CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Screen Analysis

ABSTRACT

Size reduction is the process of producing small particles from larger ones through the application of attrition, compressive, cutting,
impact, or any combination of these forces. The particles, ranging from 10 m. to the smallest possible, vary on the number, shape,
and size. Sieving is the separation process of placing a sample in a stack of sieves in decreasing mesh sizes and then vibrated to
cause particles to pass through the apertures. Lastly, particle-size distribution characterizes the length, number, size, surface area,
and volume of the particles while mean diameters relate the distribution data to the reduction process or the material’s
physicochemical properties. In this report, the particle size distribution and mean diameters of grinded chalk under varying shaking
durations was studied by operating a Thomas-Wiley mill and sieve shaker, making a screen analysis, and illustrating distribution
data. The graphs show that mesh no. 60 (Dpi=0.0098 in.) collected the most amount of chalk over different durations and more than
50% of chalk are retained at Dpi> 0.0020 in. Lastly, it was also observed that all the mean diameter decreases as time progresses.

Keywords: chalk, mean diameter, particle-size distribution, screen analysis, size reduction

INTRODUCTION of particulate materials (Yu & Standish, 1990). Meanwhile,

mean diameters are aggregated information used to quantify
Size reduction or ‘comminution’, in general, refers to the and relate distribution data to the reduction process or the
process or operation of producing small particles from larger physicochemical properties of the material (Alderliesten,
materials, for example, crushing, dicing, grinding, milling, 2005). Frequency and density of the material can also be
and mincing (Rivas-Ortega, 2012). Attrition, compressive, corresponded in terms of cumulated diameters, length,
cutting, impact, and a combination of more than one of these surface area, and volume (Alderliesten, 2005). Examples of
forces are applied in breaking down materials into smaller mean diameters are model diameter, medium diameter,
particles (Rivas-Ortega, 2012). The sizes of particles specific mass diameter, length mean diameter, surface
produced ranges from 10 m. down to the smallest size mean diameter, volume mean diameter, geometric mean
possible or the colloidal range (Rumpf, 1975). Because diameter, and Sauter mean diameter (Xu, 2014).
particles vary on the number, shape, and size, separating
these materials over screens of different apertures allow This report studies the particle size distribution and mean
particles to retain or pass through these screens (Gupta & diameters (length, surface, volume, and Sauter) of grinded
Yan, 2016). chalk under varying durations by knowing how to operate a
Thomas-Wiley mill and sieve shaker, making a screen
Sieving is simply the process of determining the size analysis with ASTM test sieves, calculating for the different
distribution of a particulate of materials of varying size mean diameters, and illustrating the data for the mass
fraction, which is the preferred and most straightforward percentage retained, cumulative percentage screening, and
method of analysis (Amidon, Meyer, & Mudie, 2017). It is calculated mean diameters.
also suitable for particles with an average particle size
greater than 25 to 50 μm. (Brittain, 2004). The sample is METHODOLOGY
placed inside a stack of sieve with mesh apertures
decreasing from top to bottom and then vibrated or shaken In the experiment, the apparatus and equipment needed
to cause the particles to pass through the openings of the were an analytical balance, a 500 mL beaker, a small brush,
screens (Dishman, 2006). Furthermore, the sieves or Gilson ASTM E11 test sieves (specifically, mesh numbers
screens used are selected according to the material needed 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150, and tray pan), a petri dish,
to be measured or characterized in order to accurately a sieve shaker, a spatula, and a Thomas-Wiley mill.
represent the particle-size distribution of the sample or Meanwhile, chalk was used as the material for the screen
material (Dishman, 2006). analysis of particles. The experimental procedure for the
screen analysis is outlined in Figure 1.
Particle-size distribution are used to characterize and
measure the length, number, size, surface area, and volume
Page 1 of 7
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram for Screen Analysis.

