ELSEVIER Contont lists avaliable at SeionceDiveet rowan Powder Technology journal homepage: www.elsevier.comilocate/powtec Some factors affecting sieving performance and efficiency KeShun Liu * ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ce sor cep 17 March 2000, Ber Sieving or screening has been the oldest yet most important unit operation for industial separation of sold Daticles or asa laboratory method in size analysis. A stack of sieves with decreasing mesh sze i usually ‘sed Alternatively, particles canbe sited in a fine to coarse order by multiple seving steps with each step Using a single seve. The laters refered to a8 reverse sieve method This study compared te two methods for sieving peformance an effisency wsing flours made from soft white and har white set, hues baney and medi rain rice, Additonal factors, isciaing milling method (impact vs. abeaswe), four ‘moisture (7 v.11), duction of sieving (60 ¥s, 120 min), and tapping (percussion ding sieving), were also investigated. Mass equency and protein content of ovesie factions were messed Results show that a the variables and thee teractions had significant effects on sieving performance and een. Among them taping was most impotant. followed by sieving duration, sieving method. ming mete, ou ype, and flour moisture, When other conditions were equal. the reverse sieve method always gave loproved Sving efficiency over te stacked sieve method, The abservahon can be atibued tothe beneficial effect of ‘oversized particles an reducing sieve blinding by near or sub-sieve sized particles Furthermore, he ceverse Sieve method also expanded the difference in protein content among sieved factions. Because of practcal Signicance, this so far unrepored effet would bea frther confirmation of other sieving and sereening Publish by Elsevier BY 1. Introduction The size distribution of particulate matter is very important in ‘determining its physicochemical properties in a large rumiser of processes of various industries (eg. production of food powders, chemicals, colorants, paints, and. pharmaceuticals). The sieves/ screens are the oldest and most widely used working elements for the separation of soli particlesby size. They are used both industrially and in laboratories for the classification of particulate material Often the term screening is used to refer toa continuous sizing operation as distinct from sieving. which usually means a batch process. Although: sieving/screening has played an important role in studying and processing particulate materials, it has not received enough scientific attention [1]. Simplicity and familiarity of the process may explain this curious situation, In reality, the sieving process is governed by multiisciplinary principles, ranging from physics to applied fluid mechanics. Many factors have been identified to afer this unit operation, including the size and shape of particles relative tothe aperture of the sieve, the mesh size af the sieve ise, ‘the amount of material on the sieve surface, the direction of mavement ofthe sieve, the rate of movement of the material relative to the seve surface, etc [1-5], Furthermore, the interactions among, 0032.10) - see fo mater Pulsed by Hse 8V. variables are so complex that no satisfactory method of evaluating ane predicting the sieving pracess has yet been developed [5,7]. This has Jed tothe inefficient operation of industrial sieving equipment as well as misleading and erroneous results of laboratory sieve analysis [1], ‘Among al the elements ofthe sieving operation, sieve blinding is considered asthe mast important and direct controlling factor. Sieve blinding occurs when particles block up and lodge inthe sieving mesh Ie reduces the effective tansfer area on the surface, resulting in reduction of sieving rates (sieving performance or capacity) and the degree of sharpness of partici separation (sieving efficiency) [12.48 In cereal science, the subject of flour particle size has intrigued many investigators, mostly for its effect on flaur quality [9 Flour is = blend of particles. Flours of diferent particle sizes difler in physical properties and chemical composition (10,1), These properties in turn affect flour performance in final products [11.12), Although flour particle size canbe reduced by egrinding a sample, further reduction of flour particle size by grinding is accompanied by an increased level of starch damage, which negatively affects flour performance in many final praducts [13], An alternative method is to separate flours according to patticie size through sieving or air