Screening

Camacho, Rich Corban C.

College of Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering
ChE – 3204

When tackling Particle Technology, it is insufficient to only theoretically understand the concept of screening and screen
analysis, it is necessary to conduct actual experiments for students to observe the actual screening process. In the separation of
materials based on their size, screening is a viable option, as it is capable of separating particles of various sizes at the same time,
it is also possible to determine the exact mass fractions for each sieve, as well as the overall efficiency of the process.

Keywords: Particle Technology, Screening, Efficiency, Separation Process

INTRODUCTION certain threshold, quality control in ensuring

Screening is defined as the separation of
particles to their respective sizes with the use
of mechanical motion and sieves, with the
goal of obtaining the particle size distribution,
a sieve is defined as a material that has
different spacing, and sizes between wires to
achieve the desired mesh number, or the
number of openings per linear inch(Skopp,
2000). Various physical principles are
observed in the screening process, such as
vibration, which agitates the particles in the
sieves, that allow them to pass through or
remain retained on a sieve, gravity enables the
particles to fall to the next sieve after it passes
through its current sieve.
In particle size analysis, it is determined
that screening/sieving is one of the most
utilized particle characterization methods, and
is observed to be low cost, compared to other
particle size analysis methods(Amuda et al.,
2017). Screening is utilized for a variety of
reasons, from removal of particles within a
that all particles are of a certain size.
EXPERIMENTAL
In conducting the laboratory
experiment, several procedures need to
be followed. Firstly, the materials that
will be utilized are prepared, the Tyler
testing sieves are prepared and
properly cleaned, with the mesh
numbers being ⅝, ⅜ ,4 ,10, 20, 30, 45, 60,
80, and 100. The sieve shaker is
replaced by manual shaking as the
equipment is unavailable. An analytical
balance is used to measure the mass of
the soil sample to be utilized in the
experiment.
The sieves are then arranged with the
smallest mesh number being located at the
top of the stack of sieves, and a pan is placed
after the last sieve to collect all the finest
particles in the screening process. A measured
soil sample has a mass of 1300 grams, it is
then placed at the topmost sieve, and manual
shaking is started, there are three trials in
conducting the experiment, with the first trial
being the manual shaking of the sieve stack
for 5 minutes, and the second and third trial
being the sieve stack shaked for an additional
5 minutes and 10 minutes respectively from
the initial 5 minutes of shaking. The total
shaking time for each trial is then 5 minutes
for Trial 1, 10 minutes for Trial 2, and 15
minutes for Trial 3, after the conclusion of
each trial, the mass retained in each sieve is
then measured and noted.
The data measured from the mass of the
soil sample retained in each sieve is then used
to determine the particle size distribution of
the soil sample, the mass fraction retained and
passed through for a sieve, as well as the
efficiency of each sieve.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In comparing Trials 1 and 3, it is seen
that a prolonged shaking time has brought
a decrease in the mass fraction of the soil
sample retained in mesh numbers ⅝, ⅜, 4,
10, 60, and 80. A longer shaking time
demonstrated an increase in the mass
fraction retained in mesh numbers 20, 30,
45, and 100.
The particle size distribution for material
retained for each trial is then determined from the
mass fraction of feed retained and passed through
the specific sieve.
The efficiency of each tray is then determined,
using the formula:
Where XF is the cumulative mass fraction of
feed , and XP is defined as the cumulative mass
fraction of feed retained, and XR is the cumulative
mass fraction of feed that passed through the
sieve. All these variables are taken from the
particle size distribution table formed.
Upon calculation for Trial 1, the efficiency
(multiplied by 100) of mesh ⅝, ⅜ ,4 ,10, 20, 30,
45, 60, 80, 100 is determined to be -
0.0057%, -0.0493%, -0.4093%, 3.1793%,
4.7087%, 6.5874%, 10.5949%, 15.7124%,
31.4354%, 35.3099% respectively.
The efficiency (multiplied by 100) of mesh
numbers ⅝, ⅜ ,4 ,10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 80, 100
for Trial 2 is computed to be -0.0063%, -
0.0623%, -0.5141%, 4.1060%, 5.9504%,
8.2774%, 13.1862%, 18.6986%, 34.1695%,
35.2227% respectively.
Lastly, for the third trial, the efficiency
(multiplied by 100) for mesh numbers ⅝,
⅜ ,4 ,10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 80, 100 is found
to be -0.0040%, -0.0373%, -0.3101%,
3.3075%, 4.1553%, 5.6502%, 8.7559%,
11.9114%, 18.5904%, 23.3622%
respectively.
The screening efficiency indicates that there
is a greater amount of material passing through
the sieves for low efficiency values, and higher
efficiency values show that more material is being
retained in the specific sieve.
In terms of the percentage loss of the feed,
after Trials 1, 2, 3, the percentage loss is
determined to be 0.0077%, 0.0099%, and 0.0106% screening, and screen analysis experiments,
respectively. which mainly aim to remove the different
factors that could affect the accuracy of the
data. Future experiments should aim to make
use of an automatic shaker, to ensure that the
magnitude of force, and the direction of force
CONCLUSION AND
being experienced by the sample is equal for
RECOMMENDATIONS
all trials. In terms of the weighing process of
the different sieve contents, proper removal
The laboratory experiment has been
of the sieve contents, as well as the complete
conducted successfully, and the screening has
recovery of the contents should be observed,
been completed, together with the calculation
to minimize the variation in data, as well as
of the efficiency of each sieve.
the elimination or reduction of the loss of
initial feed.
Several conclusions can be drawn from
the completion of the experiment, it should
be noted that in the process of screening, due
to possible human error during the transfer of
the sieve contents to the analytical balance, as
well as incomplete recovery of the sample
weighed, it could lead to the loss of some
portion of the initial feed, which affects the
effectiveness calculated from the data. From
the data obtained, it can be concluded that the
duration of shaking has an effect on the mass
fraction of the soil sample being retained in
each sieve, as seen evidently in the changing
mass fractions retained throughout the
different trials.

One factor that has possibly affected the

experiment conducted was the use of manual
shaking, as the variation in the motion of
shaking by the different members of the
group would subject the sieves to different
magnitudes and directions of forces, which
affects the agitation of the soil particles.

The screening process is a powerful

tool-when used correctly, and when the
factors that could affect the accuracy of the
data have been eliminated or reduced, as
inaccurate data would affect the particle size
distribution, which could lead to incorrect
conclusions.

Several recommendations can be given

to students that would conduct future
REFERENCES

J.J. Skopp,
PARTICLE SIZE SEPARATION |
Sieving/Screening
Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular
Sciences and Chemical
Engineering#R##N#Encyclopedia of
Separation Science
https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-226770-
2/06861-7

K.S. Narasimhan, M.O.H. Amuda,

Powder Characterization,
Reference Module in Materials Science and
Materials Engineering,
Elsevier, 2017
ISBN 9780128035818,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-
8.10141-9.