U2 Lec5 Screening - Mixing

Slide No.
1
Lecture 5
MATERIAL
PREPARATION
SORTING, GRADING, SIEVING,
SCREENING
SOLID MIXING
Dr. Dang Quoc Tuan

Department of Food Technology
International University
Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Slide No. 2
Lecture Content
❖Sorting and grading
❖Sieving – screening
❖Standard sieves- Mesh size
❖Sieve analysis – characteristic size
❖Particle size distribution
❖Solid mixing
❖Mixing equipments
❖Mixing efficiency
❖Coefficient of Variation
❖Mixing index
❖Mixing time

Slide No. 3
SORTING
➢ What? The separation of foods into categories on the
basis of a measurable physical property.
➢ Why to ensure a uniform product for subsequent

needed? processing.
➢ The four main physical properties used:

▪ color
▪ shape
▪ weight
▪ Size
▪ Some more: Surface texture; Magnetic and
Electrical Properties
Slide No. 4
Color Sorting
➢Manually: widely used; expensive (labour costs,
operator training, the space required for sorting tables).
➢Machine vision sorting systems: greater accuracy than
manual methods.
▪ Included monochrome (black and white), bichrome
(4100 shades of red and green) and trichromatic or full
colour (262,000 shades of red, green and blue, with
optional infrared).
▪ Programmable logic controller (PLC); pre-set
programs for different products; easily changeable by
operators using a video display.

Slide No. 5
Color Sorting
➢Light sensitive cells in the camera (termed ‘pixels’) →
a voltage that proportional to the intensity of light
received. A lower voltage than the pre-set value →
darker objects or areas.
➢Up to 10 T/h of product; automatically sorted up to
16T/h (small-particulate foods).
➢Defective items removed by electronically controlled
air jets that can operate for 20 milliseconds.
➢Highly computerized; + image processing with pre-set
specifications; + compressed air ejector.

Slide No. 6
Color Sorting
➢Applications:
▪ potatoes for defects and blemishes by identifying
dark areas on the potato surface.
▪ peanuts, cashew nuts, etc.
▪ beans,
▪ rice,
▪ diced carrot,
▪ maize kernels,
▪ cereals,
▪ snack foods
▪ small fruits

Slide No. 7
Color Sorting
Color sorting for coffee:

Slide No. 8
Color Sorting
Color sorting for coffee:

Color Sorting Slide No. 9
Color Sorter
(Sortex Ltd.)

Shape Sorting Slide No. 10
Why Shape? important in determining their suitability for

processing or their retail value.
▪ economical peeling: potatoes a
uniform oval or round shape without
protuberances.
▪ cucumbers and gherkins more easily
packaged if straight.
▪ foods with a characteristic shape (ex.
pears) have a higher retail value if
the shape is uniform.
➢Shape sorting methods:

▪manually,
▪mechanically (belt-and-roller sorter, disc sorter),
▪by image processing.
Shape Sorting Slide No. 11
➢ belt-and-roller sorter
➢ the disc sorter

➢ Image processing Skeleton
length
Spiral separators Slide No. 12
▪ Sorting the particles by shape: round vs. nonrounds

▪ Round particles roll at a higher speed → so are flung off the
inner flight and into the collection funnel.
▪ Shapes which are not round enough are collected at the
bottom of the flight.

Slide No. 13
Weight Sorting
What? more accurate than other methods;
therefore used for more valuable foods (for
example eggs, cut meats and some tropical fruits).
➢ Eggs: sorted at up to 12,000/h into six to nine

categories with a tolerance of 0.5 g.
➢ First step = ‘candling’ ; then pass to the weight sorter.
➢ Apparatus:
▪ a slatted conveyor transports the eggs above a
series of counterbalanced arms.
▪ the conveyor operates intermittently and while
stationary, the arms raise and weigh the eggs.
▪ heavy eggs are discharged into a padded chute
▪ lighter eggs travel to the next weightier.

Weight Sorting Slide No. 14
Egg Sorter

Slide No. 15
Aspiration
(Weight Sorting)
➢ Aspiration and flotation sorting use
differences in density: similar in principle
and operation.
➢ Grains, nuts and pulses: by aspiration.
➢ Peas and lima beans: by flotation in brine
(specific gravity, 1.1162–1.1362).
▪ The denser, starchy, over-mature pieces
sink whereas the younger pieces float.