classification. The ffactioned flours ate characterized by not only the difference in chemical composition and physical properties (10,11,14| but also ‘minimal starch damage [12]. However, frationating flour by sieving although relatively simple, is limited by sieve blinding With regard to the sieving process, either for inéustral separation ‘of sold particles or asa laboratory method in size analysis a stack ofHS Ponder Techy 19 (2008) 208-212 209 sieves or screens of decreasing mesh size, also known as a siter ‘cascade, is often used [6], The sieve stack is typically mounted on a device that provides vibration or shaking fo achieve the movement of Particles in relation to the sieve surface. For example, in flour milling, Dreakage of particles is always followed by separation. A plansiftr, a stack of sieves of decreasing mesh size that separate particles by size, is the main equipment used for this separation purpose, On a laboratory scale, standard ASAE procedure for particle size analysis ‘of particulate materials also requires use ofa stack of sieves [15]. For simplicity this common sieving proces is referred toas the stacked or «cascaded sieve method. It features separation of pariclesin a coarse to Fine order bya single operation. ‘The subject ofthis study was prompted by a surprising observation luring dry fractionation of bariey flour by sieving at the authors laboratory I was foun that in separating barley flour, when ocher conditions were kept same, a reverse sieve process, that is, flour is sifted in a fine to coarse order by multiple sieving steps with each step using a single sieve, gave a better sieving efficiency and performance ‘than the conventional stacked sieve method. Therefare, the objectives of the present study were: (1) to make a systematic comparison between the stacked and reverse sieve methods for separation of various types of flour, (2) to investigate Some additonal factors that govern sieving performance using the two methods, and (3) t0 provide a scientific explanation forthe observed ference between ‘the to methods Since each year literally hundreds of millions of tons ‘of particulate material are subjected to industrial sievng/screening, an uinderstaneing of factors affecting sieving efficiency and perfor ‘mance has great economic significance. 2. Materials and methods 2.1 Materials Seed samples of four cereal crops were used, including a hulless barley line (0311R3052), a soft white wheat varity (Nick), a hard ‘white wheat variety (Lochsa), and a medium grain rice variety (Bengal). Seed samples were cleaned before miling 2.2, Sample milling ‘leaned seed samples were milled into particulate material (Whole rain flour) with a Cyclone sample mill (UDY Corp, Fort Collins, CO) having an enclosure and a vacuum system. The Cyclone mill employs impact milling action. screen with 0.5 mm round openings was used. ‘Approximately 30 of seed could be ground with each run To study the effect of milling methods on subsequent sieving portions of seed samples were also milled by two additional methods. ‘One involved using the Cyclone mill having a 08 mm sereen, instead ‘of the 05 mm sereen. The other ane used a laboratory scale electrical seed scarifir (Forsberg Inc, Thief River Falls, MN). Te scarifir uses abrasive milling action. The apparatus consists of a metal drum with its inner surface mounted with 40-grit sandpaper, a cylinder, and a horizontal rotating steal propeller that is mounted atthe center of a metal cylinder. The propeller was driven by a 1/3 hp motor. The slameter ofthe drum was small enough to slide into the cylinder. The ‘drum was horizontally aligned into the cylinder with the propeller fixed at the center. The motor ran ata fixed speed (1145 rpim} and was stopped after 3 min. For each run, 120 g of seed were put into the ‘drum. Searified kernels, mixed with surface layer powder, were removed from the chamber and brushed into a container. The mixture ‘was sifted aver an 18 mesh (100 mm opening) sieve. The undersized particles were saved as milled flour. The abraded kernels that remained on the sieve were repeatedly milled by going through several cyces of scarifiation. The flour for each cycle of scarification ‘was combined. The milling operation for each method was repeated when necessary to produce large enough sample lots for sieving experiments, 23, lou sieving Milled lour samples weve sifted with a series of five selected US. standard sieves (Nos. 60, 100, 200, 270, and 400, corresponding to sieve opening dimensions of 250,150, 75,53 and 38 um, respectively) land 4 