Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19

Document1 1

Abstract
The objective of this experiment is to get an understanding of the behaviour of solid particulate
materials when they are grinded, basically comminution. Focus is given to mill speed, grinding time
grinding media to material ratio and how the particles reduce size through looking on the sieve sizes.
A 500 g sample was used of sand as the ore and has been grinded for a maximum of 16 minutes. It has
been found that the longer a particle is grinded the finer it becomes. Graphs have been plotted of
frequency and cumulative basis and it has been seen that they are same as the theoretical ones
although not as smooth. One can plot the frequency basis curve by considering the slope of the
cumulative basis curve or by simply plotting the mass fraction, x of the particles against size, d. The
second choice has been given preference in the experiment. The mean diameter curves almost all had
the same shape, the only difference was that the frequency basis mean diameters were larger as
compared to cumulative basis in terms of values.


Symbol Description Units in SI System
d diameter of particle m
x mass fraction -
n number of particles -
sum -



Subscripts

i ith value
A arithmetic
V volume
W weight

Document1 2

1. INTRODUCTION
Milling is a very important branch in the study of size reduction of particles; in order for particles to be
handled accordingly they must be reduced to the certain desired size. There many factors that affect the
size reduction of particles including toughness, agglomeration and size of the particles themselves.
Another characteristic of the materials which must be considered when grinding is the particle size
distribution. Amongst many processes used for particle size distribution are the laser diffraction,
microscopy analysis and sieving so in the preceding experiment as method of sieving has been used.
The many size reduction equipments include crushers, mills. A choice of the mill is often taken for finer
particles such as sand and so one has to choose between a rod mill and a ball mill. In the rod mil the
material is grinded by steel or carbon rods to the desired size. The feed of the sand (ore) is very
important to note i.e. no too much ore may introduced in the mill if there are a few rods. Rods are
advantageous because they tend to separate many sticky particles not to stick to each other in the mill.
This is because of their weight they put the particles together themselves and separate them again.
Another most important factor to consider in the rod mill is its speed. At slow speed the rods roll over
each other and at high speed they get aligned to the walls of the mill so one has to choose a moderate
speed for the mill














Document1 3

2. THEORY
Size distribution is mostly represented in two ways; on the cumulative basis and on the frequency basis.
Figure 2.1 and 2.2 show the cumulative and the frequency basis respectively.



In the cumulative basis a certain amount of particles smaller than a given size is plotted against that
respective size. Say particles present on a certain sieve (600 um sieve) are less than 50 % then the
particles less than 50 % are plotted against sieve size. For an example given the following data,
Sieve Size (m)
Mass after 2 minutes of crushing
(g)
Mass %
1180 0 0
850 14 2.972399151
600 266.1 56.49681529
425 125 26.53927813
300 40.8 8.662420382
212 15.1 3.205944798
150 10 2.123142251
Pan 0
Total: 471 0
Figure 2.1 Curve depicting particle size distribution
for the cumulative basis
Figure 2.2 Curve depicting particle size
distribution on the frequency basis
Document1 4







For the frequency basis the
mass fraction is simply
plotted against size or another
covinient way of doing it is to plot the change in mass fraction of cumulative curve over the change in
size of the cumulative curve i.e.

(slope).
For a given sample of ore the following relations are available
n number of ore particles
d size of particles
x mass fractions of particles

s
density of particles
k constant which depends on the properties of the particle
So with these relations an elementary
equation can be derived thus,
(2.1)

Making n the subject of the formula an equation expressing n can be seen below
(2.1.1)

When differentiated on both sides the equation becomes
dx
d k
dn
s
3
1
1 1

=
Expressing the equation in terms of dx, an equation ready to be integrated is obtained,
3
1
1
d
x
k
n
s

=
s

3
nkd x =
Then,
Document1 5

dn kd dx
s
3
=
(2.1.2)
Thereafter an integral sign is introduced on both sided of the equation
(2.1.3)

Summing up in equation (2.1) the following equation which tells that the total mass fraction of any given
sample is 1
n d k x
3
=
s
1 x = also in equation (2.1.3) 1
1
0
=
}
dx

The mean shortest distance from the curve to the vertical (y-)axis is described by the following equation
}
}
}
= =
1
0
1
0
1
0
ddx
dx
ddx
D
W

Knowing that 1 x = also in equation (2.1.3) 1
1
0
=
}
dx we can substitute these in the above equation
and get

