banisi et al. [45] explains the change in
gas hold-up in the presence of solids in column flotation. Bhunia et al.
[52], Mena et al. [49], Tavera and Escudero [53], Tavera et al. [54],
Banisi et al. [45] experimentally observed a decrease in gas hold-up as
solids percent was increased for both hydrophilic and hydrophobic
particles and found no change in the bubble size. A significant gas hold-
up reduction was exhibited by hydrophobic particulate slurry compared
to hydrophilic particulate system due to extensive adsorption of frother
by the used coal. The rise in bubble swarm velocity with solids was then
experimentally confirmed by Shen et al. [55]. In their work, the velo-
city was measured across the column by a series of conductivity cells of
known spacing. Gandhi et al. [50] investigated the hydrodynamic be-
havior of slurry bubble columns at high solids concentrations, and
found that the effect of the gas velocity on axial solids distribution were
minimal over the range of gas velocities investigated. Kuan and Finch
[46] have attempted to measure column hydrodynamics using the
synthetic feed material and natural ores. They found important insights
about the nature of three-phase systems in flotation in the presence of
frother. Most of the experimental hydrodynamic research studies for
column flotations have focussed on radial gas hold-up and global gas
hold-ups related to gas-water (two-phase) systems. Since one cannot
conclude that results in two-phase systems necessarily apply for slurries
all the way, but they provide important insights about the nature of
three-phase systems in flotation [46]. Virtually no radial solids dis-
tribution information in column flotation is available in the literature,
except for slurry bubble column [51] in recent times, in which the re-
ported results by ultrafast electron beam X-ray tomography were con-
tradictory to those in generic gas holdup declined trend as mentioned in
the literature [45]. It was showing that the radial gas holdup remained
flat following the addition of 5% solids, but decreased to a lower value
for spherical glass particles of 100 µm. For a better understanding of
column flotation hydrodynamics and improved design exploration, it is
essential to measure both the gas and solids distribution at local and
global levels. Further these data would be utilized for performance
predictions of column flotation based on hydrodynamics and also uti-
lized for validating CFD models, if developed for column flotation from
fundamentally. In this paper, the effect of solid particles is studied not
only on the overall sectional average gas holdups, but also on the radial
combined hold-up in the column flotation. The gas and solids con-
centration profiles are measured using ERT coupled with pressure
transducers in a 100 mm diameter laboratory column flotation. Influ-
ence of solid particles on gas hold-up and its dispersion characteristics
in the column are assessed. The effects of superficial gas velocity, slurry
feed superficial velocity, solids percentage, sparger, pulp height and
frother dosage on combined hold-up and its local distribution in the
column have been evaluated extensively and discussed for both two-
phase and three phase flows. In addition to that influence of above
mentioned parameters on solid hold-up and gas hold-up in the column
flotation is also studied.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental set-up
Schematic of laboratory scale column flotation rig used for the ex-
perimental studies is shown in Fig. 1. From the literature, it is observed
that column height to diameter (H/D) ratio should be more than 5 for
effective bubble-particle contact. Therefore, the column is fabricated
with 0.1 m diameter and 2.5 m length. The laboratory column flotation
is made with transparent perspex to enable the imaging of the bubble in
two-phase system. Experiments are carried out for gas-liquid-solid three
phase system, where the gas phase as air, liquid phase as water and
solid phase as fine silica particles. Particles having mean size of 200 μm
of silica material is used in all the experiments. Air is introduced from
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of column flotation.
the bottom of the column through sintered bronze disc spargers with
suitable ‘O’ ring is fitted in the grove of the funnel using air compressor.
It is to be ensured that the bubbles are generated from entire area of the
disc and not from the sides. The air flow rate is controlled and measured
using rotameter and experiments are conducted within range of 0.6,
0.9, 1.2 and 1.8 cm/s superficial velocities. Various sintered disk spar-
gers having 60 k, 200 k and 400 k pores are used for air distribution into
the column. The pore number density indicates a number of small sized
pores in the selected sparger. Instead of expressing in area or volumetric
way, the pores are expressed in number density. The cross-sectional
area of each sparger kept the same. The pore size gets decrease, as the
number of pores increases. As the pore number density increases, the
number of small bubbles would also increase and leads to an increase
surface area of the bubbles. To study the impact of pore size on the
phase hold-up variation, the pore number density has changed in the
experiments. Experiments are conducted at 0.3, 0.4 and 0.57 cm/s
slurry superficial velocities and 2100, 2300 and 2400 mm pulp height
levels. The interface height/level is monitored with a differential
pressure transmitter and programmable controller looped with the
discharge pump. Pressure transducers are used to measure the overall
sectional gas hold-up and fitted to the column at 900 mm and 1390 mm
above the gas distributor. Methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC) used as a
frother in the experiments for enhancing the gas hold-up of the column.
Frother concentration levels 0, 5 and 10 ppm are used to control the
bubble size. The 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids are considered in the multi-
phase experiments.
Fraction factorial method is adopted for the design of experiments
(DOE) for the three-phase column flotation experiments. The para-
meters considered are solids wt%, feed slurry superficial velocity, pulp
height, air superficial velocity, sparger pore number and frother con-
centration. A total number of 149 (3 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 2 + 5) ex-
periments are conducted and complete details can be found the fol-
lowing Fig. 2.
276
Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288
2.2. ERT set up
Industrial Tomography Systems (ITS) UK based z8000 ERT system is
used in the experiments for gas hold-up mapping. The ERT is designed
based on a high speed dual plane system with a data acquisition speed
of 1000 dual frames per second. The ERT setup consist of three parts
with sensors, data acquisition system (DAS) and computer. The ERT
sensors are connected to cylindrical section and other end of the sensors
is connected to the DAS. Two planes of ERT sensors each composed of
16 stainless steel electrodes are mounted on the inner wall periphery of
100 mm diameter cylindrical section with equal spacing. The electrodes
are rectangular in shape (20 mm length × 10 mm width) and material
of construction (MOC) is stainless steel. All these electrodes are con-
nected to DAS via cables. DAS and host computer are connected
through IEEE-1394 DV cable. Electric current is applied between one
pair of electrodes and the resultant voltage differences among the re-
maining 13 electrode pairs are measured by DAS. Adjacent electrode
strategy is used to get the resultant voltage drop measurements at all
the electrodes. The 16 electrode sensor gives about 104 independent
voltage measurements in one measurement of frame. The EWPS am-
plitude, frequency, samples per sinewave and phase shift are 0 × 80,
8 kHz, 8, 16.88 degree respectively used in ERT experiments. The host
computer is then used to store and collect the data from the DAS
system. After obtaining the voltage measurements from DAS system, the
host computer processes data by using ITS tool suit software, where it
adopts finite element method and followed by modified sensitivity back
projection (MSBP) image reconstruction algorithm [56,57]. The re-
construction of conductivity distribution is obtained by inverse pro-
blems.
Prior to collecting data, it is necessary to take a reference mea-
surement since the ERT system works on the principle of taking mea-
surements and comparing these to a known reference measurement. In
the initial step, all the parameters are set by calibrating the current and
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

Solid Feed slurry Sparger pore Frother

Pulp height Air superficial
percentage superficial density concentration
(mm) velocity (cm/s)
(wt. %) velocity (cm/s) (ppm)

5 0.3 2100 0.6 60000 0

10 0.4 2300 0.9 200000 5

15 0.57 2400 1.2 400000 10

1.8

Fig. 2. The DOE having different levels and factors selected for the column flotation experiments.

gains associated with the measured signal amplitude. As per the pro-
cedure provided by ITS, the current and gains are calibrated before
taking any measurements. As per the literature Dickin and Wang [8] the
gain error of the signal measurement is measured as less than 1.4%. In
the same work, they observed majority of error are less than 1% with a
maximum of 5%. The spatial resolution of the ERT is estimated as 5% of
the column diameter similar to the literature data [58]. In the current
work, as the ERT system is used for measuring gas bubbles in a liquid/
slurry flow; the reference frame is taken by completely filling the sen-
sors with only liquid/slurry. This performs a reference measurement
and all the reconstructed pixel values are assigned the value of re-
ference conductivity. The accuracy of the data is tested by validating
the ERT measured conductivities against conductivity probe data for
different concentrations of NaCl solution [11]. It can be seen that the
ERT measured conductivity is closely matching with conductivity meter
data. An average error of 7.4% is observed between the probe and ERT
measured data [11].
method coupled with ERT is used in column flotation [33]. The two
pressure sensors are located near the ERT measurement section, so that
it can give the local pressure data across the pressure sensor. After
coupling with ERT data, the gas hold-up and solids hold-up can be
determined as described in the following equations section.
3. Equations
The combined mean gas and solids hold-up of the column flotation
from conductivity data is calculated using Maxwell’s equation [48,60]
shown in Eq. (1). The assumptions behind the Maxwell’s equation is
that the bubbles are in spherical shape with uniform size and the dis-
persed phase is dilute (∊ < 0.2). The model was validated for gas-li-
quid flows by comparing against gamma-ray tomography experimental
data and found good agreement [61].
ε +ε =
g
(2σ + σ −2σ −( ) )
s
1 2 mc
σmc σ2
σ1