pan, fitted info a sieve shaker (DuraTap, Model DT168, ‘Advantech Mfg. Co, New Berlin), according to two procedures, tn the stacked sieve procedure, the selected sieve series were stacked with decreasing size of openings, One hundred g of milled sample was put on the top sieve ofthe tack and shaken for 60 min. The mass of ‘material retained on each sieve as well as on the pan was determi and the mass frequency (%) for the oversize on each sieve was ‘aleulated, Inthe reverse sieve procedure, a milled sample was si ith single sieve, from fine ro coarse order, with oversize proceeding to the next sieving step. For each step, the single sieve was also ‘mounted an the shaker. The cumulative time ofall sieving steps fora single sample was also 60 min, The time distribution foreach sieve of 400, 270, 200, 100, and 60 mesh size was 225, 175, 125, 5, and 25 min, respectively To study’ the effect of sieving duration on sieving efficiency, the soft white wheat flour was also sieved for 120 min instead of 60 min, ‘under the two sieving procedures. For the reserve sieve metinod. the time distribution for each sieve was doubled compared to the procedure having 6D min sieving time, Furthermore, the sieve shaker had a concurrent tapping option. To study the effect of tap- ping, all above sieving operations were performed with or without tapping, 24, Effect of sample moisture on milling and sieving Two tempering methods were used to adjust moisture levels of the soft white wheat seed sample. One method involved milling the sample at ambient moisture with the Cyelone mill (0.5 mm screen) thes adding a calculated amosint of water to 3 half portion ofthe flour and allowing it to stabilize for 3 days in refrigerator to raise the ‘moisture toa higher level (about 11%). The other half portion served as a control The 2nd method involved adding calculated amount of ‘water to the seed sample an allowing it to stabilize for 3 éays in the refrigerator. The moisture level of the kemel was raised to about 11% similar to that of tempered flour obiained by the frst tempering procedure. The tempered kernel sample was then milled with the {Cyclone mill (0.5 mm screen) to produce another sample of tempered flout. A half portion of this tempered flour sample was dried in 2 forced air oven at 43 °C until its moisture was reduced to the level of| the initial seed sample (about 7%). The original and tempered flours ‘were subsequently sieved by the two sieving procedures for 60 min with tapping. 25, Chemical analysis All original seed samples and moisture-adjusted samples were measured for moisture content. In addition, the original soft white ‘wheat seed sample and its sieve trations were measured for protein content. Moisture was determined according to an official method 16] The protein content was measured by a combustion method [15 Using a protein analyzer (Model FT328, Leco Corp. St Josep, Ml) and calculated with a conversion factor of 5.75, 26, Data treatments and statistical analysis Al experiments were duplicated at the milling stage. Data were treated withthe JMP software, version § MP, 2 Business unit of SAS, Cary, NC, USA) fo calculating means and standard éeviation, and forig. Pace se dstbution of Sit wheat (Nick cv), ebtaied2y svg with ombination of anne ator seving ret (hes, v reves Se Skevog cation 00 ws 20), an tapping open (hap, NT. no analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to determine the effects of different variables and cheir interactions on sieving efliciency and performance. The Tukey's HSD (honestly significant diference) test ‘was also conducted for pair comparison, 2. Results and discussion 2.1 Fecs of sieving method, sieving duration and tapping Inthe frst experiment ofthis study, the above three variables were investigated, Results show chat the mass frequency ofeach particle size ‘category asa function of particle size, commonly known as particles size dlistbution (PSD). for the sot white wheat flour varied greatly with ‘anges of sieving variables~stacked (S) or reverse (R) sieve proce- ‘dures, sieving duration (60 ot 120 min), and tapping (T) vr ne tapping (NT) (Fig. 1). All thre factors and their interactions bad significant effects of PSD ofthe same Nour and thus sieving efficiency (p00). ‘Among, them, lapping (or percussion), which fan concurrently wilh shaking, was most effective in shifting particle size distribution toward Finer sizes. Fo example, without tapping. the mode of PSD curves wasin the center ofthe size class of No, 60-100 mesh (250-1SOpmopening) a> 60 mesh (=250 pm apening). The made