The experiment started with grinding 11 pcs. of chalk using

a Thomas-Wiley mill (seen in Figure 2). The grinded chalk
was transferred and collected in a 500 mL beaker. Then,
around 50 g of grinded chalk was weighed on an analytical
Figure 3. Gilson ASTM E11 Screens on a Sieve Shaker.
balance and using a brush, excess chalk was dusted off the
balance to prevent under weighing the sample.
The mass and percentage of the chalk retained by each test
screen was calculated, as well as, the length, surface,
volume, and Sauter diameter under varying time. The
particle-size distribution of the experiment was presented in
a graphical form.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The mass percentage of chalk retained in each test sieve

over increasing time was graphically presented in Figure 4.
Looking at chart, mesh no. 60 (Dpi=0.0098 in.) collected the
most amount of chalk over different durations with 71% of
chalk retained in 8 min. as the highest. Meanwhile, the tray
pan (Dpi<0.0039 in.) retained the least amount of chalk with
an average of 0.8% across every duration.

Figure 2. Thomas-Wiley Mill at Mapúa University’s Pilot

Plant.

Next, the weight of the individual screens was measured to

determine the weight of chalk after screening. The sample
was poured into the stack of Gilson ASTM E11 test sieves
with decreasing apertures and a pan to catch finer particles.
The sieves were placed on a sieve shaker (seen in Figure
3) under a specified duration. After that, the weight of the
screens with chalk was individually measured. The screens
were returned to the sieve shaker for the remaining duration.
Lastly, the sieves and the mill were cleaned using a brush.

Figure 4. Bar Graph Comparing the Mass Percentage

Retained over Time.
Page 2 of 7
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

On the other hand, the cumulative percentage screening retained at Dpi> 0.0020 in. Additionally, the length, surface,
across various times was presented in Figure 5. The graph volume, and Sauter mean diameter decreases as time
presents that the percentage of chalk retained in the screens progresses.
as the apertures begins to increases. The graph shows that
more than 50% of chalk are retained at Dpi> 0.0020 in.

Figure 5. Distribution of Chalk Particles over a Test Sieve.

In Figure 6, the length, surface, volume, and Sauter mean

diameter of the grinded chalk particles over increasing
duration on the sieve shaker was shown. It was observed
that all the mean diameter decreases as time progresses.

Figure 6. Relationship of Different Mean Diameters over

Time.

CONCLUSION

In this report, the length, surface, volume, and Sauter mean

diameters and particle size distribution at different elapsed
time of vibrations were studied. The results show that mesh
no. 60 (Dpi=0.0098 in.) collected the most amount of chalk
over different durations and more than 50% of chalk are

Page 3 of 7
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

REFERENCES

Alderliesten, M. (2005). Mean particle diameters: From statistical definition to physical understanding. Journal of
Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 15(2), 295-325. doi:10.1081/BIP-200048774
Amidon, G. E., Meyer, P. J., & Mudie, D. M. (2017). Particle, Powder, and Compact Characterization. In Y. Qiu, Y. Chen, G. G.
Zhang, L. Yu, & R. V. Mantri (Eds.), Developing Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Pharmaceutical Theory and Practice (2nd
ed., pp. 271-293). Cambridge: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-802447-8.00010-8
Brittain, H. G. (2004). Evaluation of the particle size distribution of pharmaceutical solid. In H. G. Brittain (Ed.), Profiles of drug
substances, excipients, and related methodology (Vol. 31, pp. 379-419). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dishman, K. L. (2006). Sieving in Particle Size Analysis. In R. A. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry:
Applications, Theory and Instrumentation. Hoboken: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470027318.a1514
Gupta, A., & Yan, D. (2016). Screening. In A. Gupta, & D. Yan (Eds.), Mineral Processing Design and Operations (An
Introduction) (2nd ed., pp. 357-419). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63589-1.00012-5
Rivas-Ortega, E. (2012). Size Reduction. In E. Rivas-Ortega, Non-thermal Food Engineering Operations (1st ed., pp. 71–87).
New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2038-5_4
Rumpf, H. (1975). Introduction. In H. Rumpf, Particle Technology (pp. 1-7). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-7944-
7_1
Xu, Z. (2014). Particle and Size Distribution. In Z. Xu, Fundamentals of Air Cleaning Technology and Its Application in
Cleanrooms (1st ed., pp. 1-46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39374-7_1
Yu, A. B., & Standish, N. (1990). A study of particle size distributions. A study of particle size distributions, 62(2), 101-118.
doi:10.1016/0032-5910(90)80073-8