2.2.1. ERT data analysis (σ −( ) + 2(σ −σ ) )

mc
σ2
σ1 1 2
(1)
ERT Data analysis is persuaded using the raw voltage data obtained
in a 100 mm laboratory column. The number of frames collected by where σ1 is the conductivity of liquid phase, σ2 is the conductivity of
using the ERT system is nearly 1500, roughly at about 3–5 s of the gas and solid phases together and σmc is the mixture conductivity. In
column operation. Fig. 3 shows the obtained ERT system voltage this work, air and silica being non-conducting materials and con-
measurements, reference voltage measurements and relative changes ductivities are assumed close to zero value. Then the above equation
between the reference and actual measurements. The horizontal axis reduces to
shows the pair of different electrode measurements from 1 to 13. This (2σ1−2σmc )
display is often used to know whether the system is operating with εg + εs =
(2σ1 + σmc ) (2)
minimal noise or not. Working ERT system has two planes, so the graph
is indicating the measurements for two planes. The 1500 frames col- Pressure drop is mainly due to the liquid and solid phase’s static
lected from ERT z8000 system are averaged over the collected frames head, frictional and acceleration forces. Since the gas density is very
using ITS tool suite software which is built based on various re- small compared to the liquid and solid density in column flotation, the
construction algorithms. Using the MSBP algorithm [57], the con- frictional and acceleration forces are negligible. Therefore differential
ductivity distribution of the flow system can be obtained through in- pressure (ΔP) is calculated as,
verse approach. Because of lower computational processing time, better ΔP = gH (ρl εl + ρg εg + ρs εs ) (3)
conversion from impedance to conductivity and optimistic compromise
between resolution and available time, the MSBP is widely used re- where H is the height of the measured section and ΔP is the differential
construction algorithm in ERT [59]. pressure between two pressure sensor points. εg, εl, εs are the gas, liquid
and solid phase hold-ups, respectively. Sum of the three phase hold-up
2.2.2. Phase hold-up measurement is equal to one.
ERT is incompetent to differentiate the three phases because of si- εg + εl + εs = 1 (4)
milar conductivity of phases specially air and silica solids. The gas hold-
up and solids hold-up are measured combinedly as a single non-con- Since the density of air is very small compare to solid and liquid
ductive phase by ERT. To overcome this problem, the pressure drop densities, so the air effect is negligible and ignored in Eq. (3). The

277
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

Fig. 3. ERT measured voltages, reference voltage measurements and relative changes between relative and actual measurements at two planes in the column
flotation.

measured pressure drop is obtained as follows colour regions represent mixture conductivity ranging from high (in
ΔP red1) to low (in blue). The corresponding snapshots of the flow by high
= [1−(εg + εs )] ρl + εs ρs speed camera are presented in Fig. 4(b, d, f, h and j). It is observed that
gH (5)
the low conductivity air phase is occupied in the central region and the
Solving the Eqs. (2) and (5), the solid hold-up can be deduced as Eq. wall side is dominated by high conductivity liquid phase.
(6) The asymmetry is observed in the tomograms of the column at
different air superficial velocities. The pronounced asymmetry of con-

εs =
( 2σ1 − 2σmc
2σ1 + σmc ) ρ −ρ +
l l
ΔP
gH ductivity is due to bubble plume dynamic oscillating behaviour/
ρs (6) meandering as described by Brajesh et al. [58] and Vadlakonda and
Mangadoddy [11]. Due to the shear induces by bubble plume to the
local fluid, the meandering motion occurs. This indicates that more gas
3.1. Phase separation method hold-up is occupied in the center region compared to wall region.
Further, it is observed that dilute bubble plume with more or less
Phase separation method is used to evaluate the sum of mean gas uniform bubbles are found at 0.5–1.0 cm/s air superficial velocity, be-
hold-up in the column [53]. Estimating the gas hold-up by phase se- longs to homogeneous bubble flow regime. At higher gas superficial
paration method is accurate for laboratory columns and pilot columns velocities, say 1.2–1.8 cm/s, a dense bubbly flow with varying bubble
set-ups. Using this method the gas hold-up measurement is difficult for sizes seems to found, which indicate transition flow regime.
online application. To estimate the gas hold-up, the final height of in- Fig. 5 shows the comparison of average gas hold-up measured by
terface level (hf) is measured at steady state. After shut down the air ERT and pressure transducers for two phase system. Experiments are
valve, the measured height of interface (hi) in without air is utilized for carried out using 200 k pores sparger, 2300 mm liquid height,
gas hold-up estimation by Eq. (7) 0.1833 cm/s liquid superficial velocity. Close agreement between
hf −hi pressure transducers and ERT data at all the air superficial velocities is
Gas hold−up(εg ) = observed. A minimum error of 0.57% and maximum error of 4.47% is
hf (7)
observed between ERT and pressure transducers data. A detailed study
where hf is the height of interface level at steady state, hi is the height of on two-phase hydrodynamics of column flotation was presented else-
interface level in the absence of bubbles. This method is very old and where by authors (Vadlakonda and Mangadoddy, [11]). From these
unable to measure the gas hold-up in continuous manner. studies, it is confirmed that ERT is able to measure the relative changes
in the conductivity of the flow system thereby one can deduce the two-
4. Results and discussion phase hydrodynamic parameters close to conventional pressure probe
techniques.
4.1. Two-phase conductivity tomograms

Basic air-water two phase experiments are carried out in the column 4.2. Multi-phase experiments analysis
flotation by varying air superficial velocities in the range of 0.6-1.8 cm/
s. Mean conductivity tomograms along with bubble images captured by 4.2.1. Phase hold-ups
high speed camera are displayed for plane-1 in Fig. 4. The tomographic Slurry based ERT experiments are carried out using 200 k pores
images are time-averaged. 1500 frames are captured in 3 s and aver-
aged. It is observed that the mixture conductivity gradually decreases 1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 4 and 9, the reader is referred to the web version of
with an increase on air flow rate (Fig. 4a, c, e, g and i). The different this article.

278
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

Air superficial Plane 1 Conductivity Flow images 24 (a)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

velocities (ȝS/cm) P5%
20 P10%
(cm/s)
16 P15%
12
8
0.6 4
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(a) (b) Air superficial velocity (cm/s)
15 P5% (b)
P10%
12

Solid hold-up (%)

P15%
0.9 9

6
(c) (d) 3

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Air superficial velocity (cm/s)
1.2
(c)
10 P5%

(e) (f) P10%

8
P15%

Gas hold-up (%)

6

1.5 4

(g) (h) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Air superficial velocity (cm/s)

1.8 Fig. 6. Cross-sectional (a) combined mean gas hold-up (εg) and solid hold-up
(εs) (b) mean solid hold-up (c) mean gas hold-up in the column flotation at
0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity, 2300 mm pulp height and 200,000
(i) (j) pores sparger.