isthe center of the size class that contains most of the material (highest mass frequency). With ‘tapping, the mode shifted tothe size classes of finer particles, 100-200 meshes (150-75 nm) of 200-270 meshes (75-53 jm), During sieving, particles are separated om a sieve containing uniform apertures which permits the Finer particles to pass through. Two types of movement ofthe sieving surface are needed, a) horizontal movernent Uihieh would tend fo open up or loosen the packing of the large Particles in contact with the sieving surface thus permitting more sub- _mesh particles to pass and b) avertical movement to agitate ane mix the particles and then redeposit them at the sieving surface In this study, sieving was performed with a shaking device that provided both _movernents, However, the horizontal movement has the disadvantage that in moving across the sieving surface some particles, particularly these of near-mesh size, tend to block some of the sieve apertures, leading to sieve blinding. Tapping action apparently reinforced the vertical movement and atthe same time helped in dislodging particles that blocked apertures, and thus reece the seve blinding effect. This explains why tapping bad a profound effect on sieving efficiency as ‘compared with the no-tapping option Without tapping. sieving duration caused little change in the ‘mode, but narrowed the PSD curves (Fig. 1). With tapping. a longer sieving time caused shitting of the mode toward finer sizes, As early as 1958, Whitby [17] studied a batch sieving process, using a stanéard Tyler Rotap sieve shaker, and showed that by plotting the percentage ‘of paces passing through a sieve vs. sieving time creates a curve that could be divided into two distinct regions. The frst region is during the eatl stage of sieving when there are still many particles on the sieve that can pass the mesh size. This region is characterized by a faster increase in mass frequency with time. Region 2 begins when residue on the sieve consist entirely of near-mesh or larger particles. is Featured by slower increase in mass frequency with ume. approaching a plateau. In this study, only two sieving durations were "used. At any combination ofthe other two factors (sieving method ancl tapping/ne tapping option), 120 min sieving duration was found to improve sieving efficiency significantly over the 60 min operation It should be pointed out that sieving time is closely related to sieve londing, a reduction inthe later resulting ina reduction inthe former. Regarding the effect of sieving methods, at any combinations of duration and the tapping/no tapping option, the curves of the two procedures (stacked or reverse sieving) had the same or slight different modes, However, the PSD cuives of reverse sieving were significantly wider than curves of the stacked sieve method. More importanty, the mass frequencies for fractions of finer particles particulary those passing 200 mesh (<75 ym) or 270 mesh (<53 um), ‘were much higher by reverse sieving than those by the stacked sieve ‘method, indicating significant improvement in siewing efficiency by the reverse sieve method, Tis isin fact the most important finding of the present study, since the phenomenon has been either unreported ‘or non-emphasized in previous reports on particle size separation by sieving/ screening 3.2, Protein content in sieved factions Several previous studies showed that Cour fractions of differe particles szes sieved from the same flour samples varied significantly let ficving mthed,sevng duration tapping option an ir inceractions on he protein coment of seve actions fot wheat Nick)" ro conan of eu seed aon Sevngmetiod Slevin sme (h) Tapping esisae nn >60 R100 12002 men TS = == wr We aa ToT W7 NA NK WA ever 130 No 1333 iigicd = 118 Nave 120% Ba Sacked 10 ve wens Bab = -Reke | Hate tise Na leven 10 ve 15st ab se ase nose 43030 eee a7 nm az 15 nas aad ‘aie by an moet al (Gone with 905 mn cee, Sed more vel was TAR protein ane was 12K, As aw means with dierent eters re icant at p00,HS.) Poder Techy 19 (2008) 08-212 {in chemical composition {10,1} In this study a significant difference inprotein content of sieved fractions ofthe same soft wheat flour was also evident (Table 1). With regaré to which specific fation(s) having higher protein content than others obtained by the same sieving operation, discrepancy existed among reports. Wang_and Fores [10] analyzed the chemical composition of flours from red and ‘white hard wheat varieties in relation to particle sizes, and concluded that the ranges between 38-53 um and 33-75 