Some factors affecting sieving performance and efficiency

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

Abstract
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 fine 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 efficiency using flours made from soft white and hard white wheat, hulless barley and medium grain rice. Additional factors, including milling method (impact vs. abrasive), flour 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 significant effects on sieving performance and efficiency. Among them, tapping was most important, followed by sieving duration, sieving method, milling method, flour type, and flour moisture. When other conditions were equal, the reverse sieve method always gave improved sieving efficiency over the stacked sieve method. The observation can be attributed to the beneficial 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 significance, this so far unreported effect would bear further confirmation of other sieving and screening conditions.

Graphical abstract
This study has demonstrated how such factors as flour type and moisture, milling method, tapping, sieving method, duration, and their interactions can affect sieving efficiency and performance. More importantly, it has shown decisive effects of the reserve sieve method over the conventional stacked sieve method on improving sieving efficiency and performance and enlarging the difference chemical composition among sieved fractions.

Figure options

Keywords
Size separation; Flour; Powder; Reverse sieving; Screening; Sieve blinding

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 classification 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 scientific 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 fluid mechanics. Many factors have been identified 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. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Furthermore, the interactions among variables are so complex that no satisfactory method of evaluating and predicting the sieving process has yet been developed [5] and [7]. This has led to the inefficient 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 efficiency) [1], [2],[4] and [8]. In cereal science, the subject of flour particle size has intrigued many investigators, mostly for its effect on flour quality [9]. Flour is a blend of particles. Flours of different particle sizes differ in physical properties and chemical composition [10] and [11]. These properties in turn affect flour performance in final products[11] and [12]. Although flour particle size can be reduced by regrinding a sample, further reduction of flour particle size by grinding is accompanied by an increased level of starch damage, which negatively affects flour performance in many final products [13]. An alternative method is to separate flours according to particle size through sieving or air classification. The fractioned flours are characterized by not only the difference in chemical composition and physical properties [10], [11] and [14] but also minimal starch damage [12]. However, fractionating flour 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 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 flour 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 fine order by a single operation. The subject of this study was prompted by a surprising observation during dry fractionation of barley flour by sieving at the author's laboratory. It was found that in separating barley flour, when other conditions were kept same, a reverse sieve process, that is, flour is sifted in a fine to coarse order by multiple sieving steps with each step using a single sieve, gave a better sieving efficiency 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 flour, (2) to investigate some additional factors that govern sieving performance using the two methods, and (3) to provide a scientific explanation for the observed difference between the two methods. Since each year literally hundreds of millions of tons of particulate material are subjected to industrial sieving/screening, an understanding of factors affecting sieving efficiency and performance has great economic significance.

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 flour) 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 screen with 0.5 mm round 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 scarifier (Forsberg Inc., Thief River Falls, MN). The scarifier 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 drum was small enough to slide into the cylinder. The drum was horizontally aligned into the cylinder with the propeller fixed at the center. The motor ran at a fixed speed (1145 rpm) and was stopped after 3 min. For each run, 120 g of seed were put into the drum. Scarified kernels, mixed with surface layer powder, were removed from the 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 flour. The abraded kernels that remained on the sieve were repeatedly milled by going through several cycles of scarification. The flour for each cycle of scarification 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 flour samples were sifted with a series of five 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, fitted 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, from fine 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 efficiency, the soft white wheat flour 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 tapping, 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 flour 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 flour obtained by the first tempering procedure. The tempered kernel sample was then milled with the Cyclone mill (0.5 mm screen) to produce another sample of tempered flour. A half portion of this tempered flour 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 flours 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 official 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 analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to determine the effects of different variables and their interactions on sieving efficiency and performance. The Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) test was also conducted for pair comparison.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effects of sieving method, sieving duration and tapping
In the first 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 flour varied greatly with changes of sieving

variablesstacked (S) or reverse (R) sieve procedures, sieving duration (60 or 120 min), and tapping (T) or no tapping (NT) (Fig. 1). All three factors and their interactions had significant effects on PSD of the same flour and thus sieving efficiency ( p < 0.05). Among them, tapping (or percussion), which ran concurrently with shaking, was most effective in shifting particle size distribution toward finer sizes. For example, without tapping, the mode of PSD curves was in the center of the size class of No. 60 100 mesh (250150 m opening) or > 60 mesh (> 250 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 finer particles, 100200 meshes (15075 m) or 200270 meshes (7553 m).