The combined hold-up trend is shown by ERT data, whereas individual

solid and gas hold-up data extracted with help of pressure transducers
Fig. 4. Conductivity tomograms of air-water system and bubble flow images in
laboratory column flotation at different air superficial velocities.
data. To demonstrate the phase hold-up trends, three Figures are dis-
played separately. The estimated combined gas and solids hold-up is
displayed at different air superficial velocities and varying solids con-
ERT tent in Fig. 6(a). The combined hold-up (gas + solid) increases with the
8
Pressure transducers air flow rate. For all the solids content, the combined hold-up increases
linearly up to 1.2 cm/s air superficial velocity, where the flow seems to
6 be in homogenous flow regime as described earlier. Further increase in
Gas hold-up (%)

4 persists. As expected the combined hold-up increases with an increase
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Air superficial velocity (cm/s)
Fig. 5. Comparison of gas hold-up between ERT and differential pressure
method at 2300 mm liquid height, 0.1833 cm/s liquid superficial velocity and
200 k pores sparger.
sparger, with 5%, 10% and 15% (by weight) solids content at 2300 mm
pulp height of the column. The slurry solutions with solids content 5%,
10% and 15% are displayed as P5%, P10% and P15% in the Figures.
Slurry feed superficial velocity of 0.4 cm/s is used in these experiments.
the air the superficial velocity, bubble flow becomes transitional, where
an evolving bubble interactions via bubble break-up and coalescence
in solids percentage. At 0.6 cm/s air superficial velocity the rise in
combined hold-up is about 6.5–12.2%, whereas at 1.8 cm/s the rise is
about 13.5–19% for the column operating from 5% solids to 15% solids.
The average standard error estimated for 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids cases
are 0.52, 0.21 and 0.13 respectively.
2 Using the originally estimated combined phase hold-up from ERT
and the coupled pressure transducers data, solid hold-up can be cal-
culated using Eq. (6) as described earlier in the equations section. The
calculated solid hold-up values for three solids percentages at various
air superficial velocities are plotted in Fig. 6(b). The change in solids
hold-up is minimal with the air superficial velocity. At low air super-
ficial velocity, the bubble number density is low as a result low gas
hold-up prevails in the column, the dispersion of solid particles due to
air phase into liquid column is limited. At higher air superficial velo-
city, the dispersion of solids increases throughout the given cross sec-
tion, hence slightly increased solids hold-ups are observed. As the slurry

279
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

25 superficial velocities and 10 wt% of silica slurry solution at 2300 mm

Ja - 1.2 cm/s
pulp height and 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity is displayed in
Fig. 8. As the Jg increases, the hold-up distribution across the column
20 radius also increases, having maximum values in the centre region. Due
Gas +solid hold-up (%)

to passage of predominant bubble plume, the combined hold-up has

increased from 9% to 22.5% for a variation of air superficial velocity
from 0.6 to 1.8 cm/s.
15
ERT measured cross sectional concentration tomograms of the
column operating with and without solids at different air superficial
P5%
velocities are displayed in Fig. 9. The different colours represent com-
10 P10% bined hold-up ranging from the high concentration (in red and yellow)
P15% to low (in blue). The colour coding explains the combined solid and gas
hold-up concentration by vol%. The complete blue colour represents
5 the zero concentration, whereas red colour denotes the 20% volume
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 concentration. It is observed that in case of zero solids, column oper-
Column diameter (m) ating only with air-water, the radial gas hold-up distribution seems to
be uniform and increases with air superficial velocity. As air superficial
Fig. 7. Radial profiles of gas hold-ups and solid hold-ups for 1.2 cm/s air su-
perficial velocity, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity at 2300 mm pulp velocity increases, the tomograms becomes symmetric.
height and 200,000 pores sparger in the column flotation. Tomograms are obtained for three different solids 5, 10 and 15 wt%
of slurry solutions. In case column operating with varying solids con-
tent, the combined radial hold-up uniformly distributed at low air su-
solid percent increases the solid hold-up also increases.
perficial velocity, and slowly gets distributed asymmetrically with a rise
Gas hold-up is an important parameter for estimation of the column
in air superficial velocity. The uniform nature gets disturbed with an
flotation performance. Fig. 6(c) displays the calculated mean gas hold-
increase in the solids content. As the solids content increases, the gas
up using Eqs. (2) and (6) in the presence of solids for various operating
plume gets more distributed towards centre due to possible bubble
conditions. From Fig. 6(c), it is observed that cross sectional mean gas
coalescence phenomena. As a result, the gas hold-up reduction de-
hold-up increases with the air superficial velocity. Solids content also
creases [62]. The combined gas and solid hold-up concentration is peak
influences the gas hold-up values. The gas hold-up decreases with in-
at center region of the column compare with walls as clearly observed
crease in the solids percentage. The bubble coalescence induced by the
at 10 and 15 wt% solids slurry solution.
solids might be creating larger bubbles which rise faster; hence the
argued effect of solids occurred on gas hold-up. Similar bubble rise
4.2.2. Effect of slurry feed superficial velocity
velocity was also measured and confirmed earlier for columns [55]. At
The counter-current flow behavior of slurry-gas plays a vital role on
low gas superficial velocity, say 0.6 cm/s gas hold-up varies minimal for
gas and solid hold-up distribution in the column. The cross sectional
the solids 5–15% change. At higher air superficial velocities for the
mean gas and solid hold-up is measured at three slurry feed superficial
solids variation the gas hold-up changes from 6% to 8.6%. The mea-
velocities of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.57 cm/s. Experimental analysis of combined
sured average standard error for 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids solutions are
and individual phase concentrations are shown in Fig. 10(a)–(c) for
0.086, 0.16 and 0.11 respectively.
10 wt% solids slurry solution. The combined hold-up increase with
The estimated radial distribution of combined gas and solid hold-up
slurry feed velocity due to increased slurry capacity. The solid hold-up
at 0.4 cm/s slurry feed superficial velocity and 1.2 cm/s air superficial
increases slightly with slurry feed velocity and the change is minimal.
velocity for different solids contents are shown in Fig. 7. The combined
The mean gas hold-up increases with slurry velocity. The bubble rise
radial gas and solid hold-up are steeper at the center region than at the
velocity gets reduced and the residence time of bubbles is increased
walls, i.e. high combined phase hold-up values are primarily at the
with a surge in the feed slurry superficial velocity. As previously
center. It is also observed that combined hold-up increases with the
mentioned by Authors [11], the bubble terminal rise velocities can also
percentage of solids in the feed slurry, which is believed to be due to the
be estimated for different slurry concentrations by Dynamic gas dis-
predominant gas plume occupancy at the center that causes the max-
engagement (DGD) technique using ERT. The measured bubble rise
imum dispersion of gas bubbles as well as solid particles.
velocities for 5, 10 wt% slurry solution cases are 0.28 and 0.41 m/s at
Radial gas and solid combined hold-up is displayed for various air
plane-1 of ERT respectively. One can observe that the bubble rise ve-
locity increases with solids content in the column.. A profound effect on
0.6 cm/s gas hold-up is observed due to increase in slurry feed velocity and air
0.9 cm/s superficial velocity. However, the effect of slurry superficial velocity on
25
1.2 cm/s gas hold-up is less prominent as compared to the air superficial velocity.
1.8 cm/s
Gas + solid hold-up (%)

But solid hold-up is insensitive to air superficial velocity compared to

20
slurry superficial velocity. The standard error is the average value of the
error between measured values to mean hold-up. It is expressed as in
15
hold-up values. The average standard errors are 0.65, 0.36, 0.31 and
0.53 for combined hold-up and 0.32, 0.1, 0.27 and 0.28 for solid hold-
10
up and gas hold-ups at 0.6, 0.9, 1.2 and 1.8 air superficial velocity
respectively.
5
Table 1 illustrates the effect of slurry feed superficial velocity on
combined hold-up, solid hold-up and gas hold-up for different feed
0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 solids content (5, 10 and 15 wt% solids). An increase in the combined
Column diameter (m) hold-up is observed with solids content in the slurry solution. The in-
crement in solids hold-up is minimal with respect to the slurry super-
Fig. 8. Radial gas and solid hold-up for 10 wt% of silica solution at 0.4 cm/s ficial velocity; whereas the gas hold-up decreases with the solids con-
feed slurry superficial velocity, 2300 mm pulp height and 200,000 pores tent.
sparger in column flotation. Fig. 11 displays the effect of slurry superficial velocity on radial

