CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

SOLIDS HANDLING

SURNAME & INTIAL STUDENT NO.

NENE O 21934211
NGCOBO NP 21904372
NGCOBO S 21915707
NGCONGO M 21831707
NGIDI SZB 21701825
NGUBANE P 21832724
 Statement of Authority
W e a s gro up D 2 he r e by t o c l a im t hat t he pr a ct i c a l o f s o l i d
ha ndl i n g w a s do ne by o ur gr o up m em be r s . I f s om e o ne s ubm i t
pr a c t i c al s i mi l a r t o t hi s pr ac t i ca l i t w o n’ t be i n o ur a gr e e me nt
t he r e f o re i t s pl a gi a r i sm .

N gc o bo N P dur i ng pr a c ti c a l he w a s r e s po ns i bl e fo r w ei ghi ng
s i e v e s . N gc o ngo M r e co r di ng t he v al ue s o f t he si e v e s m as s .
N guba ne P he w a s w e i ghi ng t he s am pl e a nd t he m a s s o f t he
be a ke r . N gi di S Z B a nd N e ne O w a s re s po ns i bl e f o r w e i ghi ng
s a m pl e a nd pa r t i cl e s ma s s . N gc o bo S , he w a s r e co r di ng o ur
f i ndi ngs .

I n pr a c t i c a l w r it i ng

S um m a r y , I nt ro duc t i o n a nd w a s done by N e ne O

Re s ul t s w a s do ne by N gc o bo S a nd N gi di S Z B

T he o r y w a s do ne by N gc o bo S

Di s c us s i o n, c o nc l us io n a nd r e co m me nda t i o ns w a s do ne by N gi di
S Z B a nd N gc o ngo M

E x pe r i m e nt a l re s ul t s w er e do ne by N guba ne P a nd N gc o bo N P

C a l c ul a t io ns a nd gr a phs w a s do ne by N gi di S Z B a nd N gc o ngo M
 Summary
Sieve analysis is a process of dividing sample part icles into fraction of
the same size. The particles with the same size will be at one screen. The
a i m o f d o i n g t h e s e a n a l y s i s i s t o d e t e r mi n e t h e g r i n d i n g o r s i z e
distribution of the particles which is significant to find out whether the
particle pile we are studying is the good for industry or not. The screens
are arranged from the screen with large opening at the top to a screen
with smaller opening at the bottom. The larger screen at the top will
allow smaller particles to progress to the next screen and so on up until
the finer particles reaches the smaller screen at the bottom. The screens
were weighed before putting the particles in them. The particles were
put on the top screen and its was closed, therefore it was shaking for ten
minutes, after then minutes each screen was weighed with the particles
of solids it’s got during the duration of ten minutes, and the mass of
particles on each screen was calculated. The samples we use for our
practical was sand coarse salt, plastic sand and coarse beach sand. In
each sample we followed the same procedure as mentioned above. The
sieve analysis can be done in two ways, wet method and dry method but
for our practical we use dry method to obtain our results. The advantage
of using wet method is dust formation is e liminated, solids are easily
handled.
 Intr oduct ion
Solid handling is an analysis of size particles distribution, loading using
fixed amplitude, efficiency and vibrators shaker with several number of
sieve. Sieve are used on large scale for separation of particles according
to their size. After a period of operation, the different fraction can be
collected from each of the sieve and weighed using a suitable balance.
analysis of particles size distribution wi thin the sample is done by ball
milling. Ball milling is used for grinding a wide range of material.
Compartments have different size balls, large ball at the entry end and
small balls grind material before discharge. Efficiency increases with the
hold up in the mill until the voids between the balls are filled. Any
f urther increase in the quantity lowers the ef f iciency. Sieve analysis
plays an imperative role in the chemical industry since its theory is
applied intensively to separate particles and find the particles size
range. Our results are in proportion with what we read on the bo oks and
what is happening in the chemical industry, therefore our practical was
s u c c e s s f u l h o w e v e r i f o u r l a b o r a t o r i e s pr o h i b i t t h e r e c y c l e d o f t h e
samples we used. Best result can be obtained.
 THEORY
Sieving is the separation of a mixture of various-sized particles, either
dry or suspended in liquid, into two or more portions, by passing through
screens of specified mesh sizes.

The main focus of this practical is the sieve analysis, which is defined as
the determination of the proportions of p articles lying within certain size
rang es in a granular material by separation on sieve of dif f erent size
openings, also known as screen analysis.

There is a variety of devices that can be used in particle separation

namely;

• Settling chambers which n ormally collect very large particles only,

• Centrifugal collector which normally collect particles down to
about 20μm,
• Electrostatic precipitators which uses electrostatic force to
separate dusty particles, but focus is on sieving.

