Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 761765

This article is also available online at:

www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Air entrainment rate and holdup in the Jameson cell

T. Tasdemir
a

a,*

teyaka b, A. Tasdemir
, B. O

Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Department of Mining Engineering, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey

b
Dumlupinar University, Department of Mining Engineering, Kutahya, Turkey
Received 28 November 2006; accepted 23 February 2007
Available online 6 April 2007

Abstract
Air entrainment rate and holdup are important and potential control parameters in plunging liquid jet bubble columns. In this study,
air entrainment and holdup in laboratory Jameson cell downcomer were investigated in an airwater system. Air entrainment ow rates
and holdup were quantied experimentally. The eects of various conditions in the nozzle diameter, the downcomer diameter, the free jet
length, the jet velocity and the ratio of air-feed ow rate on gas holdup and air entrainment were studied. Two empirical equations were
proposed to estimate gas holdup. The predictions from these equations are in good agreement with the experimental data for holdup.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Plunging jet column; Jameson cell; Air entrainment; Holdup

1. Introduction
The Jameson cell was developed jointly by Mount Isa
Mines and Prof. G.J. Jameson of Newcastle University
in the 1980s (Jameson, 1988). It has gained widespread
acceptance in the areas of mineral and coal otation and
wastewater treatment. Although the Jameson cell is widely
used, there still remains a tendency to explain its operation
in terms of more conventional otation technologies.
Assumptions based on other otation technologies do
not necessarily transfer to the Jameson cell. Specic principles and operation of Jameson cell can be considered little
dierent and complex compared to the principles of
mechanical cell and column (Harbort et al., 2003). Thus,
detailed investigations related to Jameson cell operation
are going on.
The Jameson cell is comprised of a vertical column
(downcomer) and riser (cell) as described with reference
to Fig. 1. The top of the downcomer is enclosed and the
base of the downcomer is immersed below the liquid in
the cell. A liquid jet ejected from a nozzle plunges into

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 222 2393750; fax: +90 222 2393613.
E-mail address: tubat@ogu.edu.tr (T. Tasdemir).

0892-6875/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2007.02.008

the free surface of the gasliquid mixture and the action

of the plunging liquid jet creates a suction that draws gas
into the system. The entrained gas is broken into ne
bubbles. The bubbles are carried downward as a bubbly
mixture and then pass into the cell where they disengage
from the liquid (Evans, 1990; Evans et al., 1995, 1996;
Summers, 1995; Summers et al., 1995).
The Jameson cell is an eective device for gasliquid
contacting. Small bubbles are formed in a high-shear
region surrounding the plunging jet, leading to high interfacial area per unit volume of gas (Evans et al., 2001).
Gas holdup (void fraction) in downcomer is an important
hydrodynamic characteristic of Jameson cell. Gas holdup
is a variable which controls the bubble surface area. Many
design and operating variables aect gas holdup (Yamagiwa et al., 1990; Marchese et al., 1992). Holdup is a basic
measure of the eectiveness of contacting and mixing.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine the gas holdup
inside downcomer. There have been numerous studies
related to holdup in plunging jet systems. For conned
plunging jet systems, some researchers have studied gas
holdup in the downcomer and have proposed empirical
equations to predict holdup. An empirical equation based
on jet velocity and jet length to correlate holdup was proposed by Ohkawa et al. (1985a,b).

762

T. Tasdemir et al. / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 761765

Table 1
Range of variables in experimental conditions
Downcomer diameter (mm)
Nozzle diameter (mm)
Jet length (cm)
Jet velocity (m/sn)
Air/feed ow rate ratio

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus (P: pressure

indicator, F: owmeter).

Yamagiwa et al. (1990) were developed another empirical equation to predict holdup by using four operating
parameter including jet velocity, jet length, nozzle diameter
and downcomer diameter. Atkinson (1994) proposed an
equation between holdup and ratio of air-feed ow rate.
Evans (1990) used supercial velocities of gas and liquid
in his gas holdup correlation to account for the relative
velocity between the gas (bubble) and liquid phases inside
the downcomer.
The purpose of this study is to experimentally determine
of the eects of several parameters, such as the nozzle
diameter, the downcomer diameter, the free jet length,
the jet velocity and the on holdup and air entrainment rate.
Two empirical equations have been developed to estimate
gas holdup as a function of these operating parameters.