Slide No. 16
Collation
(Weight Sorting)
➢ Collation sorting – normally operators select items
of food from a pool of materials and collate them by
trial and error into a pack which is as close as possible
to the required weight (for example frozen fish fillets).
▪ to ensure compliance with fill-weight legislation;
▪ frequently a large give-away
▪ time-consuming and laborious .
➢Now performed automatically by a microcomputer.

▪ Food weights stored by a microcomputer → selects
the best combination of items to produce the
desired number in a pack
▪ minimum give-away.
Industrial black pepper production for export Slide No. 17
Unsorted-pepper
Contaminant < Φ 1mm Contaminant > Φ5,5
Screening
Broken grains 1-2,5mm Dust
Drum Screener by Size
Φ2,5 -4,5 mm Φ4,5-4,9 mm Φ4,9-5,5 mm > Φ5,5 mm
Stone Screener Stone Screener
Catador Light, Deformed Grains
Spiral Screeners Spiral Screener
Pasteurization
Column Dryer
Cooler
Light, Deformed Catador
Spiral Screeners Spiral Screeners
Light, Deformed Magnetic Metal Detector
Container
Packaging
black pepper manufacturing line Slide No. 18
screen De-stoner spiral screener Flat screener

Slide No. 19
Black pepper manufacturing line 2T/h - SINCO

Slide No. 20
Gravity separators (De-stoners)
Heavier fraction

Slide No. 21
Cyclone separators (pneumatic)

GRADING Slide No. 22
➢ = “the assessment of overall quality of a food using a

number of attributes”.
➢ Sorting (based on one characteristic) = part of a
grading.
➢ Trained operators necessary: to simultaneously
assess a number of variables.
➢ Image processing and computer analysis: useful for
assessing a large number of factors (bruising, skin
color and damage on chicken meat)
For example:
▪ Eggs inspected over tungsten lights (termed ‘candling’): up to 20
factors; eggs fertilised, malformed and contain blood spots or
rot removed.
▪ Meats examined for disease, fat distribution, bone to flesh ratio
and carcass size and shape.
Slide No. 23
GRADING
➢Other graded foods include:
▪ Cheese and tea: for flavor, aroma, color, etc.
▪ Apples: color distribution across the fruit, surface
blemishes and size and shape of the fruit; with the
assistance of colored cards → different grades.
➢In general, grading is more

expensive than sorting (skilled
operators.)
➢However, many attributes

simultaneously assessed,
→ a more uniform high-
quality product.

SIZE SORTING Slide No. 24
(Sieving – Screening)
“separation of solids into two or more fractions on the
basis of differences in size”. = sieving or screening
➢Why?
Particularly important when the food is to be
heated or cooled ( ~ the rate of heat transfer →
variation in size would cause over-heating or under-
heating.
▪ Additionally, foods of uniform size → preferred by
consumers.
➢How?
▪ Screens with either fixed or variable apertures.
▪ The screen may be stationary or, more commonly,
rotating or vibrating.
(Sieving – Screening) Slide No. 25
➢ a gravity-driven process.
➢A stack of sieves used → fractions of various sizes
produced from a mixture of particle size
➢The shaker:
▪ an eccentric drive: screens in gyratory
or oscillating motion ;
▪ or vibrator: screens small-amplitude,
high frequency, up and down motion

Screening Slide No. 26
The sieve are inclined → the particles retained on the

screen fall off at the lower end → collected by a conveyor.
Screening and particle size separation can thus be carried
out automatically

Slide No. 27
Sieving
➢ Done successively: increasingly smaller screens → a
series of particles classified into size ranges.
➢ The material is shaken or agitated above a mesh or
cloth screen.
➢ Particles of smaller size than the mesh openings can
pass through under the force of gravity.
➢ Rates of throughput of sieves are dependent upon a
number of factors:
▪ nature and shape of the particles,
▪ frequency and amplitude of the shaking,
▪ methods used to prevent sticking or bridging of
particles in the apertures of the sieve; and
▪ tension and physical nature of the sieve material.

Slide No. 28
Fixed Aperture Screens

➢ Two common types:
✓ flat bed screen (or sieve)
✓ drum screen (rotary screen or reel).
➢ The multideck flat bed screen:
• a number of inclined or horizontal mesh screens.
• stacked inside a vibrating frame.
• aperture sizes from 20 μm to 125 mm.
➢ Food particles pass through screens under
gravity until they reach a screen with an
aperture size that retains them.
➢ The smallest particles separated commercially
are of the order of 50 μm.