pm had higher protein content than smaller or larger particle fractions In contrast, Toth eta. [11] claimed that protein content generally increased in proportion to the decrease in particle size. In the present study, both smallest. (£038 jm) and largest (250 jim) particle fractions had higher protein content than fractions of meciim particle sizes, just opposite to the finding of Wang and Fores [10}. This was true for fractions ‘obtained by any combinations of the three sieving variables, The liscrepancy might be due to use of different sieving methods and equipment and the number of sieved fractions obxained among the studies For example, Wang and Fores [10] used an Alpine ar jet seve Nevertheless the observed differences in chemical composition and flour performance among sieved fractions indicate a possiblity of ‘obtaining diferent types of four from a same initial material or producing a better baking quality product from poor-quality, less- valuable wheat flour by fractionation according to particle sizes. More importantly, this study shows that by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, not only the mass frequency of finer particle classes was significantly improved but also the difference in protein content among sieved fractions was expanded, 33, Effects of flour type, ming method, and sieving method ‘When sieving was carried out for 60 min with tapping (concur- rently with shaking), the four type, milling method, and sieving method, and their interactions all had significant effets (p<005) on sieving efficiency (ANOVA data net shown). In general, fo all types of flour, abrasive milling by the electrical seed scarier produced a flour having a PSD with the highest mass frequencies in the finer size classes (thase passing through 200 mesh or finer), while impact ling by Cyclone Mill with 0.8 mm opening screen gave a flour hhaving PSD with the highest mass frequencies forthe coarser particle size classes (those retained on 100 mesh of coarser) (Table 2) Impact milling by Cyclone Mill with 05 mm opening screen gave a flour hhaving PSD with the highest mass frequencies in the medium particle size classes (those passed through 100 mesh but retained on 270 ‘mesh. Since the shape of particles and the size of particulate material relative to that of sieves are among key factors affecting sieving performance (2, the effect of the milling method on PSD of ifferent flours can be attributed to its effect on shapes and sizes of resulting flout paticies. Different cypes of flout exhibited different PSD curves when wo other variables (milling method and sieving method) were kept the samme. There were strong interactions of flour type with the ather wo ‘variables. In particular, hard wheat flour was easier to sieve than soft wheat flour, and the mode of ts PSD curves was in the finer particle size class than that of soft white wheat curves. This finding Is supported by 2 common observation that hard whezt flour flows and bolts more easly than soft wheat flor 18) Again, for ary type of flour, and by any milling method, the reverse sieve method had a significant effect in broadening and shifting PSD curves toward the finer mesh size, compared with the stacked sieve ‘method (Table 2), similar tothe finding with soft wnea flour shown inFig. 1 This implies that the reverse sieve method could separate out moze of the finer particles, particularly those finer than 270 mesh (€53 ym openings). ftom the same particulate material chan the stacked sieve method. The latter methad is typically used in various processing industries and particle analysis laboratories. in addition, the reverse sieve method generally gave lower sieving loss than the ect aur ype. ling med seving eto nee eas on sving fren ‘as equncy (of ach ved ation eur wpe Miling mstiod — Aourmsture Sievng meted MEST SIEAG =00— BUTT — 100-200 NCI SAAN ANT Sag mopar TOS TOTS = eT EREDAR) TF 5 abd aaa aa Oe a0 6 Wit ot input (05 fn) 759 z Mae 20754 20555 007) SOT 427 iat Impoct (08 a) 759 $ iieg Wsiog 28853 733 0201 350 Wheat so) Impact (08 mm) 758 & i0ssa MSE 29603 60s Bed 27 iat (st) Horse 708 5 mss leoter aaaf atk 2s) a7 Wiest ct) nse 760 e 3521 734) sae G7 Sag 125 Wheat (ard) mpc (05 rem) 760, s U5 2195e 25388 2853gh 0251258 Wiest hard) pct (03 mem) 160 & Hore m98e 615) Soe Gare AT inet ard) Expt (0 oem) 22 5 mive Wasa Mak 24181381158 Wieat (ard) expt (08 men) 822 x 1508¢ SIT 056k 004) 1805 La Wheat (ard) Arai 801 $ 2e0) Gok 58a Tsazi ast 27 Wheat (ard) Aas 801 ® 228| 737) word me 0g Ss ay (nulls) xp (05 mmm) 725 5 Bese Gin Mtsoe 232) 256 ley (ls) rac (05 mem) 725 ® 12507 52h T83S)e JOBE Bae Be aly (lest) mpc (08 rem) 777 5 iaaer 065i 378Ge J0agp ass 228 aly (ous) xp (08 oun) 277 z 25001 Malg ws 4001. 