280
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy
Air superficial
velocity (cm/s) 0 (No solid particles)
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.8
Fig. 9. ERT cross-sectional tomograms of combined phase hold-ups in the column at 2300 mm pulp height, 0.4 cm/s slurry superficial velocity, 200,000 pores sparger
and without frother.
distribution of combined hold-up in the column flotation. At low air
superficial velocity of 0.6 cm/s, the combined hold-up is uniformly
distributed between the centre and the wall. The combined hold-up is
steeper at the centre compared to the wall at high air superficial ve-
locities. The combined hold-up is increased from 6.2% to 15.4% at the
centre position of the column, when the slurry feed superficial velocity
changed from 0.3 to 0.57 cm/s at 0.6 cm/s air superficial velocity. The
combined hold-up is changed from 14.5% to 22.3% at 1.8 cm/s air
superficial velocity for the same velocity change.
4.2.3. Effect of pulp height
Many researchers in the past used tall columns to get the clear idea
about flotation process [63–67]. To enhance the bubble-particle inter-
actions, tall columns are useful. Mineral recovery increases with in-
creasing H/D ratio for a constant column volume and feed flow rate,
while the concentrate grade decreases to a minor extent. The required
height of column is function of system characteristics, bubble and
particle size, gas hold-up, pulp density, flow and mixing pattern and
percentage of floated material.
Fig. 12 displays the effect of pulp height on combined hold-up and
in addition to individual solid and gas hold-up profiles. These experi-
ments are carried out without the frother at 10 wt% solids content,
200 k pores sparger, 0.4 cm/s slurry feed superficial velocity. The feed
enters into the column at the height of 1965 mm from bottom of the
column. Based on literature [68–70] it is observed that the froth depth
should be maintained between 100 and 500 mm for a laboratory
column flotation. Hence to maintain the correct bubble dynamics,
minimum collection zone height 2100 mm and maximum 2400 mm is
opted for the 4″ column. Hence we considered three H/D ratio levels to
study the effect of pulp height on gas hold-up. The combined hold-up
Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288
Solids (wt. %)
5 10 15
Combined air & solids
concentration
and solid hold-up are increased with pulp height for the tested diluted
(i.e. < 25% solids) slurry solutions similar to literature [63]. With the
pulp height, the residence time of bubble and solid particle increases.
Because of the counter-current flow of feed slurry and air bubbles, the
air bubbles experience more flow resistance as the H/D ratio increases.
As a result an enhancement is observed in gas hold-up values. The in-
fluence of pulp height on gas hold-up has explained in two-phase flow
of column flotation earlier [11]. In case of silica particles, being hy-
drophilic in nature, these will counter flow against the bubbles
throughout the column and experience more hydrodynamic hindrance
leading to a slight increase in the solids hold-up. If the particles are
hydrophobic, then the influence of hydrodynamic resistance may not be
significant. Pino et al. [71] explained that H/D ratio of 3–12 doesn’t
show any influence on gas hold-up in the bubble column. At H/
D > 12, the gas hold-up is influenced by column height mainly at low
air superficial velocity. In a nutshell, the effect of the pulp height can be
viewed as the hindrance of solid particles on bubbles in a counter-
current flow fashion. The mean gas hold-up changes significantly from
2300 and 2400 mm pulp height than 2100 mm pulp height. The volume
of gas increased as the bubbles move to less hydrostatic pressure region.
As the liquid height increases, the static pressure also rises in the
column. The bubble breakup rate is more at high static pressure and
coalescence decreases [72,73]. Number of fine bubbles are observed at
the liquid height of 2400 mm. Hence the mean gas hold-up is more at
2400 mm pulp height. The average standard errors are 0.38, 0.61 and
0.4 for combined hold-up and 0.1, 0.098 and 0.099 for solid hold-up
and gas hold-ups at 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 air superficial velocity respectively.
Table 2 demonstrates the effect of pulp height on hold-up of various
phases for different solids content (5, 10 and 15 wt%). In all cases, the
combine hold-up increases and solid hold-up remains constant with
281
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

(a) 25 0.6 cm/s pulp height. The gas hold-up increases with pulp height and decreases
0.9 cm/s with increase in solids content.
Gas +solid hold-up (%)

20 1.2 cm/s Fig. 13 shows the radial distribution of combined gas and solids
1.8 cm/s hold-up for column operating with 2100, 2300 and 2400 mm pulp
15 height and 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities. Combined
hold-up is steeper at the centre region compared to the wall region at
10 each pulp height of slurry solution in the column. The combined hold-
up is increased from 7.3% to 13.5% at centre position of the column,
5 when the pulp height changed from 2100 mm to 2400 mm at 0.6 cm/s
air superficial velocity. In case of 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocity the
0 change is 17.3 to 25.2% for the same pulp height change.
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Slurry feed superficial velocity (cm/s)
4.2.4. Effect of frother
0.6 cm/s
(b) The effect of frother on combined hold-up is studied using 0, 5,
15 0.9 cm/s
1.2 cm/s
10 ppm MIBC solution for 10 wt% solids slurry case and the same is
1.8 cm/s displayed in Fig. 14. Bubble size is an influential factor for estimation of
12 bubble surface area flux and flotation kinetics. Frothers are typically
Solid hold-up (%)

used to improve the generation of fine bubbles to stabilize froth. The

9
bubble size can be controlled by frother addition but the mechanism is
still not clearly. Laskowski et al. [74], Finch et al. [75] have described
6
that bubble size is not directly related to controlling the surface tension,
but the most common elucidation is the hindrance of coalescence of
3
bubbles. Based on the literature [76,77], small bubbles are generated
with the addition of frother and it has a large surface to volume ratio.
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Hence the gas hold-up is more when the frother is added in the column.
Slurry feed superficial velocity (cm/s) Due to the possibility of bubble break-up and coalescence at transitional
flow regime (1.8 cm/s Jg), generation of small bubbles is high as
(c) 12 0.6 cm/s
0.9 cm/s
compared with the homogeneous flow regime (0.6 cm/s Jg). Hence
10 1.2 cm/s mean gas hold-up increment is significant at 1.8 cm/s compared to that
1.8 cm/s of 0.6 cm/s air superficial velocity. The mean gas hold-up (%) is
Gas hold-up (%)

8 changed to 4 from 1.44 by addition of 5 ppm MIBC frother to the frother

slurry solution, whereas it changes to 6.97 from 4 by addition of the
6
another 5 ppm MIBC to previous 5 ppm slurry solution at 0.6 cm/s air
4 superficial velocity. Also, the mean gas hold-up is increased 3.2% and
3.35% by the addition of 5 ppm MIBC frother to slurry solution at 1.2
2 and 1.8 air superficial velocities respectively. The same trend is con-
tinued by the addition of 5 ppm MIBC frother to previous 5 ppm slurry
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 solution at 1.2 and 1.8 air superficial velocities and the mean gas hold-
Slurry feed superficial velocity (cm/s) up is increased 3.4% and 4.2% respectively. The frother addition
doesn’t show any impact on solids hold-up. Hence, solids hold-up re-
Fig. 10. Effect of slurry velocity on (a) combined hold-up (b) Solid hold-up (c) mained constant with increasing the frother concentration, as shown in
gas hold-up measured at 10 wt% solids slurry solution, 2300 mm pulp height, Fig. 14(b). The average standard errors are 0.25, 0.15 and 0.16 for
200,000 pores sparger and without frother.
combined hold-up and 0.31, 0.36 and 0.25 for solid hold-up and gas
hold-ups at 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 air superficial velocity respectively.

Table 1
Effect of slurry velocity on combined hold-up, solid hold-up and gas hold-up measured at 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids slurry solution, 2300 mm pulp height, 200,000
pores sparger and without frother.
Solids (wt%)

5 10 15
Air superficial velocity (cm/s) Feed slurry superficial velocity (cm/s) Feed slurry superficial velocity (cm/s) Feed slurry superficial velocity (cm/s)

0.3 0.4 0.57 0.3 0.4 0.57 0.3 0.4 0.57

Combined hold-up (%) 0.6 5.23 6.49 9.4 8.6 9.51 11.71 10.33 12.165 13.83
0.9 6.97 8.81 11.04 10.5 11.64 13.86 12.3 14.17 16.03
1.2 8.7 10.08 13.34 13.15 13.9 15.0 14.4 15.99 18.31
1.8 11.27 13.51 15.46 15.71 17.23 18.37 17.44 18.94 21.75

Solid hold-up (%) 0.6 3.43 4.26 4.62 7.42 8.07 9.11 9.83 11.17 12.21
0.9 3.61 4.66 4.79 8.04 8.63 9.74 10.53 11.85 12.71
1.2 4.14 4.67 4.86 9.014 9.42 9.79 11.27 12.46 13.49
1.8 4.13 4.91 4.89 9.09 9.55 9.82 12.13 12.86 13.89

Gas hold-up (%) 0.6 1.8 2.23 4.77 1.17 1.44 2.6 0.5 0.99 1.62
0.9 3.37 4.15 6.25 2.45 3.0 4.12 1.77 2.32 3.32
1.2 4.56 5.41 8.48 4.14 4.48 5.21 3.13 3.53 4.82
1.8 7.14 8.6 10.57 6.63 7.686 8.55 5.32 6.08 7.86

282
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

Ja = 0.6 cm/s Ja = 0.9 cm/s

30 30 (b) 0.3 cm/s

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

(a) 0.3 cm/s

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

0.4 cm/s
25 0.4 cm/s 25
0.57 cm/s
0.57 cm/s
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05

Column diameter (m) Column diameter (m)

Ja = 1.2 cm/s Ja = 1.8 cm/s

30 (d)
30 0.3 cm/s
(c)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

0.4 cm/s 25
Gas +solid hold-up (%)

25 0.57 cm/s
20
20
15
15
0.3 cm/s
10 10 0.4 cm/s
0.57 cm/s
5 5

0 0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
Column diameter (m) Column diameter (m)

Fig. 11. Effect of slurry superficial velocities on radial combined hold-up distribution at various air superficial velocities (a) 0.6 (b) 0.9 (c) 1.2 (d) 1.8 cm/s measured
at 2300 mm pulp height, 200,000 pores sparger, 10 wt% solids slurry solution and without frother.

