Minerals Beneficiation - Concerning the Adsorption of Dodecylamine on Quartz - Discussion

H. H. Kellogg—There is one point that the author has failed to emphasize sufficiently in his paper. What is commonly called the equilibrium contact-angle (the author's "maximum contact-angle") can have only one value on a smooth, flat, homogeneous surface under a given set of conditions. The equilibrium contact-angle is defined, for such a system, as the angle between the solid-liquid and liquid-gas interfaces, measured through the liquid. The value of the equilibrium contact-angle is uniquely determined by the value of the interfacial energies of the three intersecting interfaces and is independent of other forces in the system. When the liquid-gas interface intersects the solid at an edge—as was the case for all the experiments reported in this paper—the orientation of the solid-liquid interface is indeterminate or varies through 90" for a right-angle edge. Mr. Morris has called the angle between the horizontal and the liquid-gas interface for this edge condition a "static contact-angle." I feel that this term is unnecessarily misleading. In the first place, "static contact-angle" sounds too much like "equilibrium contact-angle." In the second place, the magnitude of the "static contact-angle," which I would prefer to call the "supporting angle," is determined by the forces in the system other than those derived from the interfacial energies, hence "contact angle" is misleading. If Mr. Morris had said that the "supporting-angle" is variable and depends on the weight of the particle and size of the bubble and that it has a maximum possible value equal to the equilibrium contact-angle, his discussion would have been more accurate. T. M. Morris (author's reply)—Mr. Kellogg puts forth a reasonable criticism of some of the terminology used in the paper. I agree that the term "static contact angle" may be misleading. Substitution of the term "supporting angle" or "vector angle" may be more suitable. F. X. Tartaron—In this paper the author presents a very interesting mathematical development of the forces present when a mineral particle adheres to an air bubble. Excellent concordance is obtained between mathematical formulation and experimental results. It is the writer's understanding that when the mineral surface presented to an air bubble is greater than the area of contact, the maximum contact angle is obtained. However, this contact angle represents distortion of the bubble, the normal shape of which is spherical or in cross-section, circular. This distortion produces a force that acts in opposition to the force of adhesion between the bubble and particle. Hence, at maximum contact angle, the force of adhesion between bubble and particle is at a minimum for static conditions. However, when the size of bubble is increased, the size of particle remaining the same (and all other conditions remaining the same), the contact angle decreases, the distortion of the bubble decreases and the force in opposition to adherence of bubble and particle also decreases. Thus, there is stronger attachment between bubble and particle. When this situation is applied to actual flotation conditions, it is doubtful that it has any significance. The reason is that the bubbles are normally so much larger than the particles, that in substantially all cases, it is probable that negligible distortion of the bubble takes place. In table IV, the author makes computations for bubbles from 0.50 to 2 mm diam. This is from 0.02 in. to 0.08 in. Certainly the bubbles generated in a flotation machine are far larger than this. The surfaces of the author's bubbles range from 0.79 to 12.6 sq mm. The area of contact of the glass rod (0.15 mm diam) is 0.017 sq mm. Thus, ratio of bubble surface to mineral area of contact ranges from 47 to 741 in round numbers. If we take a %-in. diam bubble and a 65-mesh (0.208 mm) particle of cubical shape, the ratio of bubble surface to mineral area of contact is 2931. Mineral particles do not readily become attached to air bubbles. Taggart has shown that in pneumatic flotation machines collector-coated particles are only temporarily attached to bubbles. They keep falling off and down in the froth but at a delayed rate as compared with gangue. Spedden and Hannan's motion pictures confirm the difficulty of attaching particles to air bubbles. In the agitation froth process, according to Taggart, air is precipitated from the water selectively on to the collector-coated particles and these