Some factors affecting sieving performance and efciency

KeShun Liu
Grain Chemistry and Utilization Laboratory, National Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 1691 S. 2700 West, Aberdeen, ID 83210, USA
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 August 2008
Received in revised form 9 March 2009
Accepted 17 March 2009
Available online 25 March 2009
Keywords:
Size separation
Flour
Powder
Reverse sieving
Screening
Sieve blinding
Sieving or screening has been the oldest yet most important unit operation for industrial separation of solid
particles or as a laboratory method in size analysis. A stack of sieves with decreasing mesh size is usually
used. Alternatively, particles can be sifted in a ne to coarse order by multiple sieving steps with each step
using a single sieve. The latter is referred to as reverse sieve method. This study compared the two methods
for sieving performance and efciency using ours made from soft white and hard white wheat, hulless
barley and medium grain rice. Additional factors, including milling method (impact vs. abrasive), our
moisture (7% vs. 11%), duration of sieving (60 vs. 120 min), and tapping (percussion during sieving), were
also investigated. Mass frequency and protein content of oversize fractions were measured. Results show that
all the variables and their interactions had signicant effects on sieving performance and efciency. Among
them, tapping was most important, followed by sieving duration, sieving method, milling method, our type,
and our moisture. When other conditions were equal, the reverse sieve method always gave improved
sieving efciency over the stacked sieve method. The observation can be attributed to the benecial effect of
oversized particles on reducing sieve blinding by near or sub-sieve sized particles. Furthermore, the reverse
sieve method also expanded the difference in protein content among sieved fractions. Because of its practical
signicance, this so far unreported effect would bear further conrmation of other sieving and screening
conditions.
Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction
The size distribution of particulate matter is very important in
determining its physicochemical properties in a large number of
processes of various industries (e.g. 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 solid particles by size. They are used both industrially
and in laboratories for the classication of particulate material. Often
the term screening is used to refer to a 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 scientic attention [1]. Simplicity and familiarity of the
process may explain this curious situation. In reality, the sieving
process is governed by multidisciplinary principles, ranging from
physics to applied uid mechanics. Many factors have been identied
to affect this unit operation, including the size and shape of particles
relative to the aperture of the sieve, the mesh size of the sieve itself,
the amount of material on the sieve surface, the direction of
movement of the sieve, the rate of movement of the material relative
to the sieve surface, etc. [16]. Furthermore, the interactions among
variables are so complex that no satisfactory method of evaluating and
predicting the sieving process has yet been developed [5,7]. This has
led to the inefcient operation of industrial sieving equipment as well
as misleading and erroneous results of laboratory sieve analysis [1].
Among all the elements of the sieving operation, sieve blinding is
considered as the most important and direct controlling factor. Sieve
blinding occurs when particles block up and lodge in the sieving mesh.
It reduces the effective transfer area on the surface, resulting in
reduction of sieving rates (sieving performance or capacity) and the
degree of sharpness of particle separation (sieving efciency) [1,2,4,8].
In cereal science, the subject of our particle size has intrigued
many investigators, mostly for its effect on our quality [9]. Flour is a
blend of particles. Flours of different particle sizes differ in physical
properties and chemical composition [10,11]. These properties in turn
affect our performance in nal products [11,12]. Although our
particle size can be reduced by regrinding a sample, further reduction
of our particle size by grinding is accompanied by an increased level
of starch damage, which negatively affects our performance in many
nal products [13]. An alternative method is to separate ours
according to particle size through sieving or air classication. The
fractioned ours are characterized by not only the difference in
chemical composition and physical properties [10,11,14] but also
minimal starch damage [12]. However, fractionating our by sieving,
although relatively simple, is limited by sieve blinding.
With regard to the sieving process, either for industrial separation
of solid particles or as a laboratory method in size analysis, a stack of
Powder Technology 193 (2009) 208213
Tel.: +1 208 397 4162; fax: +1 208 397 4165.
E-mail address: Keshun.Liu@ars.usda.gov.
0032-5910/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2009.03.027
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Powder Technology
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ powt ec
sieves or screens of decreasing mesh size, also known as a sifter
cascade, is often used [6]. The sieve stack is typically mounted on a
device that provides vibration or shaking to achieve the movement of
particles in relation to the sieve surface. For example, in our milling,
breakage of particles is always followed by separation. A plansifter, 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 of a stack of sieves [15]. For
simplicity, this common sieving process is referred to as the stacked or
cascaded sieve method. It features separation of particles in a coarse to
ne order by a single operation.