The effect of frother on combined hold-up, solid hold-up and gas constant with sparger pore number density and air superficial velocity.
hold-up for different solids content is displayed in Table 3. The ex- As the pore number density increases, small size of bubbles are gener-
perimental results are assessed for 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids content ated resulting in more surface to volume ratio of bubbles thereby an
cases. The combined hold-up and gas hold-up increases with frother increased gas hold-up in the column. The mean gas hold-up increases
dosage, while solid hold-up remains constant. Due to enhancement in from 43.44% to 105.87%, when sparger pore number density is
the gas hold-up, the combined hold-up also increases. The gas hold-up changed from 60 k to 200 k and 200 k to 400 k respectively when it is
increases with the addition of frother in each case of solids content. The operated with 0.6 cm/s air superficial velocity. The increment of
gas hold-up decreases with increase the solids content in the slurry 42.65%, 58.36% and 38.56%, 35.47% are observed for sparger pore
solution as explained in Section 4.2.1. number density changes from 60 k to 200 k and 200 k to 400 k at 1.2
Fig. 15 shows the radial distribution of combined hold-up of gas and and 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities. The average standard errors are
solid at 0, 5, 10 ppm MIBC frother dosage operating at 0.6, 1.2 and 0.24, 0.29 and 0.33 for combined hold-up and 0.16, 0.11 and 0.13 for
1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities. It is observed that the combined solid hold-up and gas hold-ups at 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 air superficial velo-
hold-up radial distribution is having peak at centre region compare to city respectively.
walls region. The radial distribution difference among the different Table 4 illustrates the effect of sparger pore density on combined
frother levels is significantly large at 10 ppm MIBC frother case at any hold-up, solid hold-up and gas hold-up for different solids contents of 5,
given air superficial velocity condition. The combined hold-up is in- 10 wt%. As sparger pore number density increases, the combined hold-
creased from 8% to 19.5% at the centre position of the column, when up and gas hold-up are increased, while the solid hold-up remains
the frother is changed from 0 to 10 ppm at 0.6 cm/s air superficial constant.
velocity. The combined hold-up is changed from 19% to 35.5% at Fig. 17 displays the radial distribution of gas and solid combined
1.8 cm/s air superficial velocity. hold-up with 60 k, 200 k and 400 k pores based spargers operating at
0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities. The gas hold-up is sig-
nificantly increased with air superficial velocity, when the pore number
4.2.5. Effect of sparger density is increased. The combined hold-up is increased from 7% to
Experiments are carried out with 60 k, 200 k and 400 k pores sin- 11.5% at the centre position of the column, for the pore number density
tered disc spargers. Phase hold-ups are estimated for 5 and 10 wt% changed from 60 k to 400 k at 0.6 cm/s air superficial velocity. The
solids slurry solution operating with 0.4 cm/s slurry superficial velo- combined hold-up is changed from 14% to 24.5% at 1.8 cm/s air su-
city. The measured combined hold-up, solid hold-up and gas hold-up perficial velocity for the same sparger change. The gas and solids
are shown in Fig. 16(a)–(c) respectively for 10 wt% solids slurry solu- combined hold-up concentration is more at the centre region across the
tion, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity, 2300 mm pulp height, cross sectional of the column. The combined hold-up distribution dif-
without frother and various air superficial velocities. The combined ference between the centre and the walls is high for the 400 k pore
hold-up and gas hold-up increases while the solid hold-up remains

283
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

(a) 24 30
(a) 2100 mm

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

Ja = 0.6 cm/s 2300 mm
Gas +solid hold-up (%)

25
20 2400 mm
20
16 15

12 10

5
8
0.6 cm/s 0
4 1.2 cm/s -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
1.8 cm/s Column diameter (m)
0
30 2100 mm
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 Ja = 1.2 cm/s
(b)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

2300 mm
Pulp height (mm) 25
2400 mm
20
(b) 12
15
10 10
Solid hold-up (%)

8 5

0
6 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
0.6 cm/s Column diameter (m)
4 1.2 cm/s
1.8 cm/s 30 Ja = 1.8 cm/s
2 (c)
Gas + solid hold-up (%) 25
0
20
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
Pulp height (mm) 15
2100 mm
10
(c) 12 2300 mm
0.6 cm/s 5
2400 mm
10 1.2 cm/s 0
Gas hold-up (%)

1.8 cm/s -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05

8 Column diameter (m)
6 Fig. 13. Effect of pulp height on radial distribution of combined hold-up at (a)
4 0.6 (b) 1.2 (c) 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities and 10 wt% solids, 0.4 cm/s
feed slurry superficial velocity, 200,000 pores sparger, without frother.
2

0 sparger compared to 60 k pore sparger due to dominant faction of fine

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 bubbles.
Pulp height (mm)
Fig. 12. Effect of pulp height on (a) combined hold-up (b) solid hold-up (c) gas 4.2.6. Validation of slurry ERT data
hold-up measured at 10 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry su- Cross-sectional mean gas hold-up values by ERT are validated
perficial velocity, 200,000 pores sparger, without frother and different air su- against the phase separation method for slurry column flotation. The
perficial velocities.
experimental results by ERT with 10 wt% solids operated at slurry feed
superficial velocity of 0.4 cm/s are cross-validated and shown in

Table 2
Effect of pulp height on (a) combined hold-up (b) solid hold-up (c) gas hold-up measured at 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial
velocity, 200,000 pores sparger, without frother and different air superficial velocities.
Solids (wt%)

5 10 15
Air superficial velocity (cm/s) Pulp height (mm) Pulp height (mm) Pulp height (mm)

2100 2300 2400 2100 2300 2400 2100 2300 2400

Combined hold-up (%) 0.6 5.72 6.49 7.41 8.72 9.51 11.31 10.45 12.17 13.83
1.2 8.16 10.08 11.23 12.28 13.9 14.69 13.99 15.991 17.87
1.8 11.51 13.51 14.25 14.34 17.23 18.55 16.28 18.94 21.79

Solid hold-up (%) 0.6 3.92 4.26 4.33 7.66 8.07 8.72 9.85 11.17 12.03
1.2 4.3 4.67 4.64 8.95 9.42 9.62 11.1 12.46 13.33
1.8 4.38 4.91 4.95 8.95 9.55 9.75 11.9 12.86 13.39

Gas hold-up (%) 0.6 1.8 2.23 3.08 1.06 1.44 2.6 0.6 0.999 1.8
1.2 3.88 5.41 6.59 3.33 4.48 5.08 2.89 3.53 4.54
1.8 6.72 8.6 9.5 5.39 7.69 8.8 4.39 6.08 8.4

284
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

30 40
(a)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

(a) Without MIBC
Gas + solid hold-up (%)

Ja = 0.6 cm/s 5 ppm MIBC

25 30
10 ppm MIBC
20 20

15 10
0.6 cm/s
10
1.2 cm/s 0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
5 1.8 cm/s
Column diameter (m)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Without MIBC
40 5 ppm MIBC
Frother (MIBC) concentration (ppm)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

(b) Ja = 1.2 cm/s 10 ppm MIBC

12 30
(b)
10 20
Solid hold-up (%)

8 10

6 0
0.6 cm/s
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
4
1.2 cm/s Column diameter (m)
2 1.8 cm/s
40 Ja = 1.8 cm/s
0 (c)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
30
Frother (MIBC) concentration (ppm)
20
16 (c) Without MIBC
10 5 ppm MIBC
Gas hold-up (%)

12 10 ppm MIBC
0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
8 Column diameter (m)

0.6 cm/s Fig. 15. Effect of frother on radial distribution of combined hold-up at (a) 0.6
4
1.2 cm/s (b) 1.2 (c) 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities, 10 wt% solids slurry solution,
1.8 cm/s 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity, 2300 mm pulp height and 200,000
0 pores sparger.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Frother (MIBC) concentration (ppm) phase separation method. The limitations of ERT are influential noise
Fig. 14. Effect of frother on (a) mean gas hold-up (b) solid hold-up (c) gas hold- generation in sensors, low spatial resolution [23] and sensitivity to the
up measured at 10 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial electrodes location arrangements. Apart from these, it cannot define the
velocity, 2300 mm pulp height, 200,000 pores sparger and various air super- source of the conductivity change i.e change of conductivity by phases
ficial velocities. in the column or data acquisition system [17]. The ERT limitations can
be eliminated by adopting improved algorithms in addition to combine
with other techniques. The average deviation of ERT experimental va-
Fig. 18. The ERT measurements are very close to the phase separation
lues with phase separation data is 5.54%.
gas hold-up data. Despite good match at low superficial velocities, the
ERT has slightly underestimated the gas hold-up values compared to the

