A Comparison Study to Determine the Mean of Particle Size Distribution for Truthful Characterization of Environmental Data, Part (1) (original) (raw)

Abstract

One of the most important steps in environmental studies is to get an accurate distribution of the pollutants in terms of its quantity and qualities. Some environmental studies are acquiring a good classification of the particle size including the average mean of the particle. Many researchers use the median size (x 50 ) or until the size passing 80% cumulative undersize (x 80 ) as a measure for evaluation of the particle size distribution resulted from different mineral processing operations such as crushing, grinding, classification, sedimentation, and/or solid-liquid separation or even during the study of the pollutant settlement. These measures are not so accurate to differentiate between different particle size distributions (PSDs) because many PSDs data sets may have the same values of x 50 or x 80 if these data sets are represented between the particle size, x and the cumulative undersize distribution, F (x). This paper is a trial to introduce a new methodology to determine the mean of a particle size distribution (MPSD) accurately using Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann and Rosin-Rammler models. The value of this measure takes into consideration all particle sizes and their corresponding distributions. The results showed that the different PSD, which have the same values of median (x 50 ) have different values of this measure, especially with Rosin-Rammler model. In this paper, the expressions of different types of means of a particle size distribution (arithmetic, quadratic, cubic, geometric, and harmonic) were derived mathematically using the two mentioned models. It is recommended to select RR model to be applied in estimation of the different means of a particle size distribution because it fits the available data better than the GGS model, as well as, it determines the correct values and exerts the actual differences between the different means of different particle size distribution data sets. This work will be continuing by demonstrating a case study using real environmental data in Part (2).

Figures (12)

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (26)

  1. Svarovsky, L., Characterization of particles suspended in liquids, In: Solid- Liquid Separation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 4 th ed., Ch. 2, pp. 30-65, (2000).
  2. Djamarani, K.M. and Clark, I.M., Characterization of particle size based on fine and coarse fractions, Powder Technology, Vol. 93, pp. 101-108, (1997).
  3. Garcia, A.M., Cuerda-Correa, E.M. and Diaz-Diez, M.A., Application of the Rosin-Rammler and Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann models to the particle size distribution analysis of agglomerated coke, Materials Characterization, Vol. 52, pp. 159-164, (2004).
  4. Hsih, C.S., Wen, S.B. and Kuan, C.C., An exposure model for valuable components in comminuted particles, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 43, pp. 145-165, (1995).
  5. Wills, Particle size analysis, In: Mineral Processing Technology, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 5th ed., Ch. 4, pp. 181-225, (1992).
  6. Teipel, U., Leisinger, K. and Mikonsaari, I., Comminution of crystalline material by ultrasonics, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 74S, pp. S183-190, (2004).
  7. Wen, S.B., Hsih, C.S. and Kuan, C.C., The application of a mineral exposure model in a gold leaching operation, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 46, pp. 215- 230, (1996).
  8. Fuerstenau, D.W., Kapur, P.C., Schoenert, K. and Marktscheffel, M., Comparison of energy consumption in the breakage of single particles in a rigidly mounted roll mill with ball mill grinding, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 28, pp. 109-125, (1990).
  9. Kapur, P.C. and Fuerstenau, D.W., Energy-size reduction laws revisited, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 20, pp. 45-57, (1987).
  10. Shook, C.A. and Roco, M.C., Basic concepts for single-phase fluids and particles, In: Slurry Flow (Principles and Practice), Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, U.S.A., Ch. 1, pp. 1-25, (1991).
  11. Fang, Z., Patterson, B.R. and Turner, M.E., Modeling particle size distribution by the Weibull distribution function, Materials Characterization, Vol. 31, pp. 177-182, (1993).
  12. Xiang, Y. Zhang, J. and Liu, C., Verification for particle size distribution of ultrafine powders by the SAXS method, Materials Characterization, Vol. 44, pp. 435-439, (2000).
  13. Dierickx, D., Basu, B., Vleugels, J. and Van der Biest, O., Statistical extreme value modeling of particle size distributions: experimental grain size distribution type estimation and parameterization of sintered zirconia, Materials Characterization, Vol. 45, pp. 61-70, (2000).
  14. Ramakrishnan, K.N., Investigation of the effect of powder particle size distribution on the powder microstructure and mechanical properties of consolidated material made from a rapidly solidified Al, Fe, Ce alloy powder: part I. Powder microstructure, Materials Characterization, Vol. 33, pp. 119- 128, (1994).
  15. Ramakrishnan, K.N., Investigation of the effect of powder particle size distribution on the powder microstructure and mechanical properties of consolidated material made from a rapidly solidified Al, Fe, Ce alloy powder: part II. Mechanical properties, Materials Characterization, Vol. 33, pp. 129- 134, (1994).
  16. Rao, S.S., Stochastic programming, In: Engineering Optimization (Theory and Practice), New Age International (P) Limited, New Delhi, India, 3rd ed., Ch. 11, pp. 715-767, (2004).
  17. Kheifets, A.S. and Lin, I.J., Energetic approach to kinetics of batch ball milling, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 54, pp. 81-97, (1998).
  18. Wu, S.Z., Chau, K.T. and Yu, T.X., Crushing and fragmentation of brittle spheres under double impact test, Powder Technology, Vol. 143-144, pp. 41- 55, (2004).
  19. Mu, Y., Lyddiatt, A. and Pacek, A.W., Manufacture by water/oil emulsification of porous agarose beads: effect of processing conditions on mean particle size, size distribution and mechanical properties, Chemical Eng. and Process, Vol. 44, pp. 1157-1166, (2005).
  20. Lech, M., Polednia, E. and Werszler, A., Measurement of solid mean particle size using tomography, Powder Technology, Vol. 111, pp. 186-191, (2000).
  21. Ouchiyama, N., Rough, S.L. and Bridgwater, J., A population balance approach to describing bulk attrition, Chemical Eng. Science, Vol. 60, pp. 1429-1440, (2005).
  22. Gbor, P.K. and Jia, C.Q., Critical evaluation of coupling particle size distribution with the shrinking core model, Chemical Eng. Science, Vol. 59, pp. 1979-1987, (2004).
  23. Choi, W.S., Chung, H.Y., Yoon, B.R. and Kim, S.S., Applications of grinding kinetics analysis to fine grinding characteristics of some inorganic materials using composite grinding media by planetary ball mill, Powder Technology, Vol. 115, pp. 209-214, (2001).
  24. Hosten, C. and San, O., Reassessment of correlations for the dewatering characteristics of filter cakes, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 347-353, (2002).
  25. Stamboliadis, E.Th., A contribution to the relationship of energy and particle size in the comminution of brittle particulate materials, Minerals Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 707-713, (2002).
  26. Cheong, Y.S., Reynolds, G.K., Salman, A.D. and Hounslow, M.J., Modeling fragment size distribution using two-parameter Weibull equation, Int. J. Mineral Process., Vol. 74S, pp. S227-S237, (2004).