:
:
:
:

16, 21, 26, 36, 46

3, 4, 5, 6, 7,10
3, 8, 13, 23, 33, 43
6.4, 8.1, 9.6, 11, 12.1, 13.3, 14.5, 15.8,
16.5, 18
: 0.33

In experiments, downcomer diameter (DC), nozzle diameter (DN), jet length (LJ), jet velocity (VJ) and air/feed
ow rate ratio (k) were varied within the ranges shown in
Table 1. Immersion depth of downcomer and frother quantity was held constant.
All experiments were carried out with airwater system
at a frother (aerofroth 65) dosage of 20 ppm to inhibit
the coalescence of bubbles and to generate smaller bubbles.
The Jameson cell was operated at several nozzle diameters,
downcomer diameters, free jet lengths, jet velocities and the
ratio of air-feed ow rates. To start, these parameters were
set to required value. The underow and overow from the
cell were collected in a feed tank and recirculated to the
downcomer. When the system was at steady state, at each
operating parameter, holdups were recorded. An isolating
technique was used to measure holdup. Once the system
was shut down, at the same time a rubber stopper was
quickly inserted into the outlet at the bottom of the downcomer. When the froth inside the downcomer collapsed, the
height of liquid was measured. Thus, the gas holdup (e) was
calculated by using the following expression:
e1

Ll
Lc  LJ

where
Lc
LJ

downcomer length
jet length (distance from the nozzle exit to the liquid surface)
liquid height measured after the system was closed

2. Experimental

Ll

The experimental apparatus used in this study is shown

in Fig. 1. It consists of a feed tank, pump, cell (riser), downcomers in dierent diameters and nozzles in dierent diameters which can be mounted simply. The cell, made of
transparent plexiglas, was 1000 mm high with 195 mm
inside diameter. Five downcomer inside diameters were
used (1621263646 mm). Each downcomer, made of
transparent plexiglas, was 1800 mm length and immersed
400 mm below the liquid surface in the cell. The top of
the downcomer housed dierent nozzles of 34567
10 mm inside diameter. A centrifugal pump was used to
deliver the feed liquid to the nozzle. The liquid ow rate
was controlled with a throttling valve in the feed line and
a owmeter was used to measure liquid volumetric ow
rate. The manometer also was used to measure pressure.
The air feed into the downcomer was regulated by a valve
and volumetric air ow rate was measured using a
rotameter.

The procedure outlined above was repeated three times

for each operating conditions to give an average holdup. A
total of 318 measurements were made using dierent downcomer and nozzle diameter combinations. Air entrainment
rate and holdup were recorded for the range of variables in
each combination.
3. Results and discussion
The eect of jet length on air entrainment rate and
holdup is given in Fig. 2. Results are shown for 36 mm
downcomer and 5 mm nozzle and plotted as a function
of jet velocity for each jet length. The same trends were
obtained for other DC and DN combinations. It can be seen
that for all cases air entrainment rate and holdup increased
linearly with increasing jet velocity. It can also be noticed
that air entrainment rate and holdup increased with
increasing jet length at constant jet velocity.

32
24

0.6

16

0.5
Lj3cm
Lj8cm
Lj13cm
Lj23cm
Lj33cm
Lj43cm

0.4
0.3

8
6

10

12

14

16

0.2

18

10

12

14

16

18

24

0.5

Hold up

Air entrainment rate (L/min)

0.6

Dn3mm
Dn4mm
Dn5mm
Dn6mm
Dn7mm
Dn10mm

32

16

0.4
Dn3mm
Dn4mm
Dn5mm
Dn6mm
Dn7mm
Dn10mm

0.3
0.2

8
6

10

12

14

32
24

16

0.1

18

Jet velocity (m/sn)

0.72
Lj3cm
Lj8cm
Lj13cm
Lj23cm
Lj33cm
Lj43cm

0.64

16

0.56

10 12 14 16 1
18

Jet velocity (m/sn)

Fig. 3. Measured air entrainment rate and holdup versus jet velocity for
dierent nozzle diameters (DC: 26 mm and LJ: 3 cm).