Table 3
Effect of frother on (a) mean gas hold-up (b) solid hold-up (c) gas hold-up for 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity,
2300 mm pulp height, 200,000 pores sparger and various air superficial velocities.
Solids (wt%)

5 10 15
Air superficial velocity (cm/s) Frother dosage (ppm) Frother dosage (ppm) Frother dosage (ppm)

0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10

Combined hold-up (%) 0.6 6.49 9.55 13.28 9.51 13.9 17.23 12.17 14.61 16.91
1.2 10.08 14.56 17.27 11.86 17.1 20.43 15.99 19.77 22.49
1.8 13.51 18.15 22.04 14.79 20.19 24.64 18.94 22.66 27.91

Solid hold-up (%) 0.6 4.26 4.27 4.3 8.07 7.86 7.83 11.17 11.79 12.27
1.2 4.67 4.72 4.77 9.04 9.04 9.04 12.46 13.11 14.18
1.8 4.91 4.92 4.96 9.55 9.44 9.49 12.86 13.14 14.36

Gas hold-up (%) 0.6 2.23 5.28 8.99 1.44 4.0 6.97 0.999 2.82 4.64
1.2 5.41 9.84 12.51 4.48 7.67 10.76 3.53 6.66 8.31
1.8 8.6 13.23 17.13 7.69 10.99 15.15 6.08 9.51 13.55

285
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288

25 0.6 cm/s 30
(a) (a)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)
1.2 cm/s 25
60k
20 1.8 cm/s
20 Ja = 0.6 cm/s 200k
400k
15 15

10
10
5

5 0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05

0 Column diameter (m)

0 100 200 300 400 500
Ja = 1.2 cm/s 60k
30
Sparger pore density (k)

Gas + solid hold-up (%)

200k
25 (b) 400k
12
(b) 20
10
Solid hold-up (%)

15

8 10
5
6 0.6 cm/s 0
4 1.2 cm/s -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
Column diameter (m)
1.8 cm/s
2

0 30 Ja = 1.8 cm/s
(c)
Gas + solid hold-up (%)
0 100 200 300 400 500
25
Sparger pore density (k)
20
15
12 (c) 0.6 cm/s 10 60k
10 1.2 cm/s 200k
Gas hold-up (%)

5
400k
1.8 cm/s
8 0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
6 Column diameter (m)

4 Fig. 17. Effect of sparger on radial distribution of combined hold-up at (a) 0.6
(b) 1.2 (c) 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities, 10 wt% solids slurry solution,
2 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity, 2300 mm pulp height and without
frother.
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Sparger pore densit (k) 5. Conclusions

Fig. 16. Effect of spargers on (a) combined hold-up (b) solid hold-up (c) gas
hold-up measured at 10 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry su-
perficial velocity, 2300 mm pulp height, without frother and various air su-
perficial velocities.
The hydrodynamic characteristics of three phase flow of laboratory
column flotation is studied using electrical resistance tomography
coupled with pressure transducer technique operating for a wide range
of operating conditions. The effects of superficial gas velocity, slurry
feed superficial velocity, solids percentage, sparger pore density, pulp

Table 4
Effect of spargers on (a) combined hold-up (b) solid hold-up (c) gas hold-up for 5, 10 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry superficial velocity, 2300 mm
pulp height, without frother and various air superficial velocities.
Solids (wt%)

5 10
Air superficial velocity (cm/s) Sparger pore number (k) Sparger pore number (k)

60 200 400 60 200 400

Combined hold-up (%) 0.6 4.69 6.49 9.56 8.83 9.51 11.79
1.2 7.11 10.08 13.06 11.71 13.9 16.72
1.8 10.87 13.51 16.43 14.12 17.23 20.08

Solid hold-up (%) 0.6 2.97 4.26 4.79 7.83 8.07 8.83
1.2 3.62 4.67 4.85 8.27 9.42 9.33
1.8 3.71 4.91 4.89 8.58 9.55 9.67

Gas hold-up (%) 0.6 1.72 2.23 4.77 1.0 1.44 2.97
1.2 3.48 5.41 8.21 3.14 4.48 7.09
1.8 7.16 8.6 11.55 5.55 7.69 10.41