The subject of this study was prompted by a surprising observation
during dry fractionation of barley our by sieving at the author's
laboratory. It was found that in separating barley our, when other
conditions were kept same, a reverse sieve process, that is, our is
sifted in a ne to coarse order by multiple sieving steps with each step
using a single sieve, gave a better sieving efciency and performance
than the conventional stacked sieve method. Therefore, 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 our, (2) to investigate some additional factors that
govern sieving performance using the two methods, and (3) to
provide a scientic explanation for the observed difference between
the two methods. Since eachyear literally hundreds of millions of tons
of particulate material are subjected to industrial sieving/screening,
an understanding of factors affecting sieving efciency and perfor-
mance has great economic signicance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Seed samples of four cereal crops were used, including a hulless
barley line (03HR3052), a soft white wheat variety (Nick), a hard
white wheat variety (Lochsa), and a medium grain rice variety
(Bengal). Seed samples were cleaned before milling.
2.2. Sample milling
Cleaned seed samples were milled into particulate material (whole
grain our) with a Cyclone sample mill (UDY Corp, Forth Collins, CO),
having an enclosure and a vacuum system. The Cyclone mill employs
impact milling action. A screenwith 0.5 mmround openings was used.
Approximately 30 g 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 0.8 mm screen, instead
of the 0.5 mm screen. The other one used a laboratory scale electrical
seed scarier (Forsberg Inc., Thief River Falls, MN). The scarier 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 at the center of a
metal cylinder. The propeller was driven by a 1/3 hp motor. The
diameter of the drumwas small enough to slide into the cylinder. The
drum was horizontally aligned into the cylinder with the propeller
xed at the center. The motor ran at a xed speed (1145 rpm) and was
stopped after 3 min. For each run, 120 g of seed were put into the
drum. Scaried kernels, mixed with surface layer powder, were
removed fromthe chamber and brushed into a container. The mixture
was sifted over an 18 mesh (1.00 mm opening) sieve. The undersized
particles were saved as milled our. The abraded kernels that
remained on the sieve were repeatedly milled by going through
several cycles of scarication. The our for each cycle of scarication
was combined. The milling operation for each method was repeated
when necessary to produce large enough sample lots for sieving
experiments.
2.3. Flour sieving
Milled our samples were sifted with a series of ve selected U.S.
standard sieves (Nos. 60, 100, 200, 270, and 400, corresponding to
sieve opening dimensions of 250, 150, 75, 53 and 38 m, respectively)
and a pan, tted into a sieve shaker (DuraTap, Model DT168,
Advantech Mfg. Co., New Berlin), according to two procedures. In
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 of the stack and shaken for 60 min. The mass of
material retained on each sieve as well as on the pan was determined,
and the mass frequency (%) for the oversize on each sieve was
calculated. In the reverse sieve procedure, a milled sample was sifted
with a single sieve, fromne to coarse order, with oversize proceeding
to the next sieving step. For each step, the single sieve was also
mounted on the shaker. The cumulative time of all 5 sieving steps for a
single sample was also 60 min. The time distribution for each sieve of
400, 270, 200, 100, and 60 mesh size was 22.5, 17.5, 12.5, 5, and
2.5 min, respectively.
To study the effect of sieving duration on sieving efciency, the
soft white wheat our was also sieved for 120 min instead of 60 min,
under the two sieving procedures. For the reserve sieve method,
the time distribution for each sieve was doubled compared to
the procedure having 60 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.
2.4. 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 Cyclone mill (0.5 mm screen),
then adding a calculated amount of water to a half portion of the our
and allowing it to stabilize for 3 days in a refrigerator to raise the
moisture to a 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 and allowing it to stabilize for 3 days in the
refrigerator. The moisture level of the kernel was raised to about 11%,
similar to that of tempered our obtained by the rst tempering
procedure. The tempered kernel sample was then milled with the
Cyclone mill (0.5 mm screen) to produce another sample of tempered
our. A half portion of this tempered our sample was dried in a
forced air oven at 45 C until its moisture was reduced to the level of
the initial seed sample (about 7%). The original and tempered ours
were subsequently sieved by the two sieving procedures for 60 min
with tapping.