Slide No. 29
Flat Bed Screens

➢ The rate of separation controlled by:
▪ shape and size distribution of the particles
▪ nature of the sieve material
▪ amplitude and frequency of shaking
▪ effectiveness of methods used to prevent blocking (or blinding)
of the sieves.
➢ Widely used for sorting dry foods (for example flour,

sugar and spices).
➢ The main problems encountered:

▪ excessive moisture or high humidity → sticking to the screen;
small particles to agglomerate and form larger particles, which
are then discharged as oversize blinding.
▪ high feed rates → screens overloaded → small particles

discharged with the oversized particles.

Slide No. 30
Flat Bed Screens

Slide No. 31
Drum Screens
➢ For sorting small-particulate foods (nuts, peas or
beans).
➢ Screens: almost horizontal (5–10º inclination),
perforated metal or mesh cylinders.
➢ Higher capacity than flat bed screens
➢ Less severe problems associated with binding.
➢ Design:
▪ concentric (one inside another),
▪ series (a single drum of sections with different sized apertures).
➢ Capacity:
✓ Critical speed of rotation: (above this the food is held against the
screen by centrifugal force and results in poor separation).
✓ Critical angle of the screen: (above this the residence time is too
short and products pass through without separation).
Slide No. 32
Drum Screener

Slide No. 33
Drum Screener
Bui Van Ngo

Slide No. 34
Drum Screener
Drums in Series
Slide No. 35
Variable Aperture Screens

➢ Design: (1) a continuously diverging aperture
or (2) a stepwise increase in aperture.
➢ Both types handle foods more gently than
drum screens: used to sort fruits and other
foods that are easily damaged.
➢ Continuously variable screens employ pairs of
diverging rollers, cables or felt-lined conveyor
belts.
➢ Driven at different speeds to rotate the food
and thus to align it, to present the smallest
dimension to the aperture

Slide No. 36

Slide No. 37
Application:
Apples, pears, peaches, avocados, mangosteens, passion fruit,
citrus, bell peppers, figs, lemons, kiwis, pomegranates and other
fruits that are easily damaged or sorted with high precision.
Slide No. 38

Principles:
Two walking stainless steel conveyor belts in constant speed and
same direction to open the distance among these pipes gradually so
that vegetables or fruits to be graded will fall down from small ones to
large ones.
Features:
1. stainless steel, conforming to food grade standards.
2. The dimension size can be adjusted within a certain range,
meet different needs.
3. High output and precision.
4. Wide application range.
5. The grading doesn’t hurt fruits’ and vegetables’ skin, it’s
efficient, easy to operate and labor saving.
6. High quality, easy operation.

Slide No. 39
Sieve Analysis
Standard Sieve Size
Particle size distribution

Slide No. 40
Particle size distribution

Involves :
➢ Passing the material being sized through a screen
of a standard size openings.
➢ The particle-size distribution reported as the
weight % retained on sieves of decreasing size and
the % passed of the finest size.

Slide No. 41
Standard sieve size

Sieve Mesh
➢ Sieves may be designated by the opening
size
➢ US sieve mesh or Tyler sieve mesh
➢ The US-sieve mesh designation is the
metrication.
➢ The Tyler mesh designation refer to the
number of opening per inch.
➢ The two mesh designations have equivalent
opening size although the sieve number
designations are not exactly the same.

Slide No. 42
Standard sieve size

➢ The mesh was originally the number of apertures per
(linear) inch
➢ By suitable choice of sizes for the wire from which
the sieves are woven, the ratio of opening sizes has
been kept approximately constant in moving from
one sieve to the next = ( 4 ).
√2: 1
➢ The standard British series of sieves has been
based on the available standard wire sizes, so that,
although apertures are generally of the same order
as the Tyler series, aperture ratios are not constant.

Standard US-sieve Size Slide No. 43

US-sieve vs. Tyler sieve Slide No. 44
Other standards:
British sieve
Indian Standard sieve
Slide No. 45
Methods for Sieve Analysis
The percentage frequency curve graph
The cumulative percentage curve graph
The probability curve graph
Methods for calculation

Slide No. 46
The percentage frequency curve
graph
Schematic of relative percentage frequency

distribution curve
Slide No. 47
The cumulative percentage curve graph
➢Plot opening sieve diameter against probability percentage

➢The diameter at 0.5 or 50% probability is particle size

Average Particle Size Slide No. 48
➢The particle size distribution of a material is expressed

as either:
- the mass fraction of material that is retained on each sieve
- the cumulative percentage of material retained
➢The mean overall diameter of particles (volume or mass
mean diameter) is found using:
Method 1 d avg =  d i X i
Method 2
1
davg =
 Xi 
where davg = mass mean diameter,
  di 
di = the average diameter of the fraction i,
mi = mass retained on the sieve,
xi = mass fraction.