237m 21ssa 0 rey (huless) Abas 335 $ oem Gar Sok Sa7zb Geese O31 24 aly (less) Arai 335, ® 06m a Boasd ane goer 201 Ree (eam tin) Emp (05 men) 807 5 355) Robe aii» MH LaSk ISL 2aL ‘Ree (econ ran) exp (05 oem) 807 z 535) Mise Sie | T7By 16701 S55gh La ‘ce (meciom gran) Erp (08 rem) 901 $ 2863 2455 2964 31 GOK ©0001 22 Bice (medion gran) npc (08 cm) 04 z 223 nsih 739Ge ossk 1025; 338~m 170 ‘ee ieciam at) Abas est 5 Sai ask ony wooo) ssa ow) 10 ‘eee (medium gra) Abas 3st x wan 30h 424) awk RISD BASE LB erate Ba wa asm saw "a samples were seed fora tal of 60 min with tapping Impatiens wth meee, pat (8mm, ythe Clone mi wth 8 nm seen basil bythe ete see scr ck vestacked method (Table 2) Sieving loss isthe difference between the ‘total mass put onthe sieve andthe sum of al sieved fraction masses, It results mainly from sieving blinding and attachment of fine Particulates to the sieve surface 3.4 fffects of flour moisture and sieving method Both kernel moisture (right before milling) and flour moisture affeted sieving performance (Table 3). The moisture of soft wheat flour at an ambient temperature and moisture condition was about 7. ‘This evel of the control sample was relatively lower than typical Nour moisture. The reason was that the material was maintainee at the author's laboratory during the winter season in Idaho, where and ‘when indoor heating was common, When the flour moisture was raised to about 11%, more fine particles were site through, compared ‘wich the control flour similar observation was found with the four sample obtained by milling tempered wheat kernel (about 11%), Interestingly. when this sample was dried o bring its moisture back to the control sample level, its PSD curve shifted toward coarse particle size classes but could not match the same PSD cutve ofthe conte Nou, indicating complex interactions of milling and sieving The moisture level ofa particulate material affects such physical properties as adhesion and stickiness, which in tum influence freedom of particle movement during the sieving process (6). For a siven sieving condition and given particulate material, there wil be a moisture level that allows maximm freedom of patile movement. Inte current study, only two levels of moisture in the soft wheat flour ‘were studied, Increasing moisture level from about 7% to 1% apparently promoced particle movement. Neel and Hoseney [18] studied the effects of wheat flour characteristics on sifting efficiency, including flour moistue, but no actual experimental data on Mout moisture effect was given. Referring back to Table 3, under any moisture treatments, the reverse sieve method was more efficent in getting particles to pass through finer mesh sieves than the stacked sieve method. Again, the sieving loss was less by the reverse sieve method than by the stacked method ‘Overall, based on the results discussed soar (Fig I, Tebles2 and 3), regardless the observed effects of other variables on sieving efficiency, which included flour type, milling, method, sieving. duration, and ‘tapping or no tapping, under a given sieving condition (a combination of other variables), the reverse sieve method always gave better results than the stacked sieve method with respect to increase in sieving performance and efficiency and decrease in sieving loss. les 35. Significance and scientific explanation forthe sieving method effect This study shows thas, when other conditions are kept same, the reverse sieve procedure improved sieving eficiency and performance ‘over the stacked sieve method. The significance ofthis finding is that by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, nt only the mass frequency of finer particle classes is dramatically improved but also the difference in chemical composition among sieved fractions is significantly increased There are many other variables that have been previously shown to allect sieving performance and efficiency. Among them, particle size relative to sieve aperture and the sieve aperture size itself are most important and relevant to the present study since they influence sieve blinding, which is the most important direct factor governing the sieving process. oberts and Beddow (2) showed thatthe level of sieve blinding is largely dependent upon mesh aperture. Blinding increases sharply when the mesh aperture decreases below about 100 jm. With regard to the size of particles relative to that of sieving