[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = particle tribocharging

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
19 pages, 18320 KiB  
Article
Triboelectric Separation for Protein Enrichment of Wheat Flour Compared with Gluten–Starch Mixtures as a Benchmark
by Mine Ozcelik and Petra Foerst
Foods 2024, 13(24), 4075; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13244075 - 17 Dec 2024
Viewed by 1135
Abstract
Triboelectric separation, a solvent-free method, was investigated as a tool for protein enrichment in wheat flour. Gluten–starch model mixtures, flour, and reground flour fractions were evaluated for their separation characteristics (selectivity and efficiency). Mass yield, protein content, particle size distribution, and SEM analysis [...] Read more.
Triboelectric separation, a solvent-free method, was investigated as a tool for protein enrichment in wheat flour. Gluten–starch model mixtures, flour, and reground flour fractions were evaluated for their separation characteristics (selectivity and efficiency). Mass yield, protein content, particle size distribution, and SEM analysis were used to assess performance. Selectivity and efficiency increased with gluten concentration, peaking at 63% for the 50% gluten mixture, but declined at higher concentrations. The 15% gluten benchmark demonstrated effective protein separation, with protein enrichment occurring in the ground electrode fraction and a corresponding depletion in the positive electrode fraction. In contrast, flour and reground flour fractions exhibited reduced separation efficiency, showing protein depletion in both electrode fractions due to agglomeration. The benchmark achieved the highest separation efficiency (47%), followed by reground flour (41%) and flour (7%). Finer particles in reground flour enhanced chargeability and GE deposition, while larger agglomerates in flour reduced efficiency, leading to material accumulation in the cups. Pre-milling helped detach protein and starch to some extent but also triggered re-agglomeration. Larger particles were influenced more by gravitational forces. These findings highlight the complexity of wheat flour fractionation and the need to optimize particle size and charge distribution to improve protein enrichment through triboelectric separation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Grain)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic representation of the custom-built vertical laboratory-scale triboelectric batch separator. (<b>a</b>) Photograph of the experimental system. (<b>b</b>) Schematic illustration of the separator showing key process parameters. (<b>c</b>) Photograph of parallel electrodes within the separation unit. (<b>d</b>) Technical drawing of the parallel electrodes. (<b>e</b>) Schematic representation of the triboelectric separation mechanism.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Mass yield of triboelectric separation fractions: positive electrode (PE+), ground electrode (GE), positive collector (PC), and ground collector (GC). (<b>a</b>) Gluten–starch mixtures with varying gluten concentrations. (<b>b</b>) Flour samples: <span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>, flour, and reground flour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Particle size distribution (PSD) curves of gluten–starch mixtures, flour samples, and their triboelectric separation fractions: PE+, GE, PC, and GC. (<b>a</b>) 0% gluten. (<b>b</b>) 15% gluten (<span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>), (<b>c</b>) 25% gluten, (<b>d</b>) 50% gluten, (<b>e</b>) 75% gluten, (<b>f</b>) 100% gluten, (<b>g</b>) <span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>, (<b>h</b>) flour, and (<b>i</b>) reground flour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Average particle size (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>50</mn> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>) of triboelectric separation fractions: PE+, GE, PC, and GC. (<b>a</b>) Gluten–starch mixtures with varying gluten concentrations. (<b>b</b>) Flour samples: <span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>, flour, and reground flour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>SEM images of the starting material and triboelectric separation fractions collected from PE+, GE, PC, and GC. (<b>a</b>) Starch, (<b>b</b>) gluten, (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">benchmark</span> sample and its fractions, (<b>d</b>) flour and its fractions, and (<b>e</b>) reground flour and its fractions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relative protein shift (separation selectivity) of triboelectric separation fractions (PE+, GE, PC, and GC). (<b>a</b>) Gluten–starch mixtures with varying gluten concentrations. (<b>b</b>) Flour samples: <span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>, flour, and reground flour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Separation efficiency of triboelectric separation fractions (PE+, GE, PC, and GC). (<b>a</b>) Gluten–starch mixtures with varying gluten concentrations. (<b>b</b>) Flour samples: <span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>, flour, and reground flour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Distribution of mass yield and separation efficiency between upper and lower sections of PE+ and GE for the 15% gluten (<span class="html-italic">benchmark</span>) sample. (<b>a</b>) Mass yield across electrode sections. (<b>b</b>) Separation efficiency across electrode sections. (<b>c</b>) Absolute separation efficiency across electrode sections, showing the total efficiency per section relative to the starting material. (<b>d</b>) Photograph of electrodes post-separation. (<b>e</b>) SEM images of electrode sections.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 3765 KiB  
Article
A New Perspective to Tribocharging: Could Tribocharging Lead to the Development of a Non-Destructive Approach for Process Monitoring and Quality Control of Powders?