Slide No. 49
Example 1:
A sieve analysis of powdered sugar showed the following
results. Calculated the mass mean diameter of the sample.
Sieve aperture (μm) Mass retained (%)

250 13.8
125 33.6
74 35.2
37 12.8
pan 4.6
100

Slide No. 50
SOLUTION 1:
To find the mass mean diameter, find d as follows.
Sieve % Mass Mass Average diameter of di.Xi

aperture retained fraction particles di (μm)
(μm) Xi
0 4.6 0.046 18.5, (0+37)/2 0.851
37 12.8 0.128 55.5, (37+74)/2 7.104
74 35.2 0.352 99.5 35.024
125 36.6 0.366 187.5 68.625
250 13.8 0.138 273.5 (250+297)/2 37.743
100 1.0 149.35
Method 1: davg = 149.4 μm
Why 297??
Method 2: davg = 97.0 μm
Slide No. 51
Problem:
A sieve analysis gives the following results:
Sieve size Wt. retained

(mm) (g)
1.00 0
0.500 64
0.250 324
0.125 240
0.063 48
Pan 24
▪ Plot a cumulative size analysis and a size-distribution
analysis.
▪ Estimate the weights, per 1000kg of powder, which would
lie in the size ranges 0.150 to 0.200 mm and 0.250 to 0.350
mm.
▪ Estimated the average particle size.
Slide No. 52
Example 2: The mass fraction of a sample of milled corn retained on each
of a series of sieves. Calculate a mean particle diameter which should be
specified for this mixture.
U.S. Micron Wt. %

X (%)
Sieve Size grams accumulate
6 3,360 1.7 1.7 1.7
8 2,380 3.2 3.2 4.9
12 1,680 7.9 7.9 12.8
16 1,191 19.4 19.4 32.2
20 841 18.0 18.0 50.2
30 594 15.0 15.0 65.2
40 420 11.6 11.6 76.8
50 297 8.0 8.0 84.8
70 212 6.6 6.6 91.4
100 150 3.4 3.4 94.8
140 103 3.2 3.2 98
200 73 1.1 1.1 99.1
270 53 0.6 0.6 99.7
Pan 0.0 0.3 0.3 100
Sum. 100.0 100.0
Slide No. 53
Solution 2, Method 1 (3360+4000)/2
U.S. Micron Wt.

% Xi Dpi Xi*Dpi
Sieve Size grams
6 3,360 1.7 1.7 0.017 3,680 62.56
8 2,380 3.2 3.2 0.032 2870 91.84
12 1,680 7.9 7.9 0.079 2030 160.37
16 1,191 19.4 19.4 0.194 1435.5 278.487
20 841 18.0 18.0 0.18 1016 182.88
30 594 15.0 15.0 0.15 717.5 107.625
40 420 11.6 11.6 0.116 507 58.812
50 297 8.0 8.0 0.08 358.5 28.68
70 212 6.6 6.6 0.066 254.5 16.797
100 150 3.4 3.4 0.034 181 6.154
140 103 3.2 3.2 0.032 126.5 4.048
200 73 1.1 1.1 0.011 88 0.968
270 53 0.6 0.6 0.006 63 0.378
Pan 0 0.3 0.3 0.003 27 0.081
Sum. 100 999.7 (0+53)/2
D = Xi*Dpi = 999.7 m
Slide No. 54
Solution 2, Method 2 (3360+4000)/2
U.S. Micron Wt.

