Dynamic Frothability Index

Properties of foams under dynamic conditions pro-
vide a subject of a broad interest due to the practical
importance of foams, e.g., in ore flotation, fire fight-
ing, etc. Despite this and the large number of papers
on foam properties published every year no parameter
describing foaminess (1) of a frother has been pro-
posed and accepted so far. We think here of a material
constant, like density or refractive index, which would
characterize the substance in question, and could be
listed in appropriate tables. It would make compari-
son between different agents possible. This note con-
tains a proposal of such a constant.
The first useful attempt at defining a "foaminess
unit" was published by Bikerman (2). The unit E he
defined as a ratio of the foam volume to the gas flow
rate which was independent on the latter as well as
the shape and size of the measuring tube and the
average pore size of the sintered glass plate used for
gas dispersing. Bikerman's unit was equal to an aver-
age bubble life time in the foam if coalescence of the
bubbles and volume of the liquid in the foam were
neglected. The first of the above assumptions seems to
be reasonable while the second one is usually not ful-
filled, especially in the case of so-called wet or kugel

"T

x rt = AVg
Aug

160

120

80
iS

40

I I !

O0 20 40 60

FIG. 1. Dependence of gas volume in the system (solution + foam) on the gas flow rate for aqueous
n-amyl alcohol solutions of various concentrations: ×, 5 × 10-4; ©, 10-a; &, 3 x 10-3; [2, 5 x 10-s;
O, 10-2; ~ , 3 × 10-2; and A, 6 x 10-3 mole/dm3.

570
0021-9797/82/040570-08502.00/0
Copyright © 1982 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 86, No, 2, April 1982
 NOTES
foams formed on solutions of substances of relatively
low surface activity. For such systems, the liquid
content in the foam can be as high as 40 vol% or
more (3).
Gaudin (4) recommended a frothability index (FI)
first introduced by Sun (5) as especially useful for com-
paring foaminess of different flotation frothers. How-
ever, the FI values were not connected with any
physicochemical properties of the system investigated
and therefore could lead to false conclusions.
In our previous papers (6, 7), a parameter called
retention time (rt) was introduced to describe foami-
ness of flotation frothers.
The term rt was defined as a slope of the linear part
of the dependence of the total gas volume in the sys-
tem, i.e., in the solution and in the foam, on the gas
flow rate. An example of such dependence is presented
in Fig. 1 for aqueous n-amyl alcohol solutions of vari-
ous concentrations. The 500-ml aliquots of the solu-
tions were studied in all measurements. The linear
part of the plot can easily be distinguished on each
of the curves at higher gas flow rates. Thus (cf. Fig. 1):
rt = AV~ [1]
AUK "
The values of such a defined rt parameter, similarly to
Bikerman's foaminess unit, were independent of the
gas flow rate and geometry of the measuring column.
rt was free from the unrealistic Bikerman assumption
on negligible liquid content in the foam. Physically,
rt is an average lifetime of the bubble in the whole
system, i.e., in both solution and foam.
"Z
.-0
4O
0 0
32
24
16
00
FIG. 2. Dependence ofrt on frother concentration. Solid lines represent values calculated according to
Eq. [3]. Different concentration scales were used for different alcohols.
5 71
Indeed, the total gas volume in the system is equal to
the product of the average values of a gas bubble vol-
ume (VD), number of bubbles generated in a time unit
(rib), and a lifetfme of a single bubble in the system (rt).
Since the gas flow rate Ug = n b ' Vb, rt can be defined
by Eq. [1].
The rt values as functions of concentrations are
presented in Fig. 2 for aqueous n-butyl, n-amyl, and
n-hexyl alcohol solutions (please note the different
concentration scales used). It is seen that despite dif-
ferences in exact values, the character of this depend-
ence is similar for all alcohols. It is also the same for
other flotation frothers we studied, e.g., diacetone
alcohol, c~-terpineol, mesityl oxide, and several
aliphatic alcohols.
The term rt, although useful, has one major dis-
advantage: it depends on the frother concentration,
and thus cannot be used as a constant characterizing
the substance studied. Therefore, we propose to use as
such a parameter, the dynamic frothability index (DFI)
defined as the limiting slope of the rt vs concentra-
tion curve for c --~ 0, i.e.
{ 0(rt)' I .
DFI = ~ Oc /c:o [2]
To avoid errors with the graphical determination of
DFI, experimental values of rt for various concentra-
tions were fitted to the expression
rt - 2.4 = rt®[l - exp(-kc)], [3]
where rt® is the limiting rt value for c --~ ~, c is con-
0 0
,Z"I
;4 Y X
lb •
'
3 Xc~o..~o2~
[mole/dm];cAmoH,~oZ"
CHex OHxSxl0~
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 86. No. 2, April 1982
572 NOTES

