4.7 Article

Flotation of coarse composite particles in mechanical cell vs. the fluidised-bed separator (The HydroFloat™)

Journal

MINERALS ENGINEERING
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages 137-149

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2015.03.011

Keywords

Composite particles; Flotation; HydroFloat (TM); Locking texture; Detachment

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  2. AMIRA International [P260F]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In principle, carrying out flotation of coarse and composite particles in a quiescent flow field is decisive to prevent particles detaching from bubbles. To overcome or limit detachment of coarse composite particles from bubbles in flotation, a fluidised bed separator, the HydroFloat (TM), which provides a quiescent environment has been used, and the results compared to the performance of a mechanical (Denver) cell. Model synthetic composites of quartz (value mineral) in lead borate (gangue) matrix with simple and complex locking texture were used for the study. The flotation behaviour of particles with different locking textures was studied at a coarse size distribution of 250-600 mu m in both the HydroFloat separator and the Denver cell. The recovery of composite particles with the different locking textures was analysed on an un-sized and size-by-size basis. Recovery was improved in the HydroFloat separator, with both simple and complex locking composite particles having almost the same recovery. Again, comparison of recovery with the HydroFloat to the Denver cell indicates that the separator greatly out-performs mechanically agitated cells for the upper particle size of about 500 mu m, with a significant effect on complex locking texture composites. This is attributed to the minimum or absence of turbulence and minimal froth zone which causes detachment of coarse particles in most conventional cells. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available