(2.2)


The above equation, D
w
is then used as the mass mean diameter for the preceding calculations in the
report.
Putting equation (2.1.2) in equation (2.2) achieves the mass mean diameter in terms of numbers
(2.3)

} }
=
1
0
3
1
0
dn kd dx
s

( )

= = =
i i W
x d
d x
x
d x
D
1
( ) | |
( ) | |
( )
( )
( )
( )



= =
=
3
4
3
4
3
3
nd
nd
nd k
nd k
nd k
d nd k
D
s
s
s
s
W

Document1 6

(2.3)





For the volume mean diameter, if all the particles are of the same diameter D
v
, then volume will also be
the same that is,
( )

=
3 3
knd n kD V
( )

=
n k
knd
D V
3
3

( )

=
n k
nd k
3


(2.4)

Substitution of equation (2.1.1) achieves:
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
d
x
k
d
d
x
k
D
s
s
V


( )
3
3
1
1
1
1

=
d
x
k
x
k
s
s


3
3

|
.
|

\
|
=
d
x
x

( )
3
3

=
n
nd
D
V
Document1 7

3
3
1

|
.
|

\
|
=
d
x


For the arithmetic mean diameter the following relation is available,

= nd n D
A

( )

=
n
nd
D
A

Substituting equation (2.1.1) obtains the following:

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
3
1
3
1
1
1
d
x
k
d
d
x
k
D
s
s
A

|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
3
1
2
1
1
1
d
x
k
d
x
k
s
s

|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
3
2
d
x
d
x
D
A
(2.4)
3. PROCEDURE
Equipment: Mill, Tumbler setup, 8 Steel Rods, Sand, Stopwatch, Scale, Sieves, Sieve Shaker
1. Sand of 500 g was measured out, sieved for 10 minutes with a full nest of sieves on the shaker,
and taken as a reference sample
2. Eight steel rods were added to the mill together with sand and the tumbling mill setup speed
was already adjusted
3. The sand samples were then grinded for 2 minutes, 4minutes 8 minutes and 16 minutes on the
mill
4. Each of the sand samples was being sieved for 10 minutes with a full nest of sieves on the sieve
shaker after grinding
Document1 8

4. RESULTS
Table 4.1: Lab results showing mass in grams on the sieves for different times





Table 4.2: Calculated retained and passing mass percentages for the different masses of different times
M
a
s
s

B
e
f
o
r
e

C
r
u
s
h
i
n
g

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

a
f
t
e
r

2

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

A
f
t
e
r

4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

A
f
t
e
r

8

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

a
f
t
e
r

1
6

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

3.3 0.7
99.3
0
0 100
0
0 100
0
0 100
0 0 100
100.4 20.9
79.1
35.2
7.3 92.7
14
3 97
14
3 97
1.6 0.4 99.7
310.4 83.4 16.3 322 74.1 25.9 266.1 59.5 40.5 269.7 60.4 39.6 130.9 29.6 70.4
79.7 99.4 0.6 87.8 92.3 7.7 125 86 14 121.7 86.3 13.7 159.4 65.1 34.9
2.8 99.9 0.02 22.8 97 3 40.8 94.7 5.3 39.4 64.7 5.3 85.2 84.2 15.8
0.1 100 0 9 98.9 1.1 15.1 97.9 2.1 15.3 97.9 2.1 35.3 92 8
0 100 0 5.3 100 0 10 100 0 9.7 100 0 35.7 100 0
0 100 0 9.6 100 0 18.2 100 0 17.5 100 0 46.4 100 0

Sieve Size
(m)
Mass Before
Crushing (g)
Mass after 2
minutes of
crushing (g)
Mass After 4
minutes (g)
Mass After 8
minutes (g)
Mass after 16
minutes (g)
1180 3.3 0 0 0 0
850 100.4 35.2 14 14 1.6
600 310.4 322 266.1 269.7 130.9
425 79.7 87.8 125 121.7 159.4
300 2.8 22.8 40.8 39.4 85.2
212 0.1 9 15.1 15.3 35.3
150 0 5.3 10 9.7 35.7
Pan 0 9.6 18.2 17.5 46.4
Total: 496.7 491.7 489.2 469.8 448.1
Document1 9


Figure 4.1 Frequency PSD plotted against sieve size for the size reduction of particles