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). Figure options

During sieving, particles are separated on a sieve containing uniform apertures which permits the finer particles to pass through. Two types 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-mesh particles to pass, and b) a vertical movement to agitate and mix the 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 efficiency 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 finer 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 first 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 efficiency significantly 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 significantly wider than curves of the stacked sieve method. More importantly, the mass frequencies for fractions of finer particles, particularly those passing 200 mesh (< 75 m) or 270 mesh (< 53 m), were much higher by reverse sieving than those by the stacked sieve method, indicating significant improvement in sieving efficiency by the reverse sieve method. This is in fact the most important finding 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 flour fractions of different particles sizes sieved from the same flour samples varied significantly in chemical composition [10] and [11]. In this study, a significant difference in protein content of sieved fractions of the same soft wheat flour was also evident (Table 1). With regard to which specific 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 flours 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 (< 0.38 m) and largest (> 250 m) particle fractions had higher protein content than fractions of medium particle sizes, just opposite to the finding 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 flour performance among sieved fractions indicate a possibility of obtaining different types of flour from a same initial material or producing a better baking quality product from poor-quality, less-valuable wheat flour by fractionation according to particle sizes. More importantly, this study shows that by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, not only the mass frequency of finer particle classes was significantly improved but also the difference in protein content among sieved fractions was expanded.
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. > 60 m opening > 250

60100 250 150 11.67 b 11.90 cd 12.22 b 11.88 cd 13.47 b 13.40 bc 13.89 b 13.49 b 12.74

100 200 15075 11.97 b 11.25 d 11.84 b 11.15 d 12.08 c 12.55 c 13.43 bc 13.52 b 12.22

200 270 7558 N/A 11.89 cd N/A 11.87 cd 11.63 cd 10.89 d 11.48 c 11.45 c 11.54

270 400 5338 N/A 12.76 b N/A 12.70 bc 10.77 d 12.05 cd 11.93 c 11.05 c 11.88

< 400 < 38 N/A 14.44 a N/A 14.81 a N/A 14.21 ab N/A 14.30 ab 14.44

Stacked Reverse Stacked Reverse Stacked Reverse Stacked Reverse Average

a

60 60 120 120 60 60 120 120

No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

13.46 a 12.65 bc 15.14a 13.33 b 15.97 a 15.67 a 16.11 a 15.58 a 14.74

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 significantly at p < 0.05.N/A, the volume of the fraction was too low to measure its protein content. Table options

3.3. Effects of flour type, milling method, and sieving method

When sieving was carried out for 60 min with tapping (concurrently with shaking), the flour type, milling method, and sieving method, and their interactions all had significant effects ( p < 0.05) on sieving efficiency (ANOVA data not shown). In general, for all types of flour, abrasive milling by the electrical seed scarifier produced a flour having a PSD with the highest mass frequencies in the finer size classes (those passing through 200 mesh or finer), while impact milling by Cyclone Mill with 0.8 mm opening screen gave a flour 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 flour 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 flours can be attributed to its effect on shapes and sizes of resulting flour particles.
Table 2. Effect of flour type, milling method, sieving method and their interactions on sieving efficiency. a Mass frequency (%) of each sieved fraction Flour type Milling method Flour moisture Sieving method Mesh size no. > 60 m opening > 250 Wheat (soft) Wheat Impact (0.5 mm) Impact 7.69 7.69 S R 6.73 k 6.97 k 60 100 250 150 15.48 d 14.22 100 200 150 75 48.69 a 29.75 200 270 75 58 22.81 hi 29.66 270 400 5338 < 400 Sieving loss