286
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy
10
Phase separation method
8
ERT
Gas hold-up (%)
6
4 6875(96)00085-4.
2
0 [3] G.S. Finch, J.A. Dobby, Column flotation: a selected review, Part I, Int. J. Miner.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Process. 33 (1991) 343–354, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0892-6875(95)00023-J.
Air superficial velocity (cm/s)
Fig. 18. Validation of ERT values of mean gas hold-up with phase separation
method measured at 10 wt% solids slurry solution, 0.4 cm/s feed slurry su-
perficial velocity, 200,000 pores sparger.
height and frother dosage on combined phase hold-up and its local
distribution have been extensively evaluated in the column. Influence
of solid particle’s fraction on phase hold-up and its dispersion char-
acteristics in the column are assessed. The following specific observa-
tions are made from this study.
• Cross-sectional mean gas and solids hold-up values are successfully
measured by using advanced non-invasive ERT technique coupled
with pressure transducer technique.
• Experiments are conducted with 5, 10 and 15 wt% solids. The effect
of various air and slurry feed superficial velocities on gas and solids
dispersion And phase hold-up profiles are assessed at both homo-
geneous and transitional flow regimes.
• The gas hold-up increases with air and slurry superficial velocities
for the fixed solids content. The gas hold-up increment is about
29.05% when the slurry superficial velocity varied from 0.3 cm/s to
0.57 cm/s at a fixed air superficial velocity of 1.8 cm/s.
• The gas hold-up deceases with the solids content. The gas hold-up
reduced from 2.23% to 0.99% when the solids content changed from
5% to 15% at 0.6 cm/s air superficial velocity. The gas hold-up
changes from 8.6% to 6.08% for the same range of solids content
variation at 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocity. It is believed that the
presence of solids render the bubble rise velocity thereby decreases
the local gas hold-up with the solids percent.
• The solid hold-up remains constant with air superficial velocity,
where it has slightly increased with slurry feed superficial velocity.
The radial distribution of combined phase hold-up is assessed at
various air and slurry feed superficial velocities. The combined
phase hold-up increment is 28.89% at centre compared to walls at
1.8 cm/s air superficial velocity.
• Studies on effect of slurry pulp height shows that the gas hold-up
and combined phase hold-up increases with pulp height, where as
the solids hold-up slightly increases and then remains constant. The
combined phase hold-up and gas hold-up increments are 19.62%,
52.39% when pulp height varied from 2100 mm to 2400 mm at
1.2 cm/s air superficial velocity for 10% solids case.
• Effect of frother dosage and sparger’s number pore density on phase
hold-ups are investigated extensively. Due to generation of fine size
bubbles which results in to an increased surface to volume ratio of
bubbles, the gas hold-up and the combined phase hold-up are in-
creased with frother dosage and pore number density. The gas hold-
up increment of 42.65%, 58.36% and 38.56%, 35.47% are observed
for sparger’s pore number density changes from 60 k to 200 k and
200 k to 400 k at 1.2 and 1.8 cm/s air superficial velocities respec-
tively for 10% solids case. The solids hold-up remains constant due
to its inherent hydrophilic nature.
• ERT values are cross-validated against the conventional phase
287
Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288
separation method, and found the experimental ERT values are
closely matched with the phase separation data.
References
[1] R.Q. Honaker, M.K. Mohanty, Enhanced column flotation performance for fine coal
cleaning, Miner. Eng. 9 (1996) 931–945, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0892-
[2] M.S. Jena, S.K. Biswal, S.P. Das, P.S.R. Reddy, Comparative study of the perfor-
mance of conventional and column flotation when treating coking coal fines, Fuel
Process. Technol. 89 (2008) 1409–1415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.
06.012.
[4] M.H. Chegeni, M. Abdollahy, M.R. Khalesi, Bubble loading measurement in a
continuous flotation column, Miner. Eng. 85 (2016) 49–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.mineng.2015.08.010.
[5] G.S. Dobby, J.B. Yianatos, J.A. Finch, Estimation of bubble diameter in flotation
columns from drift flux analysis, Can. Metall. Q. 27 (1988) 85–90.
[6] P.S.R. Biswal, S.K. Reddy, S.K. Bhaumik, Bubble size distribution in a flotation
column, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72 (1994).
[7] B. Lin, B. Recke, J. Knudsen, S. Jorgensen, Bubble size estimation for flotation
processes, Miner. Eng. 21 (2008) 539–548, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.
2007.11.004.
[8] F. Dickin, M. Wang, Electrical resistance tomography for process applications,
Meas. Sci. Technol. 7 (1996) 247–260.
[9] M. Wang, F.J. Dickin, R. Mann, Electrical resistance tomographic sensing systems
for industrial applications, Chem. Eng. Commun. 175 (1999) 49–70, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00986449908912139.
[10] M. Williams, R.A. Wang, Dynamic imaging of process plant reactors and separators
using electrical process tomography, Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 55 (2000) 185–186.
[11] B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy, Hydrodynamic study of two phase flow of column
flotation using electrical resistance tomography and pressure probe techniques, Sep.
Purif. Technol. 184 (2017) 168–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.04.
029.
[12] R.M. West, X. Jia, R.A. Williams, Quantification of solid-liquid mixing using elec-
trical resistance and positron emission tomography, Chem. Eng. Commun. 174
(1999) 71–147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986449908912140.
[13] I. Edwards, S.A. Axon, M. Barigou, E.H. Stitt, Combined use of PEPT and ERT in the
study of aluminum hydroxide precipitation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009)
1019–1028, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie8010353.
[14] R. Stevenson, S.T.L. Harrison, M.D. Mantle, A.J. Sederman, T.L. Moraczewski,
M.L. Johns, Analysis of partial suspension in stirred mixing cells using both MRI and
ERT, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 1385–1393, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.
10.006.
[15] R.G. Green, R.A. Rahim, K. Evans, F.J. Dickin, B.D. Naylor, T.P. Pridmore,
Concentration profiles in a gravity chute conveyor by optical tomography mea-
surement, Powder Technol. 95 (1998) 49–54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0032-
5910(97)03315-9.
[16] H. Uchiyama, M. Nakajima, S. Yuta, Measurement of flame temperature distribu-
tion by IR emission computed tomography, Appl. Opt. 24 (1985) 4111–4116 http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18224172.
[17] M. Sharifi, B. Young, Electrical resistance tomography (ert) applications to chemical
engineering, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91 (2013) 1625–1645, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cherd.2013.05.026.
[18] M.A. Bennett, R.M. West, S.P. Luke, X. Jia, R.A. Williams, Measurement and ana-
lysis of flows in a gas-liquid column reactor, Chem. Eng. Sci. 54 (1999) 5003–5012.
[19] E. Fransolet, M. Crine, G. L’Homme, D. Toye, P. Marchot, Analysis of electrical
resistance tomography measurements obtained on a bubble column, Meas. Sci.
Technol. 12 (2001) 1055–1060, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/12/8/310.
[20] E. Fransolet, M. Crine, P. Marchot, D. Toye, Analysis of gas holdup in bubble col-
umns with non-Newtonian fluid using electrical resistance tomography and dy-
namic gas disengagement technique, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (2005) 6118–6123, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.03.046.
[21] M. Wang, G. Lucas, Y. Dai, N. Panayotopoulos, R.A. Williams, Visualisation of
bubbly velocity distribution in a swirling flow using electrical resistance tomo-
graphy, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 23 (2006) 321–329, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ppsc.200601063.
[22] H. Jin, S. Yang, M. Wang, R.A. Williams, Measurement of gas holdup profiles in a
gas liquid cocurrent bubble column using electrical resistance tomography, Flow
Meas. Instrum. 18 (2007) 191–196, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.
2007.07.005.
[23] H. Jin, M. Wang, R. Williams, Analysis of bubble behaviors in bubble columns using
electrical resistance tomography, Chem. Eng. J. 130 (2007) 179–185, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2006.08.032.
[24] M. Vijayan, H.I. Schlaberg, M. Wang, Effects of sparger geometry on the mechanism
of flow pattern transition in a bubble column, Chem. Eng. J. 130 (2007) 171–178,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2006.06.024.
[25] H. Jin, H. Yuhuan, Y. Suohe, Gas-liquid flow characterization in bubble columns
with various gas-liquid using electrical resistance tomography, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
147 (2009) 12032, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/147/1/012032.
[26] A. Parvareh, M. Rahimi, A. Alizadehdakhel, A.A. Alsairafi, CFD and ERT in-
vestigations on two-phase flow regimes in vertical and horizontal tubes, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 37 (2010) 304–311, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
B. Vadlakonda, N. Mangadoddy
icheatmasstransfer.2009.11.001.
[27] Z. Meng, Z. Huang, B. Wang, H. Ji, H. Li, Y. Yan, Air–water two-phase flow mea-
surement using a Venturi meter and an electrical resistance tomography sensor,
Flow Meas. Instrum. 21 (2010) 268–276, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
flowmeasinst.2010.02.006.
[28] H. Jin, Y. Lian, Y. Qin, S. Yang, G. He, Distribution characteristics of holdups in a
multi-stage bubble column using electrical resistance tomography, Particuology 11
(2013) 225–231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2012.05.005.
[29] S. Sharaf, M. Da Silva, U. Hampel, C. Zippe, M. Beyer, B. Azzopardi, Comparison
between wire mesh sensor and gamma densitometry void measurements in two-
phase flows, Meas. Sci. Technol. 22 (2011) 104019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/
0957-0233/22/10/104019.
[30] Y. Faraj, M. Wang, J. Jia, Q. Wang, C. Gang Xie, G. Oddie, K. Primrose, C. Qiu,
Measurement of vertical oil-in-water two-phase flow using dual-modality ERT-EMF
system, Flow Meas. Instrum. 46 (2015) 255–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
flowmeasinst.2015.08.010.
[31] J. Jia, A. Babatunde, M. Wang, Void fraction measurement of gas-liquid two-phase
flow from differential pressure, Flow Meas. Instrum. 41 (2015) 75–80, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2014.10.010.
[32] G.P. Lucas, J. Cory, R.C. Waterfall, W.W. Loh, F.J. Dickin, Measurement of the