Sieve is the easiest method of determining the particle size distribution

where the powdered particles are separated using different sized sieves.
Thus, the particle size distribution(PSD) is defined in terms of discrete
size range, the PSD is usually determined over list of size range s that
c o v e r s n e a r l y a l l t h e s i z e s p r e s e n t i n t he m e t h o d a n d t h i s c a n b e
obtained by use of sieves. The PSD can be expressed as a range analysis
in which the am ount in eac h size range is listed in order; it may also be
presented in cumulative form in which the total of all sizes retained or
passed by a single sieve is given for a range of sizes. Range analysis is
s u i t a b l e w h e n a p a r t i c u l a r i d e a l m i d - r a n g e p a r t i c l e s i z e i s b e i ng s o u g h t ,
while cumulative analysis is used where the amount of undersize or
oversize must be separated. In simple treatment assume the particle are
spheres that would just pass through a square hole in a sieve, however
particles are often irregular and the way in such particles are
characterized during analysis is very dependent on the met hod of
measurement used.

It is important that the representative sample must be obtained before

the PSD can be determined. The material to be analyzed must be
carefully blended (mixed), and the sample withdrawn using techniques
that avoid size segregat ion particular attention must be paid t o avoid any
loss of fines during manipulation of the sample. Sieve analysis is used for
many measurements because of its cheapness, simplicity and ease of
interpretation. The sample may be washed thoroughly with non -reacting
liquid usually water or blown through with an air current. Alternatively,
shaking of the sample in sieves until the amount retained becomes more
or less constant or placing the sieves in a vibratory substance.

An advantage of this technique is that it is well adapted for bulk

materials. A large amount of materials can be readily loaded into 200mm
sieve tray. Sieving is commonly used in power industry mainly as net
sieving of milled limestone and dry sieving of mild core. D isadvantages
are that many particle size distributions are concerned with particles too
small for separation by sieving to be practical. A very fine sieve such as
32mm sieve is very fragile, and it is very difficult to get materials to pass
through it. Another disadvantage is that t he amount of energy used to
sieve the sample have to be carefully determined because over energetic
sieving causes attrition of the particles and thus changes the PSD, while
less energy fails to break down loose agglomerates, although manual
sieving can be ineffective, automated sieving technologies uses images
such as fragmental analysis which can sieve material by capturing and
analyzing a photo of materials can be effective.
EXPERIMEN TAL METHO D

• S i eves w ere c lea n ed an d w ei gh ed t o 2 dec i ma l p la c es .

• C on ic a l f las k w as w eig h ed b ef ore p ou ri ng a pp roxim at ely 4 00
grams into it.
• T h e si eves w ere st ac k ed in su ch a wa y t h at th e la rg est s i eve w as
on t op a n d th e sm a lles t at th e b ott om.
• T h e sa mp le in t h e c oni ca l f las k w as p ou red i nt o th e la rg es t s i eve.
• T h e si eve on t op wa s c los ed wi th a sp heri c a l -sh ap ed li d in si de.
• T h e st ac k ed si eves w ere p la c ed on t h e vi b rat or.
• The vibrator was switched on for 8 minutes.
• T h e si eves w ere th en w ei gh ed wi th th e s a mp le.
• T h e si eves w ere c lean ed ag ai n an d a ll of t h e a b ove p roc edu res
w ere f ollow ed f or t h e res t of t h e s am p les .
Results
Raw data

Test Sieve Sieve Aperture Mass of test Mass of Mass of course Mass of plaster
number (𝓊m) sieve(g) coarse salt retained sand retained
beach for 400g for 400g
retained for sample sample
400g sample

1 2.000 385 15 258 5

2 1.400 377 218 64 75
3 1 346 133 29 4
4 0.710 335 24 19 3
5 0.500 296 2 9 15
6 0.355 277 1 1.25 22
7 0.250 277 1 0.75 119
8 0.180 270 2 0.5 130
9 Finer 244 3 0.5 15
Calculations
Coarse Salt
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

258 19
= 400 × 100 = 400 × 100

= 64 =4.75

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

64
= × 100
400

= 16

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

39
= 400 × 100

= 9.75

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

9
= 400 × 100

= 2.25
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

5 3
= 400 × 100 = 400 × 100

= 1.25 = 0.75

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

2 2
= 400 × 100 = × 100
400

= 0.5 = 0.5
 Plaster sand
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

5 75
= 400 × 100 = 400 × 100

= 1.25 =18.75

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

4
= × 100
400

=1

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

3
= 400 × 100

= 0.75

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

15
= 400 × 100

= 3.75
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = × 100
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒

32 119
= 400 × 100 = 400 × 100

=8 = 29.75

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

130 15
= 400 × 100 = × 100
400

= 32.5 = 3.75
 Coarse beach sand

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

15 218
= 400 × 100 = 400 × 100

= 3.75 =54.5

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

133
= × 100
400

= 33.25

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

24
= 400 × 100

=6

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

2
= 400 × 100

= 0.5
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑
%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = × 100
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒

1 1
= 400 × 100 = 400 × 100

= 0.25 = 0.25

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

%𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100 %𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 × 100

3 2
= 400 × 100 = × 100
400

= 0.75 = 0.5
 Table of results for % retained on each test sieve

Test sieve number Sieve Aperture (𝑚𝑚) % retained for coarse % retained for % retained for
beach sand coarse salt plaster sand