% Xi Dpi Xi/Dpi
Sieve Size grams
6 3,360 1.7 1.7 0.017 3,680 4.40E-06
8 2,380 3.2 3.2 0.032 2870 1.13E-05
12 1,680 7.9 7.9 0.079 2030 3.93E-05
16 1,191 19.4 19.4 0.194 1435.5 1.37E-04
20 841 18.0 18.0 0.18 1016 1.79E-04
30 594 15.0 15.0 0.15 717.5 2.11E-04
40 420 11.6 11.6 0.116 507 2.31E-04
50 297 8.0 8.0 0.08 358.5 2.26E-04
70 212 6.6 6.6 0.066 254.5 2.62E-04
100 150 3.4 3.4 0.034 181 1.90E-04
140 103 3.2 3.2 0.032 126.5 2.56E-04
200 73 1.1 1.1 0.011 88 1.03E-04
270 53 0.6 0.6 0.006 63 1.60E-05
Pan 0 0.3 0.3 0.003 27 0.00E+00
Sum. 100 100.00 2.06E-03
(0+53)/2
D = 1/(Xi/ Dpi) = 1/1.87E-03 = 485.6 m
Slide No. 55
The percentage frequency curve

graph
Frequency curve
25.00
20.00
% Wt.(frequency)
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
seive

Slide No. 56
The accumulative percentage
curve graph
accumulative arithmetic curve
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Percent
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
3,360 2,380 1,680 1,191 841 594 420 297 212 150 103 73 53 37
seive
5b
Slide No. 57
Solid Mixing
Is a unit operation that distributes the
components of two or more materials
among the materials producing in the
end a single blend of the components.
Solid mixing is accomplished through
blending.

Slide No. 58
Type of mixers
– Ribbon mixers
– Paddle
– Drum (rotational)
– Screw conveyer
– Screw extruder
– Etc.

Slide No. 59
Horizontal Ribbon Mixer

▪ High efficiency, high uniformity, high
load factor
▪ Low energy consumption, low
pollution and little destruction to
frangible material.
▪ Widely used to mix powder-powder
and powder-liquid (paste, viscous or
with big specific gravity such as putty,
stone coatings, metal powders etc).
▪ Currently applied in industries of
pharmacy, food, pesticides, dyes,
chemicals, plastics, ceramics, paint,
putty, mortar etc.

Slide No. 60
Horizontal Ribbon Mixer

Design & Principle:
▪ Consists of transmission parts, double ribbon agitators
and U-shape cylinder.
▪ The outer ribbon pushes materials from both ends to the
middle
▪ The inner ribbon pushes materials from the middle to
both ends.
▪ Ribbon wind with different
angle direction carries the
materials flowing in different
directions.
▪ Through continuous
convective circulation, the
materials are sheared and
mixed thoroughly and quickly.

Slide No. 61
Double Ribbon Horizontal Mixer

Double Ribbon Mixer – Mixing
Slide No. 62
Zones
Feed Flow
Main Mixing Zone
Main Mixing Zone
Typical mix time = 3-4 min

Slide No. 63
Ribbon Mixer - Counterpoise
Mixing Zone
Slide No. 64
Paddle Mixer
Main Applications:
▪ Chemicals/Agro-Chemicals/Detergents/Plastics
▪ Dyestuffs/Pigments
▪ Plaster/Rubber/Glue
▪ Food
▪ Construction Chemicals
▪ Industrial and Sewage Sludge
Advantages:
▪ Universal, various applications
▪ Robust design
▪ Process capabilities/ High
throughput
▪ Good mixing homogeneity

Slide No. 65
Paddle Mixer
▪ Rotating paddles divide and blend sequentially the
mass of product.
▪ Quick and intense movement of each particle through
the mixing chamber (convection).
▪ Excellent axial and radial dispersion, due to the defined
angle of the paddles.
▪ The mixing time depends

on the desired process
and the characteristics of
products
▪ For standard mixing
applications: 3 to 5 min.

Slide No. 66
Paddle Mixer – Mixing Zones
Feed Flow
Main Mixing Some Main Mixing

Mixing
Some Main Mixing

Main Mixing
Mixing

Slide No. 67
Horizontal Paddle Mixer

Slide No. 68
Forberg Fluid Bed Mixer

Rotating Drum Mixer – Mixing
Slide No. 69
Zones
Not so common for food
application

Slide No. 70
Cubic Mixer
Principles:
▪ a tumbling mixer, cubic form of
container.
▪ The cube rotates about an axis.
▪ The tumbling motion possible: by
virtue of container shape and by
means of baffles.
▪ The efficiency highly dependent
on the rotation speed.
▪ Product contact parts are
completely separated from
technical components: →oil and
grease free in the operating
chamber.

Slide No. 71
Cubic Mixer
Application :
- Pharmaceuticals
- Food
- Agricultural
- Chemical
Advantages :
- cGMP Compliance
- Economical
- Low Power Consumption
- Durable machine components
- Easy to Operate, Clean and
Maintenance
V-shaped Mixer
Slide No. 72
Vertical (Screw-Conveyer) Mixer

Animal Feeds: conditioners,
screw conveyors and feeders,
pellet mills and coolers,
agitators,
bucket elevators, whole of
mechanical plant.
Sugar - blenders, screw
conveyors and feeders.
Milk Powder -
conveying/mixing screws.
Cheese - screw conveyors.

