Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Sta. Mesa, Manila

College of Science
Department of Food Technology

Laboratory Activity

SIZE REDUCTION (SCREEN ANALYSIS)

Submitted by:

Group 3

Andaluz, Nicole C.
Celorico, Ma. Katherine P.
Maranan, John Kerby C.
Onilongo, Luis Clemente R.
Vengua, Earl Janndeil L.

BSFT 3-1D

Submitted to:

Prof Edgar I. Garcia

Fote 30155 Food Engineering

June 2024
 Abstract

Size reduction is the process of reducing a large particle into smaller portions. Its
importance to the food industry remains prevalent as it allows for optimal efficiency in food
processing operations. For instance, screen analysis, or the technique of passing samples
through various screens is a common practice to determine the particle size distribution of a
certain sample for further processing. In the experiment, the particle size of corn meals,
cracks, grits, and mixed composition were determined using sieve (screen) analysis.
Passing the samples through sieves with mesh numbers of 4, 14, 28, 48, and 100 allowed
for the measurement of the retention of samples for each sieve. The values were then used
to calculate the fineness modulus and average particle size. According to the results,
cornmeal, cracks, grits, and mixed composition had a fineness modulus of 0.729, 4.0324,
3.7064, and 2.9220, respectively. Furthermore, the average particle size in millimeters of
cornmeal, cracks, grits, and mixed composition was 0.1727, 1.7043, 1.37, and 0.787,
respectively. The experiment was able to show samples with finer particle sizes, such as the
corn meal, had higher retention at finer mesh sizes compared to the samples with larger or
coarser particle sizes.

Keywords: size reduction, screen analysis, fineness modulus, average particle size
I. Introduction

Size reduction, a fundamental process in chemical engineering, involves

transforming larger particles into smaller ones through various forces such as attrition,
compression, cutting, or impact. This process is crucial for producing small particles from
bulk materials, thereby enhancing material properties and performance across a wide range
of industrial applications (Argamosa et al., 2023). The significance of particle size in
determining material behavior cannot be overstated. For instance, the creation of new
surface area by reducing particle size requires energy proportional to the bonds holding the
particles together, highlighting the intrinsic relationship between energy consumption and
particle size reduction. Furthermore, the hardness of materials plays a critical role in the
efficiency of size reduction; materials with higher hardness require more energy to break
down, thereby influencing the choice of reduction techniques. In contrast, the toughness and
brittleness of materials also impact the size reduction process, with brittle materials
fracturing more easily and thus requiring different handling compared to tougher
counterparts (Castro, 2023).

One of the most common and reliable methods for assessing particle size distribution
is screen analysis. This technique involves passing material through a series of screens with
specific openings, where the material retained on each screen provides detailed insights into
the particle sizes present. This information is vital for various industries, including mining,
ceramics, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, as it helps improve performance, optimize
processes, and meet stringent specifications. The ability to accurately determine particle size
distribution through screen analysis enables industries to tailor their processes to achieve
desired material characteristics and quality standards (Mapua University, 2022).

The importance of size reduction and particle size analysis extends beyond mere
material handling; it directly impacts the efficiency and effectiveness of chemical reactions,
product stability, and the overall quality of end products. Advances in food particle
characterization, for example, have shown that precise control over particle size distribution
can lead to significant improvements in texture, flavor release, and shelf life of food products.
Similarly, in pharmaceuticals, controlling particle size is essential for drug solubility,
bioavailability, and controlled release mechanisms (Argamosa et al., 2023). Studies such as
those by Castro (2023), which explore particle size distribution and mean diameters of
grinded chalk using a Thomas-Wiley mill and sieve shaker, underscore the critical nature of
screen analysis in understanding and optimizing size reduction processes.
II. Objectives

In this experiment, the researchers aim to understand and apply the principle of size
reduction in particulate foods. The researchers will determine particle size using sieve
(screen) analysis and analyze the particle size distribution of specific food samples.
Additionally, the researchers calculate both the fineness modulus and the average diameter
of the food particles.