2.5. 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 sieved fractions were measured for protein
content. Moisture was determined according to an ofcial method
[16]. The protein content was measured by a combustion method [16],
using a protein analyzer (Model FT528, Leco Corp. St. Joseph, MI) and
calculated with a conversion factor of 5.75.
2.6. Data treatments and statistical analysis
All experiments were duplicated at the milling stage. Data were
treated with the JMP software, version 5 (JMP, a Business unit of SAS,
Cary, NC, USA) for calculating means and standard deviation, and for
209 K.S. Liu / Powder Technology 193 (2009) 208213
analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to determine the effects of
different variables and their interactions on sieving efciency and
performance. The Tukey's HSD (honestly signicant difference) test
was also conducted for pair comparison.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effects of sieving method, sieving duration and tapping
In the rst experiment of this study, the above three variables were
investigated. Results show that the mass frequency of each particle size
category as a function of particle size, commonly known as particles size
distribution (PSD), for the soft white wheat our varied greatly with
changes of sieving variablesstacked (S) or reverse (R) sieve proce-
dures, sieving duration (60 or 120 min), and tapping (T) or no tapping
(NT) (Fig. 1). All three factors and their interactions had signicant
effects on PSD of the same our and thus sieving efciency (pb0.05).
Among them, tapping (or percussion), which ran concurrently with
shaking, was most effective in shifting particle size distribution toward
ner sizes. For example, without tapping, the mode of PSDcurves was in
the center of the sizeclass of No. 60100mesh(250150mopening) or
N60 mesh (N250 m opening). The mode is the center of the size class
that contains most of the material (highest mass frequency). With
tapping, the mode shifted to the size classes of ner particles, 100200
meshes (15075 m) or 200270 meshes (7553 m).
During sieving, particles are separated on a sieve containing uniform
apertures whichpermits the ner particles topass through. Twotypes of
movement of the sieving surface are needed, a) horizontal movement
which would tend to open up or loosen the packing of the larger
particles in contact with the sieving surface thus permitting more sub-
meshparticles topass, andb) avertical movement toagitate andmixthe
particles and then redeposit them at the sieving surface. In this study,
sieving was performed with a shaking device that provided both
movements. 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 at the same time helped in dislodging particles
that blocked apertures, and thus reduced the sieve blinding effect. This
explains why tapping had a profound effect on sieving efciency 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 shifting of the mode toward ner sizes. As early as
1958, Whitby [17] studied a batch sieving process, using a standard
Tyler Rotap sieve shaker, and showed that by plotting the percentage
of particles passing through a sieve vs. sieving time creates a curve
that could be divided into two distinct regions. The rst region is
during the early 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 consists entirely of near-mesh or larger particles.
It is featured by slower increase in mass frequency with time,
approaching a plateau. In this study, only two sieving durations were
used. At any combination of the other two factors (sieving method and
tapping/no tapping option), 120 min sieving duration was found to
improve sieving efciency signicantly over the 60 min operation. It
should be pointed out that sieving time is closely related to sieve
loading, a reduction in the latter resulting in a reduction in the 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 slightly
different modes. However, the PSD curves of reverse sieving were
signicantly wider than curves of the stacked sieve method. More
importantly, the mass frequencies for fractions of ner particles,
particularly those passing 200 mesh (b75 m) or 270 mesh (b53 m),
were much higher by reverse sieving than those by the stacked sieve
method, indicating signicant improvement in sieving efciency by
the reverse sieve method. This is in fact the most important nding 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 fractions
Several previous studies showed that our fractions of different
particles sizes sieved from the same our samples varied signicantly
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of soft wheat (Nick cv.), obtained by sieving with
combinations of varying factors: sieving method (S, stacked sieve, vs. R, reverse sieve),
sieving duration in min (60 vs. 120), and tapping option (T, with tapping, vs. NT, no
tapping).