apertures, initially, near-mesh sized particles were easily identified to ‘cause aperture biocking [3]. Then, Apling [4] demonstrated that particles as small as one-third the size of the apertures can have, lunder certain conditions, a blinding capability. An undersiz particle ‘may. depending on conditions, have a measurable probability of blinding an aperture by virtue ofits own irregular shape a, aso, that ofthe aperture. Fine particles may alsa become trapped in an apercure ‘when two oF more attempt passage simultaneously. In other words, although near-mesh particles can easily clog sieve openings, sab- ‘mesh parcicls, either singly or in combination with others, can also cause the blinding of apertures. Because af this finding, Allen [6] recommended that, for a dry sieving operation, the fines be removed prior to the sieve analysis. This is done by pre-sieving, usually by hhands, on the finest sieve tobe used in the subsequent analysis. If this Js not done, the fines have to passthrough the whole stack of sieves, thus promoting sieve blinding and increasing the risk of high powder loss. Note that the reverse sieve method used inthis study differs from the pre-sieving procedure recommended by Allen [6] in that, for the subsequent sieving analysis, the former continues in the fine to coarse lorder whereas the latter is followed! by sieving. in the coarse to fine order. ‘Standish (5) examined the effect of oversized particles (another possible case relative to near-mesh size) on sieve blinding, nd found that although the blinding effect was particularly notable wien only the material of the near-mesh size was sieved, the effect was ‘minimized when aversized material was also present, To understand the mechanism by which the presence of the oversize materia as egg (of ch sewed faton Sample westment Final our moinare Sieg method Hehe, >00 60-100. 100-200 200-270 27000 =a Sn imopmring= 250 50D SETS TSS Ens caer a r Tote Bia sya —sassb _10s0q bare a0 ont 675 & bore mas Wb se SG Sd st “empesing Rear 1068 5 was Tash 11350 73be «58756 OMe at Tempering oat 1058. R ea Gs sb ase © aaske Shes ta ing retnpere ere! (aK) 1050 s 7000 way tab ime ata Ome 2 ising tempered kernel (TK) 1080, ® arb 6%b Nigh fave ©3808 isda 3 DrKand then yng he four 873 ® sare Goeth aimed atgee sve verge as a8 oe nme tlak 4 ame os Si i960 Seu) as en 27 felavesD- (3) bast tao 6023600508525 535 ‘ale the Cylons ml wth a 05 wm avon (pac ling). Slevng was care ut or GO sn wth taping. state eve procedure evens see procedure SveSin Poe econ 83 (2008) 208-213 2 enhanced the sieving rates, Standish [5] took high speed films during sieving, then examined at low play back speeds, and found that improved sieving efficiency was due to the oversize particles “nusdging” the embedded near-mesh particles through the effect of simultaneously increasing the numberof particles passing and at the same time freeing the apertures for other particles to passthrough It turned out that the abilty of near-mesh and sub-mesh sized particles to blind sieves and the beneficial effect of oversized particles fon reducing sieve blinding by neat-mesh and sub-mesh particles, ‘observed by Standish [5], can provide a satisfactory explanation for the observed difference in sieving efficiency and performance between the two sieving procedures in the present study. In the stacked sieve method, particles are sieved in a coarse to fine order. During sieving, smaller particles pass through top sieves and are retained at one of the bottom finer sieves, depending on their size relative to apertures of a particular bottom sieve. As each layer ofthe cascading Sieves goes dawnward, the mesh aperture size becomes salle, the difference between the particle size and sieve aperture Size decreases. The net result Is that, for finer bottom sieves, the blinding effect, caused by both near-mesh and sub-mesh particles, is ‘maximized while the beneficial effect (nudging effect) of oversized particles is minimized. in contrast in the reverse sieve procedure, particles are sieved in a fine to coatse order. For the fist few steps of sieving with finer sieves, the liference between particle size and sieve apertures is large. The net result is that blinding effect by near- ‘mesh and sub-mesh particles is now minimized by the presence of ‘oversized particles. Therefore, the sieving performance and efficiency ‘were improved while the sieving loss was generally reduced, as compared with the stacked sieve method (Fig, 1, Tables 2 an 3), should be pointed out that although the reverse sieve method is, advantageous over