Slide No. 73
Vertical Mixer – Main

Mixing
Main
Mixing
Mixing Zones Zone Zone
Main
Mixing
Zone

Slide No. 74
Mixer Problems
Material on ribbons Material on paddles
Fat sprayed on ribbon and Fat lumps created by poor

shaft liquid application and
mixing
5A
Slide No. 75
MIXER UNIFORMITY
ANALYSIS
Uniformity is a most important indicator of mixer efficiency

Slide No. 76
Factors Affecting Uniformity
➢ Particle Shape
▪ Spherical, square, flat
➢ Particle Size
▪ Different particle size can separate during the handling
process
➢ Density
▪ Heavy particles may settle out during conveying and
discharge to a bin
➢ Static Charge
▪ Particles will adhere to equipment if not properly
grounded
➢ Hydroscopicity
▪ Vitamins or Feed Additives may absorb water
➢ Adhesiveness
▪ Fats or molasses may adhere to equipment
▪ Tendency to aggregate
Slide No. 77
Factors Affecting Uniformity

➢ Materials similar in size, shape and density: able to
form a more uniform mixture than dissimilar materials.
➢ Differences in these properties also cause unmixing (or
separation) of the component parts.
➢ In some mixtures, uniformity is achieved after a given
period and then unmixing begins. → important to time
the mixing operation accurately.
➢ The uniformity of the final product depends on the
equilibrium achieved between the mechanisms of
mixing and unmixing, which in turn is related to the
type of mixer, the operating conditions and the
component foods.

Slide No. 78
What Represents the Goal of

Mixing?
Segregated
Mix
Perfect Mix
Random Mix

Slide No. 79
Mixer Uniformity Analysis
➢ Mixer Markers
– Single nutrient/ingredient
• Salt
• Synthetic Amino Acids (Lysine or Methionine)
– Economical
– Accurate and precise at inclusion level
➢ Test twice per year
➢ Ten samples from the same batch of feed
➢ Sample mixer or a point closest to the
discharge
Quantab™ = Test kit for Mixer Uniformity Analysis

Mixer Uniformity Analysis Slide No. 80
Calculations
Calculation of Mixer CV бm - standard deviation,
– Mean of samples
n - number of samples,
– Standard deviation of samples
c - concentration of the
component in each sample
c - the mean concentration

n  c − ( c )
2 2 of samples.
s = m =
n(n - 1)
– CV % = std. deviation x 100
mean
Standard deviations the uniformity of the mixture

Mixer Uniformity Analysis Slide No. 81
Calculations
NAME: DATE:
ADDRESS:
SAMPLE:
QUANTAB READINGS
1 0.20
2 0.21
3 0.22
4 0.17
5 0.17
6 0.18
7 0.20
8 0.17
9 0.18
10 0.18
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.02
MEAN 0.19
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (CV) 9.65

Slide No. 82
Mixer Uniformity Evaluation
CV RATING CORRECTIVE ACTION

< 10% Excellent None
10-15% Good Increase mixing time by 25-30%
15-20% Fair Increase mixing time by 50%, look

for worn equipment, overfilling, or
sequence of ingredient addition
20% + Poor Possible combination of all the
above
Consults extension personnel or feed
equipment manufacturer

Double Ribbon Mixer – RPM’s Double Ribbon Mixer – Worn
Slide No. 83
Ribbons
Double Ribbon Mixer – Double Ribbon Mixer – Build-Up

Wrong Rotation

Slide No. 84
EXAMPLE 3: Mixer Coefficient of Variation
After a mixer mixing 99kg of salt with 1 kg of magnesium

carbonate had been working for some time, ten samples,
each weighing 20g, were taken and analyzed for
magnesium carbonate. The weights of magnesium
carbonate in the samples were:
• 0.230,
• 0.172,
• 0.163,
• 0.173,
• 0.210,
• 0.182,
• 0.232,
• 0.220,
• 0.210,
• 0.213 g.
Calculate the Mixer CV (Coefficient of Variation)

Slide No. 85
Solution 3:
Fraction composition of magnesium carbonate in
the samples are:
0.0115;
0.0086;
0.0082; The mean: c = 0.0100
0.0087;
0.0105; The standard dev. s = бm = 0.00128
0.0091;
0.0016; The CV(%) =
0.0110; 0.0015/0.011*100% = 12.8%
0.0105;
0.0107.