Table 1
Effect of sieving method, sieving duration, tapping option and their interactions on the protein content of sieved fractions of soft wheat (Nick cv.).
a
Protein content (%) of each sieved fraction
Sieving method Sieving time (h) Tapping Mesh size no. N60 60100 100200 200270 270400 b400
m opening N250 250150 15075 7558 5338 b38
Stacked 60 No 13.46 a 11.67 b 11.97 b N/A N/A N/A
Reverse 60 No 12.65 bc 11.90 cd 11.25 d 11.89 cd 12.76 b 14.44 a
Stacked 120 No 15.14a 12.22 b 11.84 b N/A N/A N/A
Reverse 120 No 13.33 b 11.88 cd 11.15 d 11.87 cd 12.70 bc 14.81 a
Stacked 60 Yes 15.97 a 13.47 b 12.08 c 11.63 cd 10.77 d N/A
Reverse 60 Yes 15.67 a 13.40 bc 12.55 c 10.89 d 12.05 cd 14.21 ab
Stacked 120 Yes 16.11 a 13.89 b 13.43 bc 11.48 c 11.93 c N/A
Reverse 120 Yes 15.58 a 13.49 b 13.52 b 11.45 c 11.05 c 14.30 ab
Average 14.74 12.74 12.22 11.54 11.88 14.44
a
Milled by an impact mill (Cyclone with a 0.5 mm screen); seed moisture level was 7.69%, protein content was 12.25%, dmb.
Sieved fractions are described in U.S. standard mesh size No. and micrometers of sieve opening dimentions.
Row means with different letters differed signicantly at pb0.05.
N/A, the volume of the fraction was too low to measure its protein content.
210 K.S. Liu / Powder Technology 193 (2009) 208213
in chemical composition [10,11]. In this study, a signicant difference
in protein content of sieved fractions of the same soft wheat our was
also evident (Table 1). With regard to which specic fraction(s)
having higher protein content than others obtained by the same
sieving operation, discrepancy existed among reports. Wang and
Flores [10] analyzed the chemical composition of ours from red and
white hard wheat varieties in relation to particle sizes, and concluded
that the ranges between 3853 m and 5375 m had higher protein
content than smaller or larger particle fractions. In contrast, Toth et al.
[11] claimed that protein content generally increased in proportion to
the decrease in particle size. In the present study, both smallest
(b0.38 m) and largest (N250 m) particle fractions had higher
protein content than fractions of medium particle sizes, just opposite
to the nding of Wang and Flores [10]. This was true for fractions
obtained by any combinations of the three sieving variables. The
discrepancy might be due to use of different sieving methods and
equipment and the number of sieved fractions obtained among the
studies. For example, Wang and Flores [10] used an Alpine air jet sieve.
Nevertheless, the observed differences in chemical composition and
our performance among sieved fractions indicate a possibility of
obtaining different types of our from a same initial material or
producing a better baking quality product from poor-quality, less-
valuable wheat our by fractionation according to particle sizes. More
importantly, this study shows that by choosing the reverse sieve
procedure, not only the mass frequency of ner particle classes was
signicantly improved but also the difference in protein content
among sieved fractions was expanded.
3.3. Effects of our type, milling method, and sieving method
When sieving was carried out for 60 min with tapping (concur-
rently with shaking), the our type, milling method, and sieving
method, and their interactions all had signicant effects (pb0.05) on
sieving efciency (ANOVA data not shown). In general, for all types of
our, abrasive milling by the electrical seed scarier produced a our
having a PSD with the highest mass frequencies in the ner size
classes (those passing through 200 mesh or ner), while impact
milling by Cyclone Mill with 0.8 mm opening screen gave a our
having PSD with the highest mass frequencies for the coarser particle
size classes (those retained on 100 mesh or coarser) (Table 2). Impact
milling by Cyclone Mill with 0.5 mm opening screen gave a our
having 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 different
ours can be attributed to its effect on shapes and sizes of resulting
our particles.
Different types of our exhibited different PSD curves when two
other variables (milling method and sieving method) were kept the
same. There were strong interactions of our type with the other two
variables. In particular, hard wheat our was easier to sieve than soft
wheat our, and the mode of its PSD curves was in the ner particle
size class than that of soft white wheat curves. This nding is
supported by a common observation that hard wheat our ows and
bolts more easily than soft wheat our [18].