solids volume fraction and velocity distributions in solids–liquid flows using dual-
plane electrical resistance tomography, Flow Meas. Instrum. 10 (1999) 249–258,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0955-5986(99)00010-2.
[33] H. Jin, Y. Han, S. Yang, G. He, Electrical resistance tomography coupled with dif-
ferential pressure measurement to determine phase hold-ups in gas–liquid–solid
outer loop bubble column, Flow Meas. Instrum. 21 (2010) 228–232, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2010.02.005.
[34] R. Babaei, B. Bonakdarpour, F. Ein-mozaffari, The use of electrical resistance to-
mography for the characterization of gas holdup inside a bubble column bioreactor
containing activated sludge, Chem. Eng. J. 268 (2015) 260–269, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2015.01.042.
[35] R. Babaei, B. Bonakdarpour, F. Ein-Mozaffari, Analysis of gas phase characteristics
and mixing performance in an activated sludge bioreactor using electrical resistance
tomography, Chem. Eng. J. 279 (2015) 874–884, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.
2015.05.072.
[36] M. Hamood-ur-Rehman, Y. Dahman, F. Ein-Mozaffari, Investigation of mixing
characteristics in a packed-bed external loop airlift bioreactor using tomography
images, Chem. Eng. J. 213 (2012) 50–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.09.
106.
[37] M. Hamood-ur-Rehman, F. Ein-Mozaffari, Y. Dahman, Dynamic and local gas
holdup studies in external loop recirculating airlift reactor with two rolls of fi-
berglass packing using electrical resistance tomography, J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 88 (2013) 887–896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jctb.3917.
[38] N. Hashemi, F. Ein-Mozaffari, S.R. Upreti, D.K. Hwang, Experimental investigation
of the bubble behavior in an aerated coaxial mixing vessel through electrical re-
sistance tomography (ERT), Chem. Eng. J. 289 (2016) 402–412, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2015.12.077.
[39] N. Hashemi, F. Ein-Mozaffari, S.R. Upreti, D.K. Hwang, Analysis of mixing in an
aerated reactor equipped with the coaxial mixer through electrical resistance to-
mography and response surface method, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 109 (2016) 734–752,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.03.028.
[40] F. Khalili, M. Jafari Nasr, A. Kazemzadeh, F. Ein-Mozaffari, Analysis of gas holdup
and bubble behavior in a biopolymer solution inside a bioreactor using tomography
and dynamic gas disengagement techniques, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5356.
[41] G.S. Dobby, J.A. Finch, Column Flotation, Pergamon Press, New York, 1990.
[42] J. Tavera, F.J. Gomez, C.O. Finch, Novel gas hold-up probe and application in
flotation columns, Trans. Inst. Min. Met. 105 (1996) C99–C104.
[43] F.J. Tavera, G.C. Escudero, R.J.A. Finch, Gas holdup and slurry conductivity as
process diagnostics in column flotation, in: Process. Complex Ores, TMS of CIM,
1997, pp. 3–20.
[44] C.O. Gomez, F. Cortés-López, J.A. Finch, Industrial testing of a gas holdup sensor for
flotation systems, Miner. Eng. 16 (2003) 493–501, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0892-6875(03)00083-9.
[45] S. Banisi, J.A. Finch, A.R. Laplante, Effect of solid particles on gas hold-up in flo-
tation columns-I. Measurement, Chem. Eng. Sci. 50 (1995) 2329–2334.
[46] S.H. Kuan, J.A. Finch, Impact of talc on pulp and froth properties in F150 and 1-
pentanol frother systems, Miner. Eng. 23 (2010) 1003–1009, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.mineng.2010.04.010.
[47] J. Tavera, F.J. Gomez, C.O. Finch, Conductivity flow cells for measurements on
dispersions, Can. Metall. Q. 37 (1998) 19–25.
[48] J.C. Maxwell, A treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., 1892. 10.1016/
0016-0032(54)90053-8.
[49] P.C. Mena, M.C. Ruzicka, F.A. Rocha, J.A. Teixeira, J. Drahoš, Effect of solids on
homogeneous – heterogeneous flow regime transition in bubble columns, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 60 (2005) 6013–6026, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.04.020.
[50] B. Gandhi, A. Prakash, M.A. Bergougnou, Hydrodynamic behavior of slurry bubble
column at high solids concentrations, Powder Technol. 103 (1999) 80–94, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(98)00182-X.
[51] S. Rabha, M. Schubert, M. Wagner, D. Lucas, U. Hampel, Bubble size and radial gas
hold-up distributions in a slurry bubble column using ultrafast electron beam X-ray
tomography, AIChE J. 59 (2012) 1709–1722, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.
13920.
288
Separation and Purification Technology 203 (2018) 274–288
[52] K. Bhunia, G. Kundu, D. Mukherjee, Statistical model for gas holdup in flotation
column in presence of minerals, Can. Metall. Q. 54 (2015) 235–246, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1179/1879139514Y.0000000172.
[53] F.J. Tavera, R. Escudero, Gas hold-up and solids hold-up in flotation columns: on-
line measurement based on electrical conductivity, Miner. Process. Extr. Metall.
Trans. Institutions Min. Metall. Sect. C. 111 (2002) 94–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1179/mpm.2002.111.2.94.
[54] F.J. Tavera, R. Escudero, J.A. Finch, Gas holdup in flotation columns: laboratory
measurements, Int. J. Miner. Process. (2001) 23–40.
[55] G. Shen, H. Nawfal, J. Watson, S. Banisi, J.A. Finch, Measurement of bubble swarm
buoyancy velocity in three-phase system, in: CAMI’95, 3rd Can. Conf. Comput.
Appl. Miner. Ind. Montr. Quebec, October 22–25, 1995: pp. 1–8.
[56] A. Rakesh, K. Reddy, M. Narasimha, Air-core size measurement of operating hy-
drocyclone by electrical resistance tomography, Chem. Eng. Technol. 37 (2014)
795–805, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201300672.
[57] J. Jia, M. Wang, Y. Faraj, Evaluation of EIT systems and algorithms for handling full
void fraction range in two-phase flow measurement, Meas. Sci. Technol. 26 (2015)
15305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/26/1/015305.
[58] B.K. Singh, A. Quiyoom, V.V. Buwa, Dynamics of gas–liquid flow in a cylindrical
bubble column: comparison of electrical resistance tomography and voidage probe
measurements, Chem. Eng. Sci. 158 (2017) 124–139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ces.2016.10.006.
[59] M. Sharifi, B. Young, Electrical resistance tomography (ERT) for flow and velocity
profile measurement of a single phase liquid in a horizontal pipe, Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 91 (2013) 1235–1244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.02.004.
[60] J. Kourunen, T. Niitti, L.M. Heikkinen, Application of three-dimensional electrical
resistance tomography to characterize gas holdup distribution in laboratory flota-
tion cell, Miner. Eng. 24 (2011) 1677–1686, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.
2011.09.004.
[61] D.L. George, J.R. Torczynski, K.A. Shollenberger, T.J. O’Hern, S.L. Ceccio,
Validation of electrical-impedance tomography for measurements of material dis-
tribution in two-phase flows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 26 (2000) 549–581, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(99)00029-4.
[62] D. Bhunia Kamalendu, Kundu Gautam, Mukherjee, Prediction of gas holdup in a
flotation column by artificial neural network, Int. J. Coal Prep. Util. (2015)
165–175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2014.916701.
[63] R.P. Garibay, P.M. Gallegos, A.A. Uribe, S.F.A. Nava, Effect of collection zone height
and operating variables on recovery of overload flotation columns, Miner. Eng. 15
(2002) 325–331, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0892-6875(02)00035-3.
[64] M. Alvarez-Silva, J. Wiese, C.T. O’Connor, An investigation into the role of froth
height and depressant dosage in the recovery of chromite in the flotation of UG2 ore
using a laboratory column, Miner. Eng. 55 (2014) 125–131, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.mineng.2013.10.005.
[65] O. Han, M. Kim, B. Kim, N. Subasinghe, C. Park, Fine coal beneficiation by column fl
otation, Fuel Process. Technol. 126 (2014) 49–59, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuproc.2014.04.014.
[66] A. Vazirizadeh, J. Bouchard, Y. Chen, Effect of particles on bubble size distribution
and gas hold-up in column flotation, Int. J. Miner. Process. 157 (2016) 163–173,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2016.10.005.
[67] A. Farzanegan, N. Khorasanizadeh, G.A. Sheikhzadeh, H. Khorasanizadeh,
Laboratory and CFD investigations of the two-phase flow behavior in flotation
columns equipped with vertical baffle, Int. J. Miner. Process. 166 (2017) 79–88,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2017.07.009.
[68] D. Tao, G.H. Luttrell, R.H. Yoon, A parametric study of froth stability and its effect
on column flotation of fine particles, Int. J. Miner. Process. 59 (2000) 25–43, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7516(99)00033-2.
[69] H. Hacifazlioglu, H. Sutcu, Optimization of some parameters in column flotation
and a comparison of conventional cell and column cell in terms of flotation per-
formance, J. Chin. Inst. Chem. Eng. 38 (2007) 287–293, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcice.2007.03.006.
[70] V. Kumar, S.J. Gopalkrishna, Laboratory Column flotation studies for reduction of
alumina and silica in iron ore slimes of an operating plant, in: Proc. XIII Int. Semin.
Miner. Process. Technol. (MPT – 2013), 2013, http:%5Cnwww.ijesrt.com.
[71] L.Z. Pino, R.B. Solari, S. Siquier, L.A. Estévez, M.M. Yépez, A.E. Sáez, Effect of
operating conditions on gas hold-up in slurry bubble columns with a foaming liquid,
Chem. Eng. Commun. 117 (1992) 367–382.
[72] P.M. Wilkinson, L.L. Dierendonck, Pressure and density effects on bubble break-up
and gas hold-up in bubble columns, Chem. Eng. Sci. 45 (1990) 2309–2315.
[73] Z. Cui, Hydrodynamics in a Bubble Column At Elevated Pressures and Turbulence
Energy Distribution in Bubbling Gas-Liquid and Gas-Liquid-Solid Flow Systems,
Master Thesis, 2005.
[74] J.S. Laskowski, Yoon Seong Cho, Effect of frothers on bubble size and foam stability,
Int. J. Miner. Process. 64 (2002) 69–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.
5450810107.
[75] J.A. Finch, J.E. Nesset, C. Acuña, Role of frother on bubble production and beha-
viour in flotation, Miner. Eng. 21 (2008) 949–957, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
mineng.2008.04.006.
[76] J.-E. Lee, W.-S. Choi, J.-K. Lee, A study of the bubble properties in the column
flotation system, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 20 (2003) 942–949, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/BF02697303.
[77] F. Melo, J.S. Laskowski, Fundamental properties of flotation frothers and their ef-
fect on flotation, Miner. Eng. 19 (2006) 766–773, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
mineng.2005.09.031.