APPENDIX

Sample Calculations

Solving for the mass of chalk retained on the screen:

𝑚𝑐 = 𝑚𝑐+𝑇 − 𝑚 𝑇

= 347.6 𝑔 − 345.5 𝑔

= 2.1 𝑔

Where: mtotal = 50.2 g

Solving for percentage of chalk retained:

𝑚𝑐
𝑥𝑖 =
𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

2.1 𝑔
=
50.2 𝑔

= 0.042

Page 4 of 7
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Solving for the length mean diameter:

𝑥𝑖
∑
𝐷𝑝𝑖 2
𝐿𝑀𝐷 = 𝑥
∑ 𝑖3
𝐷𝑝𝑖

12748.66 𝑖𝑛.−2
=
1720473.88 𝑖𝑛.−3

= 0.00741 𝑖𝑛.

Solving for the surface mean diameter:

𝑥𝑖
∑
𝐷𝑝𝑖
𝑆𝑀𝐷 = √ 𝑥
∑ 𝑖3
𝐷𝑝𝑖

105.82 𝑖𝑛.−1
=√
1720473.88 𝑖𝑛.−3

= 0.00784 𝑖𝑛.

Solving for the volume mean diameter:

3 1
𝑉𝑀𝐷 =
√∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝐷𝑝𝑖 3

3 1
=√
1720473.88 𝑖𝑛.−3

= 0.00835 𝑖𝑛.

Solving for the Sauter mean diameter:

1
𝑆𝑎𝑀𝐷 = 𝑥
∑ 𝑖
𝐷𝑝𝑖

1
=
105.82 𝑖𝑛.−1

= 0.00945 𝑖𝑛.

Page 5 of 7
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Supplementary Data

The recorded mass and percentage of chalk retained, and the undersize chalk percentage varying shaking duration were
presented in Tables 1-6 while the length, surface, volume, and Sauter mean distributions were shown in Table 7.

Table 1. Data for the Mass and Percentage of Chalk Retained and Undersize Chalk Percentage under 1 min.
Mesh Dpi (um.) Dpi (in.) mT (g) mc+T (g) mc (g) Xi 1-∑Xi
20 850 0.03346457 345.5 354.7 9.2 0.184 0.816
30 600 0.02362205 349.5 355.3 5.8 0.116 0.700
40 425 0.01673228 339.9 351.6 11.7 0.234 0.466
60 250 0.00984252 320.1 339.8 19.7 0.394 0.072
80 180 0.00708661 323.1 325.9 2.8 0.056 0.016
100 150 0.00590551 314.5 314.9 0.4 0.008 0.008
120 125 0.00492126 329.5 329.6 0.1 0.002 0.006
150 100 0.00393701 327.9 327.9 0.0 0.000 0.006
Tray - - 241.6 241.9 0.3 0.006 0.000
Total - - - - 50 1.000

Table 2. Data for the Mass and Percentage of Chalk Retained and Undersize Chalk Percentage under 5 min.
Mesh Dpi (um.) Dpi (in.) mT (g) mc+T (g) mc (g) Xi 1-∑Xi
20 850 0.03346457 345.5 351.8 6.3 0.125 0.875
30 600 0.02362205 349.5 354.7 5.2 0.103 0.772
40 425 0.01673228 339.9 343.2 3.3 0.065 0.706
60 250 0.00984252 320.1 350.0 29.9 0.593 0.113
80 180 0.00708661 323.1 326.9 3.8 0.075 0.038
100 150 0.00590551 314.5 315.6 1.1 0.022 0.016
120 125 0.00492126 329.5 329.9 0.4 0.008 0.008
150 100 0.00393701 327.9 328.0 0.1 0.002 0.006
Tray - - 241.6 241.9 0.3 0.006 0.000
Total - - - - 50.4 1.000 -