Again, for any type of our, and by any milling method, the reverse
sieve method had a signicant effect in broadening and shifting PSD
curves toward the ner mesh size, compared with the stacked sieve
method (Table 2), similar to the nding with soft wheat our shown
in Fig. 1. This implies that the reverse sieve method could separate out
more of the ner particles, particularly those ner than 270 mesh
(b53 m openings), from the same particulate material than the
stacked sieve method. The latter method is typically used in various
processing industries and particle analysis laboratories. In addition,
the reverse sieve method generally gave lower sieving loss than the
Table 2
Effect of our type, milling method, sieving method and their interactions on sieving efciency.
a
Mass frequency (%) of each sieved fraction
Flour type Milling method Flour moisture Sieving method Mesh size no. N60 60100 100200 200270 270400 b400 Sieving loss
m opening N250 250150 15075 7558 5338 b38
Wheat (soft) Impact (0.5 mm) 7.69 S 6.73 k 15.48 d 48.69 a 22.81 hi 0.11 k 0.07 i 6.10
Wheat (soft) Impact (0.5 mm) 7.69 R 6.97 k 14.22 e 29.75 d 29.66 g 10.07 j 5.07 f 4.27
Wheat (soft) Impact (0.8 mm) 7.69 S 16.97 d 11.79 g 15.19 g 28.86 g 23.3 h 0.29 i 3.60
Wheat (soft) Impact (0.8 mm) 7.69 R 17.01 d 10.65 g 14.95 g 29.60 g 16.68 i 8.94 d 2.17
Wheat (soft) Abrasive 7.69 S 14.86 e 27.39 a 19.04 ef 33.12 f 2.11 k 0.25 i 3.73
Wheat (soft) Abrasive 7.69 R 14.04 e 3.32 i 7.34 j 36.85 e 33.37 f 3.80 g 1.26
Wheat (hard) Impact (0.5 mm) 7.60 S 9.89 i 15.11 d 21.95 e 23.59 h 26.53 gh 0.26 i 2.68
Wheat (hard) Impact (0.5 mm) 7.60 R 10.08 h 13.97 e 20.99 e 16.15 j 30.67 g 6.42 e 1.71
Wheat (hard) Impact (0.8 mm) 8.22 S 24.28 c 17.19 c 19.46 ef 11.82 k 24.18 h 1.38 i 1.68
Wheat (hard) Impact (0.8 mm) 8.22 R 24.53 c 15.98 d 18.81 f 10.66 k 10.04 j 18.06 b 1.92
Wheat (hard) Abrasive 9.01 S 4.67 l 2.80 i 6.37 k 67.59 a 15.42 i 0.44 i 2.71
Wheat (hard) Abrasive 9.01 R 5.27 l 2.29 i 7.37 j 39.52 d 40.22 d 3.38 g 1.95
Barley (hulless) Impact (0.5 mm) 7.25 S 12.23 g 13.66 e 13.10 h 44.50 c 12.32 ij 1.14 i 2.56
Barley (hulless) Impact (0.5 mm) 7.25 R 13.34 f 12.59 f 13.32 h 15.35 jk 30.83 g 13.21 c 1.38
Barley (hulless) Impact (0.8 mm) 7.77 S 25.40 bc 12.98 f 10.65 i 37.86 e 10.46 j 0.37 i 2.29
Barley (hulless) Impact (0.8 mm) 7.77 R 26.69 ab 11.21 g 10.59 i 4.99 l 23.77 h 21.65 a 1.10
Barley (hulless) Abrasive 8.35 S 0.88 m 1.34 l 5.98 k 52.73 b 36.45 e 0.39 i 2.24
Barley (hulless) Abrasive 8.35 R 1.06 m 1.47 l 8.36 j 39.35 d 43.08 c 4.68 f 2.01
Rice (medium grain) Impact (0.5 mm) 8.07 S 8.56 j 21.01 bc 41.91 b 24.74 h 1.45 k 0.13 i 2.21
Rice (medium grain) Impact (0.5 mm) 8.07 R 8.75 j 18.16 c 33.13 c 17.78 ij 16.70 i 3.66 gh 1.83
Rice (medium grain) Impact (0.8 mm) 9.01 S 27.86 a 23.45 b 29.16 d 17.31 ij 0.00 k 0.00 i 2.22
Rice (medium grain) Impact (0.8 mm) 9.01 R 28.23 a 21.91 b 23.96 e 10.55 k 10.25 j 3.39 gh 1.70
Rice (medium grain) Abrasive 8.51 S 9.47 i 4.93 h 9.11 ij 19.99 i 55.31 a 0.18 i 1.01
Rice (medium grain) Abrasive 8.51 R 10.91 h 3.92 h 8.24 j 13.16 jk 48.75 b 13.85 c 1.18
Average 13.69 12.37 18.23 27.02 21.75 4.63 2.31
a
All samples were sieved for a total of 60 min with tapping.