TABLE I Frothing properties of different agents should be

compared at such concentrations that the product of
Dynamic Frothability Index the concentration and DFI should be the same for all
substances studied. It should be pointed out that for
Substance [see. mole-' dm3] [sce.g-~ dm3]
practical reasons solutions of rather low concentra-
tion are of a main interest. In such cases, the use of
Ethyl alcohol 5.6 × 10 ~ 1.2
DFI or rt values yields the same final result. DFI,
n-Propyl alcohol 2.8 × 102 4.7
however, is a constant which characterizes the frother
n-Butyl alcohol 1.6 × 103 21.6
itself. If determined under standarized experimental
n-Amyl alcohol 4.6 × 103 52.3
conditions and listed in appropriate tables, can give a
n-Hexyl alcohol 1.7 × 104 166.7
useful guidance in comparing different frothing agents.
Diacetone alcohol 2.9 × 103 25.0
Mesityl oxide 4.5 × 103 45.9
a-Terpineol 1.1 X 105 713.3 REFERENCES
1. Bikerman, J. J., " F o a m s , " p. 65. Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1973.
centration, and k is a constant. The 2.4 on the left-hand 2. Bikerman, J. J., Trans. Faraday Soc. 34, 634
side of Eq. [3] is the value of rt obtained for the dis- (1938).
tilled water used in the measurements. 3. Malysa, K., and Pomianowski, A., InL Apar.
Calculations I performed by analysis of least squares Chem. 1, 24 (1977).
gave rt~ and k values of the best fitting equation. The 4. Gaudin, A. M., "Flotation," 2nd ed., p. 334.
exponent in Eq. [3] may be expanded into a power McGraw-Hill, New York/Toronto/London,
series, and for c --~ 0, higher expansion terms may be 1957.
neglected yielding 5. Sun, S. Ch., Trans. AIME 4, 65 (1952).
6. Matysa, K., and Pawlikowska-Czubak, J., Bull.
rt-2.4=rt~.k.c (force0) [4] Acad. Polon. Sci. Ser. Sci. Chim. 23,423 (1975).
and by substituting Eq. [4] into Eq. [2], 7. Matysa, K., Pawlikowska-Czubak, J., and
Pomianowski, A., "Proceedings VIIth Intern.
DFI = rt®.k. [5] Congress Surface Active Substances, Moscow
1976," Vol. 3, pp. 513-520.
Thus, DFI values were determined on the basis of a
complete set of experimental data. Some of the values
J. CZARNECKI
obtained are presented in Table I. For practical rea-
K. MAEYSA
sons, DFI values were expressed in sec.dma/mole
A. POMIANOWSKI
and see "dma/g.
Institute o f Catalysis
Our calculations were performed on an H-P 9810 A and Surface Chemistry
calculator. It can be easily done on any programmable Polish Academy o f Sciences
pocket calculator with a memory of about 100 storage 30-239 Krak6w, Poland
registers. The program concept is available from the
author (J.Cz.) on request. Received July 8, 1980

Journalof Colloidand Interface Science. Vol. 86, No. 2, April 1982