III. Calculations

Table 1. Raw Data

Mesh No. Meal, g Cracked, g Grits, g Mixed, g
4 0 8.1 0 2.43
14 0.2 491.9 364.2 299.64
28 1.4 0 127.7 45.12
48 39.5 0 5.6 13.81
100 280.5 0 2.1 84.89
Pan 178.4 0 0.4 54.11
TOTAL 500 500 500 500
*Mixed sample consists of 150 grams meal, 175 grams cracked, and 175 grams grits

Part A

Table 2. Results of the Meal

Mesh No. Opening % Retained Multiply Result
4 0.185 0 6 0
14 0.046 0.04 4 0.16
28 0.0232 0.28 3 0.84
48 0.0116 7.9 2 15.8
100 0.0058 56.1 1 56.1
Pan 35.68 0 0
72.9
Fineness Modulus 0.729
Average Size 0.0068 in or 0.1727 mm

Solution:

Formula: Result = % retained x multiplier

Result mesh 4 = 0 x 6 = 0
Result mesh 14 = 0.04 x 4 = 0.16
Result mesh 28 = 0.28 x 3 = 0.84
Result mesh 48 = 7.9 x 2 = 15.8
 Result mesh 100 = 56.1 x 1 = 56.1
Result Total = 72.9

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 72.9/100 = 0.729

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)0.729 = 0.054 in
Inch to mm = 0.0068 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 0.1727 mm

Table 3. Cumulative Table of Meal

Mesh No. % Retained % Cum. Retained
4 0 0
14 0.04 0.04
28 0.28 0.32
48 7.9 8.22
100 56.1 64.32
Pan 35.68 Total = 72.9
Fineness Modulus 0.729
Average Size 0.0068 in or 0.1727 mm

Solution:

% Cum. Retained total = Addition of all % Cum. Retained

= 0 + 0.04 + 0.32 + 8.22 + 64.32 = 72.9

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 72.9/100 = 0.729

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)0.729 = 0.054 in
Inch to mm = 0.0068 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 0.1727 mm
Table 4. Results of the Cracked
Mesh No. Opening % Retained Multiply Result
4 0.185 1.62 6 9.72
14 0.046 98.38 4 393.52
28 0.0232 0 3 0
48 0.0116 0 2 0
100 0.0058 0 1 0
Pan 0 0 0
403.24
Fineness Modulus 4.0324
Average Size 0.0671 in or 1.7043 mm

Solution:

Formula: Result = % retained x multiplier

Result mesh 4 = 1.62 x 6 = 9.72
Result mesh 14 = 98.38 x 4 = 393.52
Result mesh 28 = 0 x 3 = 0
Result mesh 48 = 0 x 2 = 0
Result mesh 100 = 0 x 1 = 0
Result Total = 403.24

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 403.24 /100 = 4.0324

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)4.0324 = 0.0671 in
Inch to mm = 0.0671 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 1.7043 mm

Table 5. Cumulative Table of Cracked

Mesh No. % Retained % Cum. Retained
4 1.62 1.62
14 98.38 100
28 0 100
48 0 100
100 0 100
Pan 0 Total = 401.62
Fineness Modulus 4.0162
Average Size 0.0663 in or 1.6840 mm
Solution:

% Cum. Retained total = Addition of all % Cum. Retained

= 1.62 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 401.62

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 401.62 /100 = 4.0162

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)4.0162 = 0.0663 in
Inch to mm = 0.0663 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 1.6840 mm

Part B:

Table 6. Results of the Grits

Mesh No. Opening % Retained Multiply Result
4 0.185 0 6 0
14 0.046 72.84 4 291.36
28 0.0232 25.54 3 76.62
48 0.0116 1.12 2 2.24
100 0.0058 0.42 1 0.42
Pan 0.08 0 0
370.64
Fineness Modulus 3.7064
Average Size 0.054 in or 1.37 mm
Solution:

Formula: Result = % retained x multiplier

Result mesh 4 = 0 x 6 = 0
Result mesh 14 = 072.84 x 4 = 291.36
Result mesh 28 = 25.54 x 3 = 76.62
Result mesh 48 = 1.12 x 2 = 2.24
Result mesh 100 = 0.42 x 1 = 0.42
Result Pan = 0.08 x 0 = 0.0
Result Total = 370.64

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 370.64/100 = 3.7064
Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM
= 0.0041 (2)3.7064 = 0.054 in
Inch to mm = 0.054 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 1.37 mm

Table 7. Cumulative Table of Grits

Mesh No. % Retained % Cum. Retained
4 0 0
14 72.84 72.84
28 25.54 98.38
48 1.12 99.5
100 0.42 99.92
Pan 0.08 Total = 370.64
Fineness Modulus 3.7064
Average Size 0.054 in or 1.372 mm

Solution:

% Cum. Retained total = Addition of all % Cum. Retained

= 0 + 72.84 + 98.38 + 99.5 + 99.92 = 370.64

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 370.64 /100 = 3.7064

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)3.7064 = 0.054 in
Inch to mm = 0.054 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 1.372 mm

