4.5 Article

Different Flotation Performance of Ultrafine Scheelite under Two Hydrodynamic Cavitation Modes

Journal

MINERALS
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min8070264

Keywords

ultrafine scheelite; cavitation mode; nanobubbles; particle aggregation

Funding

  1. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 program) [2014CB643402]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [51674291]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In industrial practice, hydrodynamic cavitation (HC) is commonly triggered by jetting either reagent solution or pulp. Although both methods can enhance mineral flotation, are their roles the same? There are few research studies in the field, which severely limits our understanding on mineral flotation combined with HC. Therefore, in this study, the flotation of ultrafine scheelite with HC pretreatments of reagent solution and pulp (abbreviated to be HCPS and HCPP, respectively) was studied and compared through flotation tests, zeta potential analysis, microscope tests, and shear yield stress measurements. The results of flotation tests show that both HCPS and HCPP can enhance the final flotation performance, but in general, HCPP leads to greater improvements on the final flotation recovery. The presence of (hydrophobized) scheelite particles brings extra gas nuclei for the cavitation-flotation system, suggesting that more NBs may be produced in the case of HCPP compared with HCPS. These tiny bubbles remarkably reduce the size distribution of bubbles in the flotation system, thus increasing the particle-bubbles collision probability. Increase in particle aggregation may be another reason why flotation with HCPP results in a higher flotation recovery. The adherence of NBs on hydrophobized particles decreases the (absolute) surface charge of the solids, resulting in a smaller repulsive force among particles and more significant particle aggregation, which is confirmed by the microscope tests and shear yield stress measurements.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available