Impact (0.5 mm), by the Cyclone mill with 0.5 mm screen; impact (0.8 mm), by the Cyclone mill with 0.8 nm screen; abrasive, milled by the electric seed scarier. S, stacked sieve
procedure; R, reverse sieve procedure.
Sieved fractions are described in U.S. standard mesh size No. and micrometers of sieve opening dimensions.
Column means with different letters differed signicantly at pb0.05.
211 K.S. Liu / Powder Technology 193 (2009) 208213
stacked method (Table 2). Sieving loss is the difference between the
total mass put on the sieve and the sumof all sieved fraction masses. It
results mainly from sieving blinding and attachment of ne
particulates to the sieve surface.
3.4. Effects of our moisture and sieving method
Both kernel moisture (right before milling) and our moisture
affected sieving performance (Table 3). The moisture of soft wheat
our at an ambient temperature and moisture conditionwas about 7%.
This level of the control sample was relatively lower than typical our
moisture. The reason was that the material was maintained at the
author's laboratory during the winter season in Idaho, where and
when indoor heating was common. When the our moisture was
raised to about 11%, more ne particles were sifted through, compared
with the control our. A similar observation was found with the our
sample obtained by milling tempered wheat kernel (about 11%).
Interestingly, when this sample was dried to 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 curve of the control
our, indicating complex interactions of milling and sieving.
The moisture level of a particulate material affects such physical
properties as adhesion and stickiness, which in turn inuence
freedom of particle movement during the sieving process [6]. For a
given sieving condition and given particulate material, there will be a
moisture level that allows maximum freedom of particle movement.
In the current study, only two levels of moisture in the soft wheat our
were studied. Increasing moisture level from about 7% to 11%
apparently promoted particle movement. Neel and Hoseney [18]
studied the effects of wheat our characteristics on sifting efciency,
including our moisture, but no actual experimental data on our
moisture effect was given.
Referring back to Table 3, under any moisture treatments, the
reverse sieve method was more efcient in getting particles to pass
through ner 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 so far (Fig. 1, Tables 2 and 3),
regardless the observed effects of other variables on sieving efciency,
which included our 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 efciency and decrease in sieving loss.
3.5. Signicance and scientic explanation for the sieving method effect
This study shows that, when other conditions are kept same, the
reverse sieve procedure improved sieving efciency and performance
over the stacked sieve method. The signicance of this nding is that
by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, not only the mass frequency
of ner particle classes is dramatically improved but also the
difference in chemical composition among sieved fractions is
signicantly increased.
There are many other variables that have been previously shown to
affect sieving performance and efciency. 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 inuence sieve
blinding, which is the most important direct factor governing the
sieving process. Roberts and Beddow[2] showed that the level of sieve
blinding is largely dependent upon mesh aperture. Blinding increases
sharply when the mesh aperture decreases below about 100 m.
With regard to the size of particles relative to that of sieving
apertures, initially, near-mesh sized particles were easily identied to
cause aperture blocking [3]. Then, Apling [4] demonstrated that
particles as small as one-third the size of the apertures can have,
under certain conditions, a blinding capability. An undersize particle
may, depending on conditions, have a measurable probability of
blinding an aperture by virtue of its own irregular shape and, also, that
of the aperture. Fine particles may also become trapped in an aperture
when two or more attempt passage simultaneously. In other words,
although near-mesh particles can easily clog sieve openings, sub-
mesh particles, either singly or in combination with others, can also
cause the blinding of apertures. Because of this nding, Allen [6]
recommended that, for a dry sieving operation, the nes be removed
prior to the sieve analysis. This is done by pre-sieving, usually by
hands, on the nest sieve to be used in the subsequent analysis. If this
is not done, the nes have to pass through the whole stack of sieves,
thus promoting sieve blinding and increasing the risk of high powder
loss. Note that the reverse sieve method used in this study differs from
the pre-sieving procedure recommended by Allen [6] in that, for the
subsequent sieving analysis, the former continues in the ne to coarse
order whereas the latter is followed by sieving in the coarse to ne
order.