Slide No. 86
SOL 3:
After some later time, fractional compositions found to
be:
0.0091;
0.0085; The mean: c = 0.00903
0.0087;
0.0086; The standard dev.
0.0093; s = бm = 0.000548
0.0098;
0.0083; CV(%) =
0.0095; 0.000548/0.00903*100%
0.0087; = 6.06%
0.0098.

Slide No. 87
Mixing Index
- To monitor the extent of mixing
- To compare alternative types of equipment
Several mixing indices available:
б∞ - the standard deviation of a ‘perfectly mixed’ sample,

б0 - the standard deviation of a sample at the start of mixing
бm - the standard deviation of a sample taken during mixing.
Intitial S.D. б0 defined:  0 = V1 (1 − V1 )

where V1 - the average fractional volume or mass of a component in the mixture.

Slide No. 88
What Type of Mixing Index?
➢ M1 - used when approximately equal masses of
components are mixed and/or at relatively low
mixing rates.
➢ M2 - used when a small quantity of one
component is incorporated into a larger bulk of
material and/or at higher mixing rates.
➢ M3 - used for liquids or solids mixing in a similar
way to M1.
➢ In practice, all three are examined and the one
that is most suitable for the particular ingredients
and type of mixer is selected.

Slide No. 89
Mixing Index vs. Time

➢In practice, perfect mixing (where б∞) cannot be
achieved, but in efficient mixers the value becomes
very low after a reasonable period.
The mixing time is related to the mixing index using:
K - mixing rate constant; varies with the type of mixer and

the nature of the components.
tm (s) - mixing time.

Slide No. 90
EXAMPLE 4: Mixing Index vs. Time

During preparation of a dough, 700 g of sugar are mixed
with 100 kg of flour. Ten 100 g samples are taken after
1, 5 and 10 min and analyzed for the percentage sugar.
The results are as follows.
Percentage after 1 min 0.05 0.12 0.46 0.17 1.49 0.22 1.18 0.23 1.69 2.01
Assume that for ‘perfect mixing’ , б∞=0.0001.
Calculate the mixing index for each mixing time and draw
conclusions regarding the mixing time.

Slide No. 91
SOLUTION 4:
Convert concentration in % to fractional:
1 min 5 min 10 min

0.0005 0.0085 0.0072
0.0012 0.008 0.0069
0.0046 0.0062 0.0071
0.0017 0.0078 0.0062
0.0149 0.0075 0.0068
0.0022 0.0039 0.0071
0.0118 0.0084 0.0077
0.0023 0.0096 0.0072
0.0169 0.0058 0.0070
0.0201 0.0047 0.0073
Slide No. 92
SOLUTION 4:
0.7
Average mass percent V1 of sugar in the mix: V1= ≈0.007
100.7
From equation for б0:
 0 = V1 (1 − V1 ) = 0.007(1 − 0.007) = 0.08334
* For t1 = 1 min of mixing:

c = 0.00703, then for Std. Dev. бm:
n c − ( c ) 10 * 0.001087 - (0.0762)
2 2 2
s =m = = = 0.0075
n(n - 1) 10 * 9
Using Index M2 (small quantity sugar + large amount of flour:
log(0.0075) − log(0.0001)
M 2 , t1 = = 0.642
log(0.08337) − log(0.0001)

Slide No. 93
SOLUTION 4:
Similarly, after 5 min, 300 s: бm = 0.00182
M2_t2 = 0.431
Similarly, after 10 min, 600 s:
бm = 0.000387
M2_t3 = 0.201
1.8
1.6
Interpretation: if the log M2

is plotted against time, the
1.4
y = 0.0027x
R² = 0.8855
linear relationship
1.2
indicates that the mixing

-LN(M)
0.8
index gives a good

0.6
description of the mixing
0.4
process and that mixing
0.2
takes place uniformly and
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
efficiently.
Mixing time (s)

Slide No. 94
EXAMPLE 5- Mixing Index Calculation
For a particular bakery operation, it was desired to mix dough
in 95kg batches and then at a later time to blend in 5kg of
yeast. For product uniformity it is important that the yeast be
well distributed and so an experiment was set up to follow the
course of the mixing. Calculate the mixing index after 5 and
10 min mixing, assuming б∞=0.01.
➢Sample yeast compositions, expressed as the percentage of
yeast in 100g samples, were found to be:
➢Fractional compositions:

SOL 5- Mixing yeast into dough Slide No. 95
➢For a particular bakery operation, it was desired to mix dough in 95kg batches and
then at a later time to blend in 5kg of yeast. For product uniformity it is important that
the yeast be well distributed and so an experiment was set up to follow the course of
the mixing. Calculate the mixing index after 5 and 10 min mixing, assuming б∞=0.01.
➢Fractional compositions:
бm,5= 0.057 Assuming б∞ = 0.01

бm,10 = 0.019
Calculating:  0 = V1 (1 − V1 ) = 0.05(1 − 0.05) = 0.218
M2,5 = 0.565
M2,10 = 0.208

Slide No. 96
EXAMPLE 6- Rate of Mixing
In a batch mixer, blending starch and dried, powdered

vegetables for a soup mixture, the initial proportions
of dried vegetable to starch were 40:60. The variance
of the sample compositions measured in terms of
fractional compositions of starch was found to be
0.0823 after 300s of mixing. For how much longer
should the mixing continue to reach the specified
maximum sample composition variance of 0.02?
Assume that the starch and the vegetable particles are
of approximately the same physical size and that б∞2
= 0.0001

Slide No. 97
SOLUTION 6- Rate of Mixing
In a batch mixer, blending starch and dried, powdered vegetables for a soup mixture,
the initial proportions of dried vegetable to starch were 40:60. The variance of the
sample compositions measured in terms of fractional compositions of starch was
found to be 0.0823 after 300s of mixing. For how much longer should the mixing
continue to reach the specified maximum sample composition variance of 0.02?
Assume that the starch and the vegetable particles are of approximately the same
physical size and that б∞2 = 0.0001
Initial variance бo2 = 0.4(1-0.4) =0.24
 m 2 −   2 0.0823 − 0.0001
Then, Mixing Index: M t1 = 2 = = 0.3426
o − 2
0.24 − 0.0001
ln(M ) ln(0.3426)
Calculating K, for tm = 300s: K=− = = 0.00357
tm 300
 m 2 −   2 0.02 − 0.0001
Then, for бm2 = 0.02: M t2 = 2 = = 0.08295
o − 2
0.24 − 0.0001
ln(M ) ln(0.08295)
Mixing Time: tm = − = = 697 ( s )
K 0.00357
Slide No. 98
Further Readings:
1. P.J. Fellow. 2000. Food processing technology:
Principles and practice. CRC Press. Woodhead
Publishing Limited. 2nd Edition. (Ch. 3.2, 5)
2. R. Earle, R.L. and Earle, M.D. 2012. Unit operations in

food processing, The Web Edition. (Ch. 12)
http://www.nzifst.org.nz/unitoperations
HW: 2, 5 (E&E, p. 286, Chap 12)

U2 Lec5 Screening - Mixing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

U2 Lec5 Screening - Mixing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slide No.

Dr. Dang Quoc Tuan

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

➢ Why to ensure a uniform product for subsequent

➢ The four main physical properties used:

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Why Shape? important in determining their suitability for

➢Shape sorting methods:

➢ the disc sorter

▪ Sorting the particles by shape: round vs. nonrounds

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

➢ Eggs: sorted at up to 12,000/h into six to nine

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

➢Now performed automatically by a microcomputer.

Drum Screener by Size

Φ2,5 -4,5 mm Φ4,5-4,9 mm Φ4,9-5,5 mm > Φ5,5 mm

Stone Screener Stone Screener

Catador Light, Deformed Grains

Spiral Screeners Spiral Screener

Light, Deformed Catador

Spiral Screeners Spiral Screeners

Light, Deformed Magnetic Metal Detector

screen De-stoner spiral screener Flat screener

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Gravity separators (De-stoners)

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Cyclone separators (pneumatic)

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

➢ = “the assessment of overall quality of a food using a

➢In general, grading is more

➢However, many attributes

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

The sieve are inclined → the particles retained on the

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Fixed Aperture Screens

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Flat Bed Screens

➢ Widely used for sorting dry foods (for example flour,

➢ The main problems encountered:

▪ high feed rates → screens overloaded → small particles

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Bui Van Ngo

Variable Aperture Screens

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Variable Aperture Screens

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Variable Aperture Screens

Variable Aperture Screens

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2

Food Technology Department International University Food Unit Operations 2