Applications of foams and foaming are found in many industries such as the
flotation of minerals, enhanced oil recovery, drilling in oil reservoirs; i
nsulation, construction and refining processes such as vacuum distillation
and delay-coker reactors. However, foaming and defoaming are not yet unders
tood. Foams trap gas, and are not wanted in many applications. It has been
found that foaming may be strongly suppressed by fluidizing hydrophilic par
ticles in the bubbly mixture below the foam, in a cold slit bubble reactor.
This suppression is achieved by increasing the wetted area of the solid's
surface (walls and particles), by bed expansion and by decreasing the gas h
old-up by increasing the effective density of the liquid-solid mixture.
Never before has a fluidized bed been used to study the antifoam action of
hydrophobic particles. In this work, we fluidized hydrophobic;and hydrophil
ic versions of two different sands in a slit bubble reactor. We found that
the hydrophobic sands suppress the foam substantially better than their hyd
rophilic counterparts. We also observed that, when foam is not present in t
he reactor (i.e. at high liquid velocities), the gas hold-up in the bubbly
mixture was higher for the hydrophobic version of one sand. This result may
be explained in terms of attachment of the particles onto the air bubbles,
which increases the residence time of the gas phase. On the other hand, th
e gas hold-up in the bubbly mixture for the hydrophobic version of the othe
r sand was smaller. A possible explanation is that the bubble adhesion to a
non-wettable particle, leads to a decrease in the apparent density of the
particle, which in turn is responsible for a larger bed expansion and small
er gas hold-up compared with wettable particle systems. These results sugge
st that the degree of hydrophobicity matters.
Hydrophobic particles appear to break, and not only suppress foam; and they
may have a wider application. (C) 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.