Figure 4.2 Cumulative PSD against sieve/particle size
Table 4.3 Arithmetic mean diameter(D
A
), volume surface mean diameter(D
V
), mass mean diameter (D
W
)
variations in micrometers with time in minutes
Diameters (m) Time (min)
D
A
D
v
D
w

536.5 565 624.5 0
350.1 430.3 560.0 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
D
i
f
f
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
S
D

M
a
s
s
%

Sieve size, d (m)
Differential PSD Mass % Vs Sieve Sieve
0 min (reference
sample)
2 min
4 min
8 min
16 min
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500
M
a
s
s

%

o
f

S
a
n
d

P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

Sieve size, d (m)
Cumulative PSD: Mass % Vs Sieve Size
0 min (before
crushing)
2 min
4 min
8 min
16 min
Document1 10

300.2 374.6 513.0 4
301.5 376.6 515.0 8
227 281.3 415.2 16


Figure 4.3: Graph showing arithmetic mean diameter volume surface mean diameter and mass mean diameter
plotted against time
Table 4.4: Depicts frequency (passing) and cumulative (retained) particle size diameters (D
A
, D
V
and D
W
)
with time during size reduction

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20
D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(

m
)

Time (min)
Mean Diameters Against Time
DA
Dv
Dw
Frequency or Differential PSD Diameter
(m)
Cumulative PSD Diameter
(m)
Time
(min)
D
A
D
v
D
w
D
A
D
v
D
w

686.2 512.8 760.8 512.9 533.9 573.8 0
575.7 326.9 654.5 326.9 402.7 527.4 2
517.1 277.0 596.9 277.0 344.3 477.0 4
518.7 278.4 598.0 278.4 346.3 480.0 8
399.6 208.5 512.7 208.5 249.5 358.0 16
Document1 11


Figure 4.4 : Cumulative particle size diameters are depicted by this figure from 0 to 16 minutes

Figure 4.5: Frequency (passing) particle size distribution diameters are shown against time

5. RESULTS DISCUSSIONS
From table 4.1 it can be seen that the mass is mostly retained on the 600 m sieve, that is most of the
mass about 60% of the total mass is accumulated on this sieve. However after grinding for 16minutes it
can then be seen that a higher mass percentage is obtained on the preceding sieve, the 425 m sieve.
This is collateral to the theory because grinding time is a big factor in grinding of particles or any other
material. Looking at table 4.2, one can see that the percentage of the mass retained on the first sieve is
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20
D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(

m
)

Time (min)
Cumulative PSD Diameters Vs Time
DA for cum.
Dv for cum.
Dw for cum.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20
D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(

m
)

Time (min)
Frequency PSD Diameters Vs Time
DA
Dv
Dw
Document1 12

relatively small, this due to the fact that the first sieve aperture is big so the particles just go through
without that much hindrance. The mass percent passing is just the opposite of the mass percent
accumulated that is to say almost 100 % of the particles go through due to the same reasoning of the
aperture and particle size.
Figure 4.1 shows the curves reach a single peak then they go down again the single peak reached there
shows the frequently occurring size. To add, the peak is quite sharp and is not as smooth as can be seen
in most theory cases, this can be due to that there is not enough data to compensate for a smooth
curve, there are few plotting points. Figure 4.2 is the cumulative basis curve which is just a cut of the
frequency curve, it can be viewed as the frequency basis curve cut in half, this is the curve where d
50
the
cut size can be obtained.
Comparing the diameters in table and figure 4.3, a trend can be seen in all the diameters that they
decrease with time. The diameter with the largest values is the mass mean diameter, here a product of
sieve size and mass percent is accounted. The same can be seen in table and figure 4.4 as well as figure
4.5. Also the diameters of the frequency basis are larger than the diameters of the cumulative basis
which is because of the unequal mass percentages available for cumulative and frequency basis.
Another observation can be said of the equal values of arithmetic and volume mean diameters for
frequency and cumulative basis respectively.
6. CONCLUSION
As can be seen from the results the optimum grinding time applicable is 16 minutes which is if the
particles are grinded long enough they become finer and little or no need for returning them back to the
mill is necessary. So this means for a 100 mesh (150 m) the grinding time will be 16 minutes because of
high number in 16 minutes of crushing for 16 minutes, high number is equal to finer particles.
The results obtained from the experiment are relevant to the ones found in theory the decreasing of
particle sizes as one grinds, the shape of cumulative and frequency curves etc. Therefore this concludes
that the experiment has been successful with a few exceptions there and there. An example of the
exceptions can be that the mass of the ore (sand) does not remain the same throughout the experiment
due to the fact that same gets agglomerated on the sieves. Some portion of the ore turns into dust and
scatters around the lab never returning to the mill.
For future references the speed of the mill can also be included in the report maybe by way of
calculating it so in the discussion mention of the speed values can be made. Other two important factors
are the shape of the mean diameter graphs and choice of the ore. In the practical manual inclusion of
the shape of mean diameters graphs can be described so it can be easy to compare these with the ones
that a student obtains. About the choice of the ore, a more stable ore can be chosen and the meaning of
that is that an ore that does not turn into dust quick and clogs the sieves or gets attached to the mill. Or
more simply equipment that does not allow for this to happen can be used.