< 38

0.11 k 10.07 j

0.07 i 5.07 f

6.10 4.27

Mass frequency (%) of each sieved fraction Flour type Milling method Flour moisture Sieving method Mesh size no. > 60 m opening > 250 (soft) Wheat (soft) Wheat (soft) Wheat (soft) Wheat (soft) Wheat (hard) Wheat (hard) Wheat (hard) Wheat (hard) Wheat (hard) Wheat (hard) Barley (hulless) Barley (hulless) Barley (hulless) Barley (hulless) Barley (hulless) Barley (hulless) Rice (medium grain) Rice (medium grain) Rice (medium grain) Rice (medium grain) Rice (medium grain) Rice (medium grain) Average (0.5 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Abrasive Abrasive Impact (0.5 mm) Impact (0.5 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Abrasive Abrasive Impact (0.5 mm) Impact (0.5 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Abrasive Abrasive Impact (0.5 mm) Impact (0.5 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Impact (0.8 mm) Abrasive 7.69 7.69 7.69 7.69 7.60 7.60 8.22 8.22 9.01 9.01 7.25 7.25 7.77 7.77 8.35 8.35 8.07 S R S R S R S R S R S R S R S R S 16.97 d 17.01 d 14.86 e 14.04 e 9.89 i 10.08 h 24.28 c 24.53 c 4.67 l 5.27 l 12.23 g 13.34 f 25.40 bc 26.69 ab 0.88 m 1.06 m 8.56 j 60 100 250 150 e 11.79 g 10.65 g 27.39 a 3.32 i 15.11 d 13.97 e 17.19 c 15.98 d 2.80 i 2.29 i 13.66 e 12.59 f 12.98 f 11.21 g 1.34 l 1.47 l 21.01 bc 18.16 c 23.45 b 21.91 b 4.93 h 3.92 h 12.37 100 200 150 75 d 15.19 g 14.95 g 19.04 ef 7.34 j 21.95 e 20.99 e 19.46 ef 18.81 f 6.37 k 7.37 j 13.10 h 13.32 h 10.65 i 10.59 i 5.98 k 8.36 j 41.91 b 33.13 c 29.16 d 23.96 e 9.11 ij 8.24 j 200 270 75 58 g 28.86 g 29.60 g 33.12 f 36.85 e 23.59 h 16.15 j 11.82 k 10.66 k 67.59 a 39.52 d 44.50 c 15.35 jk 37.86 e 4.99 l 52.73 b 39.35 d 24.74 h 17.78 ij 17.31 ij 10.55 k 19.99 i 13.16 jk 27.02 23.3 h 16.68 i 2.11 k 33.37 f 26.53 gh 30.67 g 24.18 h 10.04 j 15.42 i 40.22 d 12.32 ij 30.83 g 10.46 j 23.77 h 36.45 e 43.08 c 1.45 k 0.29 i 8.94 d 0.25 i 3.80 g 0.26 i 6.42 e 1.38 i 18.06 b 0.44 i 3.38 g 1.14 i 13.21 c 0.37 i 21.65 a 0.39 i 4.68 f 0.13 i 3.60 2.17 3.73 1.26 2.68 1.71 1.68 1.92 2.71 1.95 2.56 1.38 2.29 1.10 2.24 2.01 2.21 270 400 5338 < 400 Sieving loss

< 38

8.07

8.75 j

16.70 i

3.66 gh 0.00 i

1.83

9.01

27.86 a

0.00 k

2.22

9.01

28.23 a

10.25 j

3.39 gh 0.18 i

1.70

8.51

9.47 i

55.31 a

1.01

Abrasive

8.51

10.91 h

48.75 b

13.85 c 4.63

1.18

13.69

18.23

21.75

2.31

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 scarifier. 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 significantly at p < 0.05. Table options

Different types of flour exhibited different PSD curves when two other variables (milling method and sieving method) were kept the same. There were strong interactions of flour type with the other two variables. In particular, hard wheat flour was easier to sieve than soft wheat flour, and the mode of its PSD curves was in the finer particle size class than that of soft white wheat curves. This finding is supported by a common observation that hard wheat flour flows and bolts more easily than soft wheat flour [18]. Again, for any type of flour, and by any milling method, the reverse sieve method had a significant effect in broadening and shifting PSD curves toward the finer mesh size, compared with the stacked sieve method (Table 2), similar to the finding with soft wheat flour shown in Fig. 1. This implies that the reverse sieve method could separate out more of the finer particles, particularly those finer than 270 mesh (< 53 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 stacked method (Table 2). Sieving loss is the difference between the total mass put on the sieve and the sum of all sieved fraction masses. It results mainly from sieving blinding and attachment of fine particulates to the sieve surface.

3.4. Effects of flour moisture and sieving method

Both kernel moisture (right before milling) and flour moisture affected sieving performance (Table 3). The moisture of soft wheat flour at an ambient temperature and moisture condition was about 7%. This level of the control sample was relatively lower than typical flour 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 flour moisture was raised to about 11%, more fine particles were sifted through, compared with the control flour. A similar observation was found with the flour 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 flour, indicating complex interactions of milling and sieving.
Table 3. Effect of sample moisture, sieving method and their interactions on sieving efficiency of soft wheat (Nick cv.).a Mass frequency (%) of each sieved fraction Sample treatment Final flour moisture Sieving method Mesh size no. > 60 60 100 100 200 200 270 270 400 < 400 Sieving

m opening > 250 Control Control Tempering flour Tempering flour Milling tempered kernel (MTK) Milling tempered kernel (MTK) MTK and then drying the flour MTK and then drying the flour Average Range Standard deviation Relative S.D. (%)
a