Fig. 3 shows the eect of nozzle diameter on the measured air entrainment rate and holdup under the condition
that downcomer diameter (26 mm) and jet length (3 cm)
are constant. It can be seen that for all cases the air entrainment rate increased with increasing nozzle diameter but
holdup decreased with increasing nozzle diameter at constant jet velocity.
The eect of downcomer diameter on the measured air
entrainment rate and holdup as a function of jet velocity
for each downcomer diameter is shown in Fig. 4. It is found
from the results of experimental data that air entrainment
rate was independent of downcomer diameter but holdup
increased with increasing downcomer diameter at constant
jet velocity.
The eect of air/feed ow rate ratio on air entrainment
and holdup is shown in Fig. 5. The results are given for
36 mm downcomer and 4 mm nozzle combination using
dierent jet length. It is noticed that air entrainment and
holdup increased with increasing air/feed owrate ratio.

Lj3cm
Lj8cm
Lj13cm
Lj23cm
Lj33cm
Lj43cm

0.48

8
0.40
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Air/feed flow rate ratio

Fig. 2. Measured air entrainment rate and holdup versus jet velocity for
dierent jet lengths (DC: 36 mm and DN: 5 mm).
40

40

Jet velocity (m/sn)

Jet velocity (m/s)

763

Hold up

0.7

Lj3cm
Lj8cm
Lj13cm
Lj23cm
Lj33cm
Lj43cm

Air entrainment rate (L/min)

40

Holdup

Air entrainment rate (L/min)

T. Tasdemir et al. / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 761765

2.5 3.0

Air/feed flow rate ratio

Fig. 5. Measured air entrainment rate and holdup versus air/feed ow rate
ratio (DC: 36 mm and DN: 4 mm).

The results indicate that gas entrainment rate increased

with increasing nozzle diameter, jet velocity, jet length, air/
feed ow rate ratio. It was also found that holdup
increased with increasing downcomer diameter, jet velocity, jet length and air/feed ow rate ratio but with decreasing nozzle diameter (Tasdemir, 2006). These results are
agree with previous studies (Evans, 1990; Evans et al.,
1995; Ohkawa et al., 1985a,b, 1987a,b; Atkinson, 1994;
Yamagiwa et al., 1990; Kusabiraki et al., 1990; Funatsu
et al., 1988; Liu et al., 1998; Summers, 1995). The increase
in air entrainment rate with the increases in nozzle diameter, jet length, jet velocity and air/feed ow rate ratio was
due to the increase in kinetic energy of the jet, surface
roughness of the jet and contacting perimeter between the
jet and receiving liquid surface. The holdup increases with
increasing jet length and jet velocity both due to increased
air entrainment rate. The holdup also increases with
increasing downcomer diameter due to the decrease of
the downward liquid velocity and the increase of bubble
residence time. Increasing the nozzle diameter has the eect
of increasing volumetric owrate of liquid hence increasing
the downward liquid velocity and decreasing bubble residence time which decreases holdup (Evans, 1990; Yamagiwa et al., 1990; Summers, 1995).
Comparative results of holdup obtained by dierent
nozzle and downcomer combinations for 3 cm jet length
are given in Fig. 6. This plot allows us to visually display
the dierences, by plotting the 95% condence intervals
0.6

0.7

Dc16mm

Dc16mm

Dc21mm

0.6

Dc26mm

Dc26mm
Dc36mm
Dc46mm

Holdup

Dc21mm

12

Hold up

Air entrainment rate (L/min)

0.5
16

Dc36mm

0.5

Dc46mm

0.4

0.4

DC
16 mm
21 mm
26 mm
36 mm
46 mm

0.3

0.3
6

10

12

14

16

Jet velocity (m/sn)

18

0.2

10

12

14

16

18

Jet velocity (m/sn)

Fig. 4. Measured air entrainment rate and holdup versus jet velocity for
dierent downcomer diameters (DN: 4 mm and LJ: 3 cm).