Document1 13


7. REFERENCES
7. 1. Coulson, J.M. & Richardson (1984): Particle Technology and Separation Processes Volume 2
Fifth Edition , New York Pergamon Press USA
7. 2. http//:www.showmegold.org/news/mesh.htm ( 18 May 2012)





















Document1 14

8. APPENDIX A
Sample Calculations
Table 4.2
To get the values for the mass % cumulated and retained on this, first the mass percent on each sieve
was obtained.
E.g. for the 1180 m sieve and looking at mass before crushing the mass % is


For the 850 m, taking mass after two minutes of crushing mass % =


Table 4.2.1: A table for sieve size and the mass % on each respective sieve for the different times, with
values rounded off to one decimal place, was then compiled
Sieve Size
(m)fgruiu
iruruuiruir
Mass %
Before
Crushing (g)
Mass % after 2
minutes of crushing
(g)
Mass % After
4 minutes (g)
Mass % After
8 minutes (g)
Mass % after
16 minutes (g)
1180
0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
850 20.2 7.2 2.9 3.0 0.4
600 62.5 65.5 54.4 57.4 29.2
425 16.0 17.9 25.6 25.9 35.6
300 0.6 4.6 8.3 8.4 19.0
212 0.02 1.8 3.1 3.3 7.9
150
0.0 1.0 2.0 2.1 8.0
Pan 0.0 2.0 3.7 0.0 0.0

Thereafter the Mass % Retained and Passing was calculated thus:
Mass retained E.g. for mass before crushing
Mass % retained on the 1180 m sieve = Mass % on the 1180 m sieve
= 0.7 %

Mass % retained on the 850 m sieve =Mass % on the 1180 m sieve + Mass % on the 850 m sieve
= 0.7+20.2=20.9 %
Mass % retained on the 600 m sieve = Mass % retained on the 850 m sieve + Mass % on the 600 m
sieve
= 62.5+20.9= 83.4 %

And so the same was done for Mass after 2 minutes of crushing, 4 minutes, 8 minutes and 16 minutes

Mass Passing E.g. for mass after 2 minutes of crushing

Mass % passing on the 1180 m sieve = 100 % - Mass % retained on the 1180 m sieve
= 100-0 = 100%
Document1 15


Mass % passing on the 850 m sieve = 100 % - Mass % retained on the 850 m sieve
= 100-7.3 = 92.7 %
And so the same was done for Mass before crushing, after 4 minutes of crushing, 8 minutes and 16
minutes

Table 4.2.2: Shows the mass % retained/accumulated and passing through the different times on each
sieve with sieve size in microns

Table 4.3
Arithmetic mean diameter (D
A
)
Equation (2.1) was used to get this diameter. Mass fractions, x, were obtained by dividing the mass
percentages in table 4.2.1 by 100 and d was taken as the sieve size.
e.g. for the sample before crushing (reference sample)
x = 0.7/100=0.007 and sieve size is 1180 m



S
v
.

S
i
z
e
(
u
m
)

M
a
s
s

B
e
f
o
r
e

C
r
u
s
h
i
n
g

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

a
f
t
e
r

2

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

A
f
t
e
r

4

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

A
f
t
e
r

8

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

M
a
s
s

a
f
t
e
r

1
6

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
g
)

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

M
a
s
s

(
%
)