1 2.000 3.75 64 1.25

2 1.400 54.5 16 18.75
3 1.000 33.25 9.75 1
4 0.710 6 4.75 0.75
5 0.500 0.5 2.25 3.75
6 0.355 0.25 1.25 8
7 0.250 0.25 0.75 29.75
8 0.180 0.5 0.5 32.5
9 Finer 0.75 0.5 3.75
Graphs

%mass retained on sieve vs sieve aperture

%mass retained 100

10

1
2.000 1.400 1.000 0.710 0.500 0.355 0.250 0.180 Finer

0.1
Apeture size

Plaster sand Coarse Beach Sand Sand Coarse salt

The above plotted linear graph is based on the % retained for the
different materials used in the practical. This graphical representation of
results obtained puts the particle size distribution of the materials used
into perspective in such a way that one can conclude that for sand its
p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s 1 4 0 0 𝓊m , f o r p l a s t e r s a n d t h e P S D 3 5 5 𝑚𝑚, f o r
m a r b l e c h i p s a n d c o a r s e s a l t t h e p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s 2 0 0 0 𝑚𝑚.
 Discussio n
Explanation of the results based on the table of results .

The plaster sand has the finest particles among all other samples because
in the biggest sieve aperture it has the least amount of retained
particles. Coarse salt has the biggest particles among all other samples
because in the largest sieve aperture it has the greatest amount of
retained particles. Sand has the second f inest particles and marble chips
have the third finest particles according to the first test sieve. The
marble chips have the finest particles since they have the greatest mass
in the collecting pan. This shows that the marble chips are made up of
very fine powder and bigger particles. The irregular and disorderly way
the mass profile is distributed from the first test to the last test sieve
experiment of marble chips suggests that some apertures are more
favorable than others in sieving. In general, one ca n expect a decreasing
order of particles being trapped on the sieves as we go down from the
b i g g e s t t e s t t o t h e s m a l l e s t s i e v e a p e r t ur e l i k e t h e m a s s p r o f i l e of c o a r s e
salt which decreases as we move to the smallest apertures.

Explanation of the results b ased on the graph.

Most of the sand particles were retained on 140 0 micro meter aperture
sized sieve, while plaster sand particles were the most retained on the
355 micrometers aperture sized sieve. For Coarse salt most of its
particles could not pass thro ugh the 2000 micrometers aperture sized
sieve, for Marble chips most of its particles could not pass through the
2000 micrometer sized sieve. The coarse salt is the only sample that
could not reach the last sieve due to the inability of them to pass
through the 355-mi crometer sieve, therefore it did not appear on the
graph. This is what was expected thoug h there were some slight
deviations from what we thought would be the distribution of masses of
sample as we move from larger apertures to smaller aperture s. It was
predicted that a decrease in retained masses as the apertures descends.
Possible sources of error include the following.

✓ Partial blockage of the apertures on the sieves.

✓ The speed used in a vibrator.

The apertures of the sieves could have been slightly blocked by larger
particles during the sieving process as a result some fine particle could
not pass-through sieve. The total mass of the sample before and after
the sieves test is slightly different. It is found that the mass of the
sample after the sieves test is reduced by a very small margin. It may be
possible that a unit mass was lost durin g the process of removing sieves
from the vibrator to the mass balance scale. The speed of the vibrator
can be one of the main factors affecting the efficiency of sieves. The
speed used might not be sufficient to well shake the sample. The
vibrating or shaking process could have also made the size of certain
particles smaller than their normal size to the extent th at these particles
managed to enter the apertures which they were not able to pass
through initially. It is also possible that the shaker was not distributing
the particles in the efficient manner to allow the finer particles to go
through the test sieve d ue to the larger particles blocking the aperture.

Recommendati ons
The sieving method is applicable to particle of a size as small as about
50µm, not for very fine materials because of the difficulty of producing
a c c u r a t e l y w o v e n f i n e g a u z e o f s u f f i c i e nt s t r e n g t h s a n d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e
sieves became closed. It is also recommended that both the screens and
the particles are dry f or ef fective results.

The agitator or shaker used should enhance the particles to move in all
directions to allow them to be distr ibuted fairly in the test sieves.
 CONCLUSIONS
Test sieve analysis is an appropriate manner of measuring particles size.
The size of particles was determined by specifying the aperture size of
the sieve through which the sample has passed, and the apertu re size of
the sieve on which the sample is obtained. After the process was being
carried out, it was discovered that the size of particles for plaster sand
a n d m a r b l e c h i p s r a n g e s b e t w e e n 1 0 0 0 - 3 5 5 𝓊m . I n a d d i t i o n , f o r s a n d t h e
p a r t i c l e s s i z e r a n g e s b e t w e e n 1 4 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 𝓊m a n d f o r t h e c o a r s e s a l t t h e
s i z e i s g r e a t e r t h a n 2 0 0 0 𝓊m . A f t e r c a r r y i n g o u t t h i s p r o c e s s i t i s n o w
easy to detect which test sieve best suit which type of sample.
 RE FER ENCES
• Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering Volume 2 Fifth
Edition-Particle technology and Separation Processes
• Practical manual for Chemical Engineering Practical (III), compiled
by PC Jiyane January 2010.
• www.sieve analysis.com
• Google theory of sieving.com