Table 8. Results of the Formulation

Mesh No. Opening % Retained Multiply Result
4 0.185 0.486 6 2.916
14 0.046 59.928 4 239.712
28 0.0232 9.024 3 27.072
48 0.0116 2.762 2 5.524
100 0.0058 16.978 1 16.978
Pan 10.822 0 0
292.202
Fineness Modulus 2.92202
Average Size 0.031 in or 0.787 mm
Solution:

Formula: Result = % retained x multiplier

Result mesh 4 = 0.486 x 6 = 2.916
Result mesh 14 = 59.928 x 4 = 239.712
Result mesh 28 = 9.024 x 3 = 27.072
Result mesh 48 = 2.762 x 2 = 5.524
Result mesh 100 = 16.978 x 1 = 16.978
Result Pan = 10.822 x 0 = 0.0
Result Total = 292.202

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 292.2024/100 = 2.92202

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)2.92202 = 0.031 in
Inch to mm = 0.031 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 0.787 mm

Table 9. Cumulative Table of Formulation

Mesh No. % Retained % Cum. Retained
4 0.486 0.486
14 59.928 60.414
28 9.024 69.438
48 2.762 72.2
100 16.978 89.178
Pan 10.822 Total = 291.716
Fineness Modulus 2.91716
Average Size 0.031 in or 0.787 mm
Solution:

% Cum. Retained total = Addition of all % Cum. Retained

= 0.486 + 60.414 + 69.439 + 72.2 + 89.178 = 370.64

Formula: Fineness Modulus = Total Result / 100

= 370.64 /100 = 3.7064

Formula: Average Size (D) = 0.0041 (2)FM

= 0.0041 (2)3.7064 = 0.054 in
Inch to mm = 0.054 in x 25.4 mm/inch = 1.372 mm
IV. Results and Discussion
Weight distribution and cumulative percent retained is an important factor in
understanding the relationship of the distribution of sets of data (McKee, 2023), by utilizing
visual aid such as graphs, it eases the interpretation of different set of data (Statistics
Canada, 2021) which makes it simple to correlate different results.

Part A:

Figure 1. The particle weight distribution of the meal sample

As shown in Figure 1, the weight distribution of the meal sample after passing
through sieves of various meshes shows that, from the results gathered for mesh number 4,
no meals were retained. While on mesh number 14, 0.2 g of the meals were able to pass
through. On the other hand, 1.4 g of the meals were retained for mesh number 28. For mesh
number 48, 39.5 g were retained, and 100 g and 178.9 g were retained for mesh number
100 and the pan, respectively.
 Figure 2. The particle weight distribution of the cracked sample
In Figure 2, the weight distribution of the cracked sample after passing through
sieves of various meshes is illustrated. For mesh number 4, only 8.1 g of the samples were
retained. Comparingly, the remaining cracked sample, which was equivalent to 491.9 g, was
retained on mesh no. 14. Consequently, there were no retained samples on mesh numbers
28, 48, 100, and the pan.

Figure 3. The percent cumulative retained of the meal sample

The cumulative percentage retained of the corn meal through various mesh is shown
in Figure 3. Initially, at mesh number 4, none of the corn meal particles are retained. On
mesh number 14, 0.04% of the particles are retained, hence a cumulative retention of
0.04%. After passing through mesh number 28, where 0.28% of the particles are retained,
the cumulative percentage turned 0.32. Furthermore, on mesh number 28, there is 7.9%
retention, making the cumulative percentage 8.22. The most substantial retention occurred
at mesh number 100, having 56.1% of the particles, which greatly raises the cumulative
percentage to 64.32.

Figure 4. The percent cumulative retained of the cracked sample

Meanwhile, in Figure 4, the cumulative percentage retained of cracked corn is
presented. On mesh number 4, 1.62% of the sample is retained, making the initial
cumulative percentage at 1.62. Notably, as the cracked corn goes to the next mesh, number
14, the remaining 98.38% is retained, which instantly raises the cumulative percentage to
100. Accordingly, on the finer meshes, including numbers 28, 48, and 100, no cracked corn
passed through, maintaining the cumulative percentage at 100. This result indicates that
almost all of the cracked corns have a size that falls between mesh numbers 4 and 14.
Part B:

Figure 5. The particle weight distribution of the grits sample

Figure 5 depicts the weight distribution of the grit sample after passing through
sieves of various mesh. According to the data, on mesh number 4, no grits were retained
when passed through the sieve. For mesh number 14, the majority of the particles were
unable to pass through the sieve, with 364.2 grams of the sample retained. For mesh
number 28, on the other hand, approximately 127.7 grams of grits were weighed from the
sieve. For mesh numbers, 48 and 100, and the pan, 5.6 g, 2.1 g, and 0.4 g, respectively,
were retained.
 Figure 6. The particle weight distribution of the mixed samples
Table 6 shows the particle weight distribution of a combination of meal, cracked, and
grits in various percentages. In the activity, 500 grams of mixed food samples were prepared
with 35% of the total sample being cracked, the other 35% being grits and the remaining
30% being flour. According to the findings, mesh number 4 retained 2.43 grams of the
samples while mesh number 14 accumulated the majority of the samples with 299.64 grams
of total weight. For mesh numbers 28 and 48, 45.12 and 13.81 grams, respectively, of the
sample was left on the sieves. Mesh 100 garnered the second-highest mesh with 84.89
grams while 54.11 grams of the sample was retained in the pan.
 Figure 7. The percent cumulative retained of the grits sample
Figure 7, shows the percent cumulative retained for the grits samples. The
cumulative percent basically refers to the summation of the percent retained from a specific
mesh to its previous mesh’s percent retained. The trend depicted by the grits sample had an
exponential growth at the 14th mesh up to the 28th mesh while stabilizing up to the 100
mesh, this indicates that the grits sample achieved its maximum amount of smallest particles
at the mesh 28.

Figure 8. The percent cumulative retained of the mixed sample

The percent cumulative of the mixed samples can be seen in figure 8, wherein it
shows the cumulative addition of the percent retained per mesh size up to the 100 mesh
excluding the pan. The percent retained per mesh indicates the amount retained divided by
the total time a hundred, while in the case of cumulative percent it refers to the addition of
the previous and the next percent retained until it reaches the mesh 100. The mixed samples
show an increasing trend up to the last mesh of 100, this can be due to the samples being a
mix of meal, grits, and cracked samples. Cumulative percent is significant as it aids in the
interpretation of the distribution of data (McKee, 2023).
The key reason as to why the samples are retained when passing through sieves of
various mesh numbers is due to the particle size of the components. According to
Envirologix (n.d.), cornmeal has a particle size of 300 micrometers or 0.0118 inches. Due to
its size, it is able to pass through mesh number 28, which has an opening size of 0.0116
inches. Also, as mentioned by Serna-Saldivar and Carrillo (2019), typically cornmeal have
smaller granulations than grits and can pass through the 60 US mesh filter. The majority of
the cornmeal was retained in the sieve with a mesh number 100 as it is incapable of pushing
through an opening that is half of its particle size. Similar instances were also observed for
the cracks and grits. Cracked samples approximately have a particle size of 3,444
micrometers or 0.136 inches which can barely fit through the sieve with a mesh number of 4
(Paulk et. al., 2011). Due to its size, most of the cracked samples were not able to pass
through an opening smaller than the sample, hence its retention in mesh number 14. Grits,
on the other hand, were estimated to have 500 micrometers or 0.0197 inches of particle size
(Envirologix, n.d.). With its size, the majority of the grits were able to pass through mesh
number 4 with ease but encountered problems once they reached mesh number 14.
No discernable pattern can be seen in the setup as the mixed sample consists of
components that vary in particle size. The cracked samples, which were seen as the largest
among the samples, were retained during the sieves with lower mesh numbers while some
grits and meal managed to pass through. However, the remaining grits were stuck on the
sieves with mesh numbers ranging from 28 to 100. The flour sample was the only
component that managed to pass through the sieve with a mesh number of 100.

V. Summary
Particle size analysis of corn meal, cracked corn, and grits revealed distinct
distributions due to varying particle sizes. Corn meal, the finest, was mainly retained on the
100 mesh sieve. Cracked corn, the coarsest, was predominantly retained on the 14 mesh
sieve. Grits, with an intermediate size, exhibited a distribution between these two extremes.
Cumulative percent retained analysis further highlighted these differences, with corn meal
showing a gradual increase, cracked corn reaching 100% retention early, and grits exhibiting
a more exponential increase. These results confirm the importance of particle size in sieving
processes and have implications for the diverse applications of these corn-based products.
VI. Conclusion
The experiment on size reduction and screen analysis provides valuable insights into
the particle size distribution of various samples (meal, cracked, grits, and mixed) using
sieves with different mesh sizes. The weight distribution and cumulative percent retained are
crucial for understanding the particle size characteristics and their distribution.

In Part A, the meal sample showed negligible retention at coarser sieves (mesh 4
and 14), indicating that the particles are quite fine. Significant retention was observed at finer
meshes, particularly mesh 48 (39.5 g), mesh 100 (100 g), and the pan (178.9 g). The
cumulative percent retained started low but increased markedly at mesh 100, reaching
64.32%, indicating that a large portion of the meal particles are smaller than the openings of
mesh 100. On the other hand, the cracked sample displayed substantial retention at mesh
14 (491.9 g) and minimal retention at mesh 4 (8.1 g), with no retention at finer meshes. This
shows that the cracked corn particles are much larger. The cumulative percent retained for
the cracked sample quickly reached 100% at mesh 14, demonstrating that nearly all cracked
particles are larger than the openings of mesh 14.