the stacked method with respect to improvement in sieving efficiency and performance and reduction in sieving loss, ‘there isa limtation, This is because inthe usual design of equipment, the sieve has to serve as dual sole, as a go-no-go gauge and as @ support for a powder material. The use of the sieve surface as 2 powder support puts an added strain on the sieve surface. It also {imposes greater strength requirements on the structure o the sieving surface. In the reverse sieve method. for the sieves with finer apertures, over-loading with large particles will impose further strength requirements and cause wear and breakage of the sieves much mote easily. Finally, because the equipment, analytical procedure and basic concepts are so deceptively simple, sieving is probably the most widely used and abused method of paticle size analysis and ‘separation of particulate materials. However, in reality i is governed bby many interactive variables and multidisciplinary principles, With- ‘out careful consideration of various factors, generation of misleading and highly erroneous results or operations at inefficient conditions ‘ould occur. For the same reason, comparisons for results of particle size analysis and for properties of sieved products obtained by dlflerent producers should be made with caution, 4. Conclusions. This study has demonstrated how factors, such as flour type, ‘milling method, moisture content, tapping, sieving method, sieving. uration, and their interactions can affect sieving efficiency and performance. Among them, tapping was most important, followed by sieving duration, sieving method, milling method, four type, ane flour moisture, thas also shown the decisive effect of the reserve sieve ‘method over the conventional stacked sieve method on improving sieving rates and final fraction mass and minimizing sieve loss under all conditions of this study. The observed difference in sieving flficency and performance and in sieving loss between the (wo sieving methods canbe atrbuted tothe beneficial effect of oversized particles, since during sieving, the presence of oversized particle car reduce sieve blinding caused by near or sub-sieve sized partcies. Furthermore, by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, especially with tapping, not only the mass frequency of finer particle classes was significantly improved but also the difference in protein content among sieved fractions was enlarged, Because of its practical significance, this so far unreported effect would bear further confirmation of other sieving ané screening conditions in general [:] teschonsh seve ani the Cinderela of pute sine ans methods? Power Tectolgy 24 (1979) 15-124 [2] Te Raber Seceou some esc of patie shape and size upon beds onng ving Pwd eehaigy 2 (168) 121-128 [5] Teeetan ee Dymat,some facts which gence seen pecormance, Jones (i) ethene ant, nd [41 AC folng Binding of srens by subsive sed paris. Transaction ofthe Insituion of ig and Mealy, Section sntlPoesing td exc ae Mery 93 (198) c82-C94 Is] N tangih The ies fat sieving Power Technalogy 4 (1885) 57-87, Tol Allen. Parte size analy by steving Poweer Sampling aa Particle Se Dettmiantion lee 200, pp 208-256, [71 EM Satanabavs, Wi wens 5, Fane ew aprosehto the predieon of Dance separation by sein in or ing Fanacton of eben (PC oon) ae [s) EV BarooreCanowss & Onegaciva,#Jukane, H. Yan, Separtion ane Sienon Food Powders, Foye! Proper, racing. an Function, awe Acad Panam Per Kew York NY 2005p. 247-270.Ch "0 [o| Ma Nea, Sieve snaps partite reve an ecommendation Cee Yond war 2 om 07-Soe [10] Wag eles Elects flour patie ae he extra proper of our {oa ara of eres Chemy 312000) 262-972, (on) A"Tah ose ips, Ses May, 2 yor ects of patie sae oe ‘uly ef wir wheat fou wh spel locas on mai abd cee ‘Sacetiton sol cence abe Pat Aras 37 (2005) 2885-2572, (02) Dither Anderson RC. Dest NE mars [2 Dees, Elect of fur parle ze and surch daage on rocesig ad quay of white sted faxdls,Cesel Chery 792002) 8-71 (03) WE Yamal, our Ocul ane cole quay, fects of ehages ie Hepubty on ete arcs. Creal Chemisty 36 (1939) 52-59. (04) WWE AC Stngeloy. A casieaton of for form wheat wth varying Dade pott shs, Creal hems (1982) 18-191 [ns] ASME (amercan Sooeyy of Aghcututl enpees) standards, Methods fr Deseraining a Spring nents of Fed Matras by evi 2003, S123. Sesto. ML [06] AONE (Asetton of Ocal Anica Chess), AAC OFEcal Metbnds of ‘ras AOAC errata 202 [071 Wy, Tae mecha oie sieving AST Speci Techical Publication 234 958) 5 [98] BV Nts RC Hose. ising oaracteits of sof an hard whet Cee hems ot eae) feat