This communication reports a laboratory and plant comparison between the University of Cape Town (UCT) device (capillary) and the McGill University bubble sizing method (imaging). The laboratory work was conducted on single bubbles to establish the accuracy of the techniques by comparing with a reference method (capture in a burette). Single bubble measurements with the McGill University technique showed a tendency to slightly underestimate (4% for a 1.3 mm bubble) and the UCT technique to slightly overestimate (1% for the 1.3 man bubble). Both trends are anticipated from fundamental considerations. In the UCT technique bubble breakup was observed when measuring a 2.7 mm bubble using a 0.5 mm ID capillary tube. A discrepancy of 11% was determined when comparing the techniques in an industrial-scale mechanical flotation cell. The possible sources of bias are discussed. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.