Historical View Of Column Flotation Development

Invented by Pierre Boutin in the early 1960s the column was a complete break from the conventional flotation cell. 1. When used as a rougher-scavenger, the column is excellent. 2. When used as a cleaner, the results can be spectacular. The very first column tests were carried out using it as a rougher-scavenger in a reverse float where silica was floated from iron. It produced a concentrate underflow as good or better than that produced from roughing and scavenging stages in cells, The froth tailing overflow was better than that produced by several stages of cell cleaning. Column scaleup progressed rapidly from the two inch diameter unit to a semi automated 12 inch diameter column on material from the Iron Ore Company of Canada. A change in operating philosophy within IOCC brought all flotation development, column or conventional, to a halt. At that time, IOCC had an exclusive right to the use of the column in Canada in the field of iron ore. We moved into the field of sulphides. A Canadian copper producer sent ore for testing and the results led to their purchase of the first commercial size of column - a 36 inch diameter machine. It was a mechanical disaster. It took several years to raise sufficient funds to return to that mill with our basic 18 inch square unit. It was to be tested and modified in order to learn how to properly design a large column. Originally used as a rougher- scavenger, it had to produce tails equal to the final tailings from this well run plant. It did, and did so while producing a rougher-scavenger concentrate almost equal to the plant final concentrate. It was finally used as a cleaner and produced concentrate 5% higher in copper than the plant final concentrate with equal cleaner tails. This phase of the column development was carried out under very difficult circumstances. The mill superintendent had realized that if he took the froth removal system from our original mechanical disaster and applied it to a conditioner while injecting air, he would have a flotation cell. He had personally applied for patents on this Maxwell Cell. Our development work was done in his mill and as our results became better and better, our difficulties became worse and worse. We finally had to terminate this work. The 18 inch column installed at Mines Gaspé 14 years later was identical to the one removed from Opemiska. The 18 inch column was tried on various ores over the following years and always produced excellent results. However, it was not really a production size unit. We had always aimed for the 72 inch column (72" x 72" x 44' 9"). Prior to this huge machine, we needed the intermediate 36 inch column. The failure of the original 36 inch diameter unit at Opemiska had raised the possibility of short circuiting inside the column as the cross section increased. The first 36 inch square unit was tested in parallel with the proven 18 inch column. If the underflow of the 36 incher was not as good as that of the 18 incher, short circuiting was a possibility in the larger unit. It had been designed for insertion of drop in partitions, four feed points had been provided and the 36 inch column would have become a modular unit of four 18 inch columns. Testing showed the underflows of both columns to be identical. There was no short circuiting in the 36 inch column. Once we had the 36 incher, we had no fear of the 72 inch column. It is permanently partitioned into four 36 inch columns but uses only one set of instrumentation. All the component parts of the 72 inch column come from the 36 inch unit. In spite of our results, the mining community did not believe the column could work. Finally, in 1980, Mines Gasp6 ordered an 18 and 36 inch column for their byproduct molybdenum