0.2

10

Nozzle diameter (mm)

Fig. 6. Measured holdup versus dierent nozzle and downcomer
diameter.

T. Tasdemir et al. / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 761765

for the means of holdup values. The middle value on the

bar is the mean and the vertical bars denote 95% condence
intervals. This gure summarizes holdup values when different nozzle and downcomer diameters are used. It can
be seen clearly that holdup increases with increasing downcomer diameter at constant nozzle diameter and also
decrease with increasing nozzle diameter at constant downcomer diameter. According to these results, high holdup
values are obtained if a small size nozzle diameter is used
with a large size downcomer diameter (Tasdemir, 2006).
Considering all above results concerning holdup, the gas
holdup was correlated with these operating parameters and
two empirical equations were obtained. For data analysis,
Statistica Windows Release 6.0 software package (StatSoft,
19542001) was used. A multiple regression analysis was
carried out to determine the relationships between dependent variable (e) and independent variables (DN, DC, LJ,
VJ and k). The prediction equation obtained from multiple
regression analysis was
e 0:2324 0:0781k  0:01898DN 0:00396DD
0:0068V J 0:00287LJ

The correlation coecient of Eq. (2) is 0.96 and relationships between measured and predicted holdup values are
presented in Fig. 7. The coecient of determination (R2)
is 0.92, which implies that 92% of the variation in the data
is explained by Eq. (2) and the rest 8% is attributable to the
errors.
A piecewise linear regression analysis with breakpoint
was applied to obtain another prediction equation for
holdup
9
e 0:2183 0:00885V J 0:044k  0:0197DN
>
>
>
0:0028DD 0:0179LJ where e 6 0:4596 =
3
>
e 0:2428 0:0031V J 0:066k  0:00225DN
>
>
;
0:0041DD 0:0018LJ where e > 0:4596
The breakpoint of Eq. (3) is 0.4596 and predicted by software. The correlation coecient (R) is 0.98 and 96% of the
variability in holdup is explained by Eq. (3). Fig. 8 shows a
0.8
0.7

Regression
95% Prediction Interval
- - - 95% Confidence Interval

Measured holdup

0.6
0.5
0.4

0.8
0.7

Regression
95% Prediction Interval
- - - 95% Confidence Interval

0.6

Measured holdup

764

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Predicted holdup

Fig. 8. Measured and predicted holdup by using Eq. (3).

comparison between the measured and predicted holdup

values obtained from the Eq. (3). It can be seen that the
predicted holdup is consistent with the measured results
in both models.
In empirical models reported previously, holdup was
found to increase with increasing LJ and VJ (Ohkawa
et al., 1985a). In addition to these parameters, it was found
to increase with increasing DC and to decrease with increasing DN (Yamagiwa et al., 1990). Also, holdup increased
with increasing k (Atkinson, 1994). Both Eqs. (2) and (3)
indicate that our ndings are consistent with the prediction
models cited in literature.

4. Conclusions
The eects of various conditions in the nozzle diameter,
the downcomer diameter, the liquid jet velocity, the jet
length and the air/feed ow rate ratio on gas entrainment
and holdup were investigated experimentally in an air
water system. The following conclusions were obtained.
Gas entrainment rate increased with increasing nozzle
diameter, jet velocity, jet length, air/feed ow rate ratio
and was independent of downcomer diameter.
Holdup increased with increasing downcomer diameter,
jet velocity, jet length and air/feed ow rate ratio but with
decreasing nozzle diameter.
Higher holdup values were obtained if a small size nozzle diameter is used with large size downcomer diameter.
Two empirical equations concerning holdup were
obtained. These equations agree with the experimental
data.