In Part B, the grits sample exhibited no retention at mesh 4 but substantial retention
at mesh 14 (364.2 g) and significant retention at mesh 28 (127.7 g), with retention
decreasing sharply for finer meshes. The cumulative percent retained increased rapidly up to
mesh 28 and then stabilized, indicating that grits have a larger particle size compared to the
meal but are smaller than the cracked sample. The mixed sample, consisting of 35%
cracked, 35% grits, and 30% meal, showed varied retention. The majority was retained at
mesh 14 (299.64 g), with significant amounts also at mesh 100 (84.89 g) and the pan (54.11
g). The cumulative percent retained for the mixed sample showed a continuous increase,
reflecting the combination of particles of varying sizes, which indicates contributions from all
three components.

From these observations, the researchers concluded that meal samples are finer, as
evidenced by significant retention at finer mesh sizes (100 and the pan). In contrast, cracked
samples are coarser, with most particles retained at mesh 14. Grits have an intermediate
size distribution, with significant retention at mesh 14 and 28. The retention trends highlight
that the meal sample's cumulative retention increases gradually with decreasing mesh size,
while the cracked sample's cumulative retention quickly reaches 100% at mesh 14. The grits
sample's cumulative retention increases rapidly until mesh 28 and then stabilizes. The mixed
sample's retention pattern is more complex due to the varied sizes of its components.
Particle size significantly influences the retention of samples on different mesh sizes, with
fine particles passing through coarser meshes easily but being retained by finer meshes.
The mixed sample's retention pattern reflects a combination of all trends, with a continuous
cumulative percent retained. The analysis of weight distribution and cumulative percent
retained across different mesh sizes provides a clear understanding of the particle size
distribution and helps correlate the retention of different samples based on their particle
sizes.
VI. References

Argamosa, A. J., Miciano, S. L., Monis, A., Ramos, A. R. M., Orpia, A., & Lopez, E. C. R.
(2023). Recent Advances in Particle Characterization. Engineering Proceedings,
56(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/ASEC2023-15354
Castro (2023). Screen Analysis. Www.academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/96924269/Screen_Analysis
Envirologix. (n.d.). Matrix Definitions for Mycotoxin Testing.
https://www.envirologix.com/mycotoxin-testing/matrix-definitions/?cn-reloaded=1
Mapua University (2022). Screen Analysis. Studocu; Studocu.
https://www.studocu.com/row/u/78679417?sid=01717521695
McKee, A. J. (2023). Cumulative Percent Definition.
https://docmckee.com/cj/docs-research-glossary/cumulative-percent-definition/
Paulk, C. B., Fahrenholz, A. C., Wilson, J. M., Cook, D. D., McKinney, L. J., Ebert, J. C., ... &
Behnke, K. C. (2011). Effects of adding cracked corn to a pelleted supplement for
nursery and finishing pigs.
Serna-Saldivar, S. O., & Carrillo, E. P. (2019). Corn : Chemistry and technology. Woodhead
Publ.
Statistics Canada. (2021). Statistics: Power from Data.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu/power-pouvoir/ch9/5214821-eng.htm
 Appendix A. Sample Team/Group Contract

GROUP NUMBER __________3_____________ SECTION ____BSFT 3-1D__________

As members of an engineering team, our mission is to perform our assignment with high
standards that bring credit to the team and our profession and that provide positive results.
Each of us will contribute a proportional share of the total effort required, helping one
another to perform the parts that make up the whole process. We agree upon the following
distribution of responsibility:

Student Name Responsibility

Andaluz, Nicole C. Calculations, Results and Discussion

Celorico, Ma. Katherine P Calculations, Results and Discussion

Maranan, John Kerby C Introduction, Objectives, Conclusion

Onilongo, Luis Clemente R. Calculations, Summary, Results and

Discussion

Vengua, Earl Janndeil L. Abstract, Calculations, Results and

Discussion

Anyone failing to complete his or her part of the assigned work by the agreed time will not be
included in the submission of the final report, thus resulting in a failing grade of that team
member. We, the undersigned, agree to perform our responsibilities in a professional and
responsible manner that supports the success of our mutual efforts.

Student Name Signature and Date

Andaluz, Nicole C.

Celorico, Ma. Katherine P

Maranan, John Kerby C

Onilongo, Luis Clemente R.

Vengua, Earl Janndeil L.