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

1180
3.3 0.7
99.3
0
0 100
0
0 100
0
0 100
0 0 100
850
100.4 20.9
79.1
35.2
7.3 92.7
14
3 97
14
3 97
1.6 0.4 99.7
600
310.4 83.4
16.3
322
74.1 25.9
266.1
59.5 40.5
269.7
60.4 39.6
130.9 29.6 70.4
425
79.7 99.4
0.6
87.8
92.3 7.7
125
86 14
121.7
86.3 13.7
159.4 65.1 34.9
300
2.8 99.9
0.02
22.8
97 3
40.8
94.7 5.3
39.4
64.7 5.3
85.2 84.2 15.8
212
0.1 100
0
9
98.9 1.1
15.1
97.9 2.1
15.3
97.9 2.1
35.3 92 8
150
0 100
0
5.3
100 0
10
100 0
9.7
100 0
35.7 100 0
Pan 0 100 0 9.6 100 0 18.2 100 0 17.5 100 0 46.4 100 0
m
pan
pan
D
A
5 . 536
10 5.54652
10 2.97591
0
212
0
1180
00002 . 0
300
006 . 0
425
16 . 0
600
625 . 0
850
202 . 0
1180
007 . 0
0
150
0
212
00002 . 0
300
006 . 0
425
16 . 0
600
625 . 0
850
202 . 0
1180
007 . 0
9
6
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
=

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
=

Document1 16


*Note: in all the equations no (one decimal place) rounded off values have been used instead values
have been used that have 9 decimal places, look at x on table below.


Table A1: Sieve sizes raised to the powers of 3 and 2 and non-rounded off mass fractions
d
2
d
3
x (before crushing)
1392400 1643032000 0.006643849
722500 614125000 0.202134085
360000 216000000 0.624924502
180625 76765625 0.16045903
90000 7000000 0.005637206
44944 9528128 0.000201329
22500 3375000 0

The same was done for all the other values i.e. for 2 min, 4 min, 8 min and 16 min

Volume surface mean diameter (D
v
)
Also here the values in table 4.2.2 were used as mass fraction by diving them by 100 and the equation
that has been made use of is equation (2.2). Sample after 2 minutes of crushing was taken as an
example.
m
pan
D
V
3 . 430
10 1.25517
1
02 . 0
150
01 . 0
212
018 . 0
300
046 . 0
425
179 . 0
600
655 . 0
850
072 . 0
1180
0
1
3
8 -
3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
=

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
=






Document1 17

Table A3: Sieve sizes raised to the power of 3 and non-rounded off mass fractions


The same was done for all the other values i.e. for sample before crushing, 4 min, 8 min and 16 min.

Mass mean diameter (D
w
)
Table 4.2.2 was made use of the same way it was used for D
A
and D
v
to calculate D
w
, as well. Equation
(2.4) was used here. Sample after 4 minutes of crushing was taken as an example.

Table A3: Sieve sizes and non-rounded off mass fractions
d x
1180 0
850 0.029724
600 0.564968
425 0.265393
300 0.086624
212 0.032059
150 0.021231






Table 4.4
d3 x (2 min)
1643032000 0
614125000 0.0730139
216000000 0.6679112
76765625 0.1821199
27000000 0.0472931
9528128 0.0186683
3375000 0.0109936
m
D
W
0 . 513
02 . 0 150 031 . 0 212 083 . 0 300 256 . 0 425 544 . 0 600 029 . 0 850 0 1180
=
+ + + + + + =
Document1 18

The same equations and the table 4.2.2 and the same values rounded off to 9 decimal places were used.
Retained and passing mass percentages were not used directly instead they were multiplied by the mass
(grams) on the sieves to get a new mass value so the mass fractions were obtained from these. Table A3:
Mass % Passing/100 x mass and mass fraction passing for different times


2 4 8 16
passing/100 x mass
3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
79.4 32.6 13.6 13.6 1.6
51.6 83.4 107.9 106.8 92.2
0.5 6.8 17.5 16.7 55.6
0.0 0.7 2.2 2.1 13.5
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Total Total Total Total
134.8 123.6 141.4 139.5 165.7
mass frac passing
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0









Document1 19


Table A4: Mass % Retained/100 x mass and mass fraction retained for different times




0 2 4 8 16
retained/100 x mass
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
21.0 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.0
258.8 238.6 158.2 162.9 38.7
79.2 81.0 107.5 105.0 103.8
2.8 22.1 38.6 37.3 71.7
0.1 8.9 14.8 15.0 32.5
0.0 5.3 10.0 9.7 35.7
0.0 9.6 18.2 17.5 46.4
Total Total Total Total Total
134.8 123.6 141.4 139.5 165.7
mass frac retained
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.1
0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1