Standish [5] examined the effect of oversized particles (another
possible case relative to near-mesh size) on sieve blinding, and found
that although the blinding effect was particularly notable when only
the material of the near-mesh size was sieved, the effect was
minimized when oversized material was also present. To understand
the mechanism by which the presence of the oversize material
Table 3
Effect of sample moisture, sieving method and their interactions on sieving efciency of soft wheat (Nick cv.).
a
Mass frequency (%) of each sieved fraction
Sample treatment Final our moisture Sieving method Mesh size no. N60 60100 100200 200270 270400 b400 Sieving
m opening N250 250150 15075 7558 5338 b38 loss
Control 6.75 S 6.04 c 9.80 a 30.74 a 38.53 b 10.39 g 0.42 e 4.08
Control 6.75 R 6.07c 7.18 b 12.81 b 32.53 c 34.75 d 5.15 d 1.52
Tempering our 10.68 S 11.02 a 7.44 b 11.35 b 7.36 e 59.75 b 0.46 e 2.61
Tempering our 10.68 R 11.64 a 6.93 b 11.59 b 7.36 e 29.54 e 31.66 b 1.29
Milling tempered kernel (MTK) 10.60 S 7.09 b 7.38 b 11.47 b 7.72 e 63.84 a 0.41 e 2.11
Milling tempered kernel (MTK) 10.60 R 7.37 b 6.76 b 11.05 b 7.47 e 23.69 f 41.93 a 1.73
MTK and then drying the our 6.73 S 5.53 c 7.73 c 11.74 b 47.03 a 25.08 f 0.24 e 2.66
MTK and then drying the our 6.73 R 5.41 c 6.61 c 11.54 b 21.76 d 41.98 c 11.59 c 1.12
Average 7.52 7.48 14.04 21.22 36.13 11.48 2.14
Range 6.24 3.19 19.69 39.67 53.45 41.69 2.97
Standard deviation 2.45 1.01 6.77 16.25 18.30 16.33 0.97
Relative S.D. (%) 32.64 13.49 48.23 76.60 50.66 142.23 45.35
a
Milled by the Cyclone mill with a 0.5 mm screen (impact milling). Sieving was carried out for 60 min, with tapping. S, stacked seive procedure; R, reverse sieve procedure. Sieved
fractions are described in the U.S. standard mesh size No. and micrometers of sieve opening dimensions.
Column means with different letters differed signicantly at pb0.05.
212 K.S. Liu / Powder Technology 193 (2009) 208213
enhanced the sieving rates, Standish [5] took high speed lms during
sieving, then examined at low play back speeds, and found that
improved sieving efciency was due to the oversize particles
nudging the embedded near-mesh particles through the effect of
simultaneously increasing the number of particles passing and at the
same time freeing the apertures for other particles to pass through.
It turned out that the ability of near-mesh and sub-mesh sized
particles to blind sieves and the benecial effect of oversized particles
on reducing sieve blinding by near-mesh and sub-mesh particles,
observed by Standish [5], can provide a satisfactory explanation for
the observed difference in sieving efciency and performance
between the two sieving procedures in the present study. In the
stacked sieve method, particles are sieved in a coarse to ne order.
During sieving, smaller particles pass through top sieves and are
retained at one of the bottom ner sieves, depending on their size
relative to apertures of a particular bottom sieve. As each layer of the
cascading sieves goes downward, the mesh aperture size becomes
smaller, the difference between the particle size and sieve aperture
size decreases. The net result is that, for ner bottom sieves, the
blinding effect, caused by both near-mesh and sub-mesh particles, is
maximized while the benecial effect (nudging effect) of oversized
particles is minimized. In contrast, in the reverse sieve procedure,
particles are sieved in a ne to coarse order. For the rst few steps of
sieving with ner sieves, the difference 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 efciency
were improved while the sieving loss was generally reduced, as
compared with the stacked sieve method (Fig. 1, Tables 2 and 3).
It should be pointed out that although the reverse sieve method is
advantageous over the stacked method with respect to improvement
in sieving efciency and performance and reduction in sieving loss,
there is a limitation. This is because in the usual design of equipment,
the sieve has to serve as dual role, as a go-no-go gauge and as a
support for a powder material. The use of the sieve surface as a
powder support puts an added strain on the sieve surface. It also
imposes greater strength requirements on the structure of the sieving
surface. In the reverse sieve method, for the sieves with ner
apertures, over-loading with large particles will impose further
strength requirements and cause wear and breakage of the sieves
much more 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 particle size analysis and
separation of particulate materials. However, in reality it is governed
by many interactive variables and multidisciplinary principles. With-
out careful consideration of various factors, generation of misleading
and highly erroneous results or operations at inefcient conditions
could occur. For the same reason, comparisons for results of particle
size analysis and for properties of sieved products obtained by
different producers should be made with caution.