Table 3. Data for the Mass and Percentage of Chalk Retained and Undersize Chalk Percentage under 8 min.
Mesh Dpi (um.) Dpi (in.) mT (g) mc+T (g) mc (g) Xi 1-∑Xi
20 850 0.03346457 345.5 348.1 2.6 0.051 0.949
30 600 0.02362205 349.5 351.5 2.0 0.040 0.909
40 425 0.01673228 339.9 343.2 3.3 0.065 0.844
60 250 0.00984252 320.1 355.8 35.7 0.707 0.137
80 180 0.00708661 323.1 327.3 4.2 0.083 0.053
100 150 0.00590551 314.5 315.7 1.2 0.024 0.030
120 125 0.00492126 329.5 330.2 0.7 0.014 0.016
150 100 0.00393701 327.9 328.3 0.4 0.008 0.008
Tray - - 241.6 242.0 0.4 0.008 0.000
Total - - - - 50.5 1.000 -

Page 6 of 7
 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1

Table 4. Data for the Mass and Percentage of Chalk Retained and Undersize Chalk Percentage under 10 min.
Mesh Dpi (um.) Dpi (in.) mT (g) mc+T (g) mc (g) Xi 1-∑Xi
20 850 0.03346457 345.5 347.6 2.1 0.042 0.958
30 600 0.02362205 349.5 351.5 2.0 0.040 0.918
40 425 0.01673228 339.9 343.0 3.1 0.062 0.857
60 250 0.00984252 320.1 352.5 32.4 0.645 0.211
80 180 0.00708661 323.1 327.8 4.7 0.094 0.118
100 150 0.00590551 314.5 318.3 3.8 0.076 0.042
120 125 0.00492126 329.5 330.5 1.0 0.020 0.022
150 100 0.00393701 327.9 328.6 0.7 0.014 0.008
Tray - - 241.6 242.0 0.4 0.008 0.000
Total - - - - 50.2 1.000 -

Table 5. Data for the Mass and Percentage of Chalk Retained and Undersize Chalk Percentage under 20 min.
Mesh Dpi (um.) Dpi (in.) mT (g) mc+T (g) mc (g) Xi 1-∑Xi
20 850 0.03346457 345.4 348.6 3.2 0.063 0.937
30 600 0.02362205 349.5 353.7 4.2 0.083 0.855
40 425 0.01673228 339.9 343.6 3.7 0.073 0.782
60 250 0.00984252 320.2 348.2 28.0 0.550 0.232
80 180 0.00708661 323.0 331.1 8.1 0.159 0.073
100 150 0.00590551 314.5 316.1 1.6 0.031 0.041
120 125 0.00492126 329.5 330.6 1.1 0.022 0.020
150 100 0.00393701 327.8 328.5 0.7 0.014 0.006
Tray - - 241.7 242.0 0.3 0.006 0.000
Total - - - - 50.9 1.000 -

Table 6. Data for the Mass and Percentage of Chalk Retained and Undersize Chalk Percentage under 30 min.
Mesh Dpi (um.) Dpi (in.) mT (g) mc+T (g) mc (g) Xi 1-∑Xi
20 850 0.03346457 345.4 345.7 0.3 0.006 0.994
30 600 0.02362205 349.4 350.2 0.8 0.016 0.978
40 425 0.01673228 339.8 340.1 0.3 0.006 0.973
60 250 0.00984252 320.1 337.2 17.1 0.335 0.638
80 180 0.00708661 323.1 347.3 24.2 0.474 0.164
100 150 0.00590551 314.4 319.2 4.8 0.094 0.070
120 125 0.00492126 329.4 331.5 2.1 0.041 0.029
150 100 0.00393701 327.9 328.6 0.7 0.014 0.016
Tray - - 241.7 242.5 0.8 0.016 0.000
Total - - - - 51.1 1.000 -

Table 7. Mean Distribution of Chalk under Varying Time.

Time (min.) Length (in.) Surface (in.) Volume (in.) Sauter (in.)
1 0.00972 0.01036 0.01132 0.01350
5 0.00868 0.00913 0.00979 0.01127
8 0.00817 0.00857 0.00904 0.01005
10 0.00741 0.00784 0.00835 0.00945
20 0.00746 0.00794 0.00854 0.00987
30 0.00672 0.00692 0.00717 0.00771

Page 7 of 7