250 150 9.80 a 7.18 b 7.44 b 6.93 b 7.38 b

150 75 30.74 a 12.81 b 11.35 b 11.59 b 11.47 b 11.05 b 11.74 b 11.54 b 14.04 19.69 6.77 48.23

7558

5338

< 38

loss

6.75 6.75 10.68 10.68 10.60

S R S R S

6.04 c 6.07c 11.02 a 11.64 a 7.09 b

38.53 b 32.53 c 7.36 e 7.36 e 7.72 e

10.39 g 34.75 d 59.75 b 29.54 e 63.84 a

0.42 e 5.15 d 0.46 e 31.66 b 0.41 e

4.08 1.52 2.61 1.29 2.11

10.60

7.37 b

6.76 b

7.47 e

23.69 f

41.93 a 0.24 e 11.59 c 11.48 41.69 16.33 142.23

1.73

6.73 6.73

S R

5.53 c 5.41 c 7.52 6.24 2.45 32.64

7.73 c 6.61 c 7.48 3.19 1.01 13.49

47.03 a 21.76 d 21.22 39.67 16.25 76.60

25.08 f 41.98 c 36.13 53.45 18.30 50.66

2.66 1.12 2.14 2.97 0.97 45.35

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 significantly at p < 0.05. Table options

The moisture level of a particulate material affects such physical properties as adhesion and stickiness, which in turn influence 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 flour were studied. Increasing moisture level from about 7% to 11% apparently promoted particle movement. Neel and Hoseney[18] studied the effects of wheat flour characteristics on sifting efficiency, including flour moisture, but no actual experimental data on flour moisture effect was given. Referring back to Table 3, under any moisture treatments, the reverse sieve method was more efficient in getting particles to pass through finer 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, Table 2 and Table 3), regardless the observed effects of other variables on sieving efficiency, which included flour 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 efficiency and decrease in sieving loss.

3.5. Significance and scientific explanation for the sieving method effect

This study shows that, when other conditions are kept same, the reverse sieve procedure improved sieving efficiency and performance over the stacked sieve method. The significance of this finding is that by choosing the reverse sieve procedure, not only the mass frequency of finer particle classes is dramatically improved but also the difference in chemical composition among sieved fractions is significantly increased. There are many other variables that have been previously shown to affect sieving performance and efficiency. 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 influence 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 identified 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 finding, Allen [6] recommended that, for a dry sieving operation, the fines be removed prior to the sieve analysis. This is done by pre-sieving, usually by hands, on the finest sieve to be used in the subsequent analysis. If this is not done, the fines 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 fine to coarse order whereas the latter is followed by sieving in the coarse to fine 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 enhanced the sieving rates, Standish [5] took high speed films during sieving, then examined at low play back speeds, and found that improved sieving efficiency 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 beneficial 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 efficiency and performance between the two sieving procedures in the present study. In the stacked sieve method, particles are sieved in a coarse to fine order. During sieving, smaller particles

pass through top sieves and are retained at one of the bottom finer 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 finer bottom sieves, the blinding effect, caused by both near-mesh and sub-mesh particles, is maximized while the beneficial effect (nudging effect) of oversized particles is minimized. In contrast, in the reverse sieve procedure, particles are sieved in a fine to coarse order. For the first few steps of sieving with finer 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 efficiency were improved while the sieving loss was generally reduced, as compared with the stacked sieve method (Fig. 1, Table 2 and Table 3). It should be pointed out that although the reverse sieve method is advantageous over the stacked method with respect to improvement in sieving efficiency 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 finer 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. Without careful consideration of various factors, generation of misleading and highly erroneous results or operations at inefficient 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 flour type, milling method, moisture content, tapping, sieving method, sieving duration, and their interactions can affect sieving efficiency and performance. Among them, tapping was most important, followed by sieving duration, sieving method, milling method, flour type, and flour moisture. It has also shown the decisive effect of the reserve sieve method over the conventional stacked sieve method on improving sieving rates and final fraction mass and minimizing sieve loss under all conditions of this study. The observed difference in sieving efficiency and performance and in sieving loss between the two sieving methods can be attributed to the beneficial 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 finer particle classes was significantly improved but also the difference in protein content

among sieved fractions was enlarged. Because of its practical significance, this so far unreported effect would bear further confirmation of other sieving and screening conditions in general.