4. Conclusions
This study has demonstrated how factors, such as our type,
milling method, moisture content, tapping, sieving method, sieving
duration, and their interactions can affect sieving efciency and
performance. Among them, tapping was most important, followed by
sieving duration, sieving method, milling method, our type, and our
moisture. It has also shown the decisive effect of the reserve sieve
method over the conventional stacked sieve method on improving
sieving rates and nal fraction mass and minimizing sieve loss under
all conditions of this study. The observed difference in sieving
efciency and performance and in sieving loss between the two
sieving methods can be attributed to the benecial effect of oversized
particles, since during sieving, the presence of oversized particle can
reduce sieve blinding caused by near or sub-sieve sized particles.
Furthermore, by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, especially with
tapping, not only the mass frequency of ner particle classes was
signicantly improved but also the difference in protein content
among sieved fractions was enlarged. Because of its practical
signicance, this so far unreported effect would bear further
conrmation of other sieving and screening conditions in general.
References
[1] K. Leschonski, Sieve analysis, the Cinderella of particle size analysis methods?
Powder Technology 24 (1979) 115124.
[2] T.R. Roberts, J.K. Beddow, Some effects of particle shape and size upon blinding
during sieving, Powder Technology 2 (1968) 121124.
[3] T. Brereton, K.R. Dymott, Some factors which inuence screen performance, in:
Jones M.J. (Ed.), Tenth International Mineral Processing Congress, IMM, London,
1974, pp. 181194.
[4] A.C. Apling, Blinding of screens by sub-sieve sized particles. Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section C, Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy 93 (1984) C92C94.
[5] N. Standish, The kinetics of batch sieving, Powder Technology 41 (1985) 5767.
[6] T. Allen, Particle size analysis by sieving, Powder Sampling and Particle Size
Determination, Elsevier, 2003, pp. 208250, Ch.4.
[7] F.M. Sultanabawa, W.G. Owens, S.S. Pandiella, A newapproach to the prediction of
particle separation by sieving in our milling, Transaction of IChemE 79 (Part C)
(2001) 211218.
[8] G.V. Barbosa-Canovas, E. Ortega-Rivas, P. Juliano, H. Yan, Separation and
classication, Food Powders, Physical Properties, Processing, and Functionality,
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, 2005, pp. 247270, Ch. 10.
[9] M.E. Neale, Sieve analysis of particulatesa review and recommendation, Cereal
Foods World 42 (1997) 507509.
[10] L. Wang, R.A. Flores, Effects of our particle size on the textural properties of our
tortillas, Journal of Cereal Chemistry 31 (2000) 263272.
[11] A. Toth, J. Prokisch, P. Sipos, E. Sizeles, E. Mars, Z. Gyori, Effects of particle size on
quality of winter wheat our, with a special focus on macro- and microelement
concentration, Soil Science and Plant Analysis 37 (2005) 26592672.
[12] D.W. Hatcher, M.J. Anderson, R.G. Desjardins, N.M. Edwards, J.E. Dexter, Effect of
our particle size and starch damage on processing and quality of white salted
noodles, Cereal Chemistry 79 (2002) 6471.
[13] W.T. Yamazaki, Flour granularity and cookie quality, I. Effects of changes in
granularity on cookie characteristics, Cereal Chemistry 36 (1959) 5259.
[14] Y.V. Wu, A.C. Stringfellow, Air classication of ours from wheats with varying
hardness: protein shits, Cereal Chemistry 69 (1992) 188191.
[15] ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers) Standards, Methods for
Determining and Expressing Fineness of Feed Materials by Sieving, 2003, S319.3.
St. Joseph, MI.
[16] AOAC (Association of Ofcial Analytical Chemists), AOAC Ofcial Methods of
Analysis, AOAC International, 2002.
[17] K.J. Whitby, The mechanics of ne sieving, ASTM Special Technical Publication 234
(1958) 3.
[18] D.V. Neel, R.C. Hoseney, Sieving characteristics of soft and hard wheat ours, Cereal
Chemistry 61 (1984) 259261.
213 K.S. Liu / Powder Technology 193 (2009) 208213