0.3

Acknowledgement
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Predicted holdup

Fig. 7. Measured and predicted holdup by using Eq. (2).

The authors wish to thank Prof. Graeme J. Jameson,

Department of Chemical Engineering, Newcastle University, for his kind advice and valuable suggestions about
the design of Jameson cell used in this study.

T. Tasdemir et al. / Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 761765

References
Atkinson, B.W., 1994. Hydrodynamic characteristics of a plunging jet
reactor, Ph.D. Thesis, Newcastle University, Australia.
Evans, G.M., 1990. A study of a plunging jet bubble column, Ph.D.
Thesis, Newcastle University, Australia.
Evans, G.M., Atkinson, B.W., Jameson, G.J., 1995. The Jameson cell. In:
Matis, K.A. (Ed.), Flotation Science and Engineering. pp. 331363.
Evans, G.M., Atkinson, B.W., Jameson, G.J., 1996. Recent advances in
Jameson cell technology. Column96, 3949.
Evans, G.M., Bin, A.K., Machniewski, P.M., 2001. Performance of
conned plunging liquid jet bubble column as a gasliquid reactor.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 56, 11511157.
Funatsu, K., Hsu, Y., Kamogawa, T., 1988. Gas holdup and gas
entrainment of a plunging water jet with a constant entrainment guide.
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 66, 1928.
Harbort, G.J., De Bono, S., Carr, D., Lawson, V., 2003. Jameson cell
fundamentals. Miner. Eng. 16, 10911101.
Jameson, G.J., 1988. A new concept in otation column design, In: Sastry,
K.V.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Column Flotation 1988, Annual
meeting, Society of Mining Engineering, Phoenix, Arizona, January
2528, 1988.
Kusabiraki, D., Niki, H., Yamagiwa, K., Ohkawa, A., 1990. Gas
entrainment rate and ow pattern of vertical plunging jets. Can. J.
Chem. Eng. 68, 893901.
Liu, G., Evans, G.M., 1998. Gas entrainment and gas holdup in a conned
plunging liquid jet reactor, In: Proceedings of the 26th Australasian
Chemical Engineering Conference, (Chemeca 98), Port Douglas,
Australia.

765

Marchese, M.M., Uribe Salas, A., Finch, J.A., 1992. Measurement of gas
holdup in a three-phase concurrent downow column. Chem. Eng. Sci.
47, 34753482.
Ohkawa, A., Shiokawa, Y., Sakai, N., 1985a. Gas holdup in downow
bubble columns with gas entrainment by a liquid jet. J. Chem. Eng.
Jpn. 18, 172174.
Ohkawa, A., Shiokawa, Y., Sakai, N., Imai, H., 1985b. Flow characteristics of downow bubble columns with gas entrainment by a liquid jet.
J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 18, 466469.
Ohkawa, A., Kusabiraki, D., Kawai, Y., Sakai, N., 1987a. Flow
characteristics of an air-entrainment type aerator having a long
downcomer. Chem. Eng. Sci. 42, 27882790.
Ohkawa, A., Kusabiraki, D., Kawai, Y., Sakai, N., 1987b. Some ow
characteristics of a vertical liquid jet system having downcomers.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 41, 23472361.
StatSoft, Inc. 19542001.
Summers, A.J., 1995. A study of the operating variables of the Jameson
cell, Master Thesis, McGill Universty, Canada.
Summers, A., Manqiu, X.u., Finch, J.A., 1995. Technical note eect of
level in separation tank on downcomer behaviour in a Jameson cell.
Miner. Eng. 8 (12), 16071613.
Tasdemir, T., 2006. Modeling of holdup in Jameson cell and eect of some
operating parameters on otation recovery, Ph.D. Thesis, Osmangazi
University, Turkey.
Yamagiwa, K., Kusabiraki, D., Ohkawa, A., 1990. Gas holdup and gas
entrainment rate in downow bubble column with gas entrainment by
a liquid jet operating at high liquid throughput. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 23,
343348.