by Hadi Mehrtash, Dinara Konakbayeva, Solmaz Tabtabaei, Seshasai Srinivasan and Amin Reza Rajabzadeh
Foods 2022, 11(5), 693; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11050693 - 26 Feb 2022
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 2887
Abstract
This study explores a new perspective on triboelectrification that could potentially lead to the development of a non-destructive approach for the rapid characterization of powders. Sieved yellow pea powders at various particle sizes and protein contents were used as a model system for [...] Read more.
This study explores a new perspective on triboelectrification that could potentially lead to the development of a non-destructive approach for the rapid characterization of powders. Sieved yellow pea powders at various particle sizes and protein contents were used as a model system for the experimental charge measurements of the triboelectrified powders. A tribocharging model based on the prominent condenser model was combined with a Eulerian–Lagrangian computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to simulate particle tribocharging in particle-laden flows. Further, an artificial neural network model was developed to predict particle–wall collision numbers based on a database obtained through CFD simulations. The tribocharging and CFD models were coupled with the experimental tribocharging data to estimate the contact potential difference of powders, which is a function of contact surfaces’ work functions and depends on the chemical composition of powders. The experimentally measured charge-to-mass ratios were linearly related to the calculated contact potential differences for samples with different protein contents, indicating a potential approach for the chemical characterization of powders. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic illustration of experimental (<b>Left</b>), and computational section (<b>Right</b>) of powders characterization method based on experimental charge measurement and computational estimation of particle-wall collision numbers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The architecture of the neural network used for fast computation of collision numbers using six input parameters and a hidden layer with six neurons.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Partticle size distributions of yellow pea sieved fractions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>CFD analysis of particle trajectories for (<b>a</b>) low; (<b>b</b>) intermediate; (<b>c</b>) high Stk; and (<b>d</b>) influence of particle size on calculated particle-wall mean collision numbers. Particles were released into a 1 m pipe with a 4.76 mm inner diameter, and the air velocity was 8.4 (m/s). The color of trajectory lines shows the velocity magnitude (m/s) of particles. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis points in the streamwise direction, the <span class="html-italic">z</span>-axis in the wall-normal direction, and the <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in the spanwise direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparing mean collision numbers of 100-micron particles with different densities. All particles assumed spherical particles released into a 1 m pipe with 4.76 mm inner diameter, and the air velocity was 8.4 (m/s).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Influence of pipe diameter on particle-wall mean collision number. In all cases, particles were released into a 1 m pipe with 8.4 (m/s) air velocity; (<b>b</b>) influence of pipe length on particle-wall interactions. In all cases, particles were released into a pipe with 4.76 mm inner diameter and 8.4 (m/s) air velocity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Influence of air velocity on particle-wall mean collision numbers. All calculations were accomplished for a single pipe length (1 m) and diameter (4.76 mm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) influence of number neurons in the second layer on network performance; (<b>b</b>) the average performance of the neural network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Effect of particle size on mean collision number and charge-to-mass ratio; (<b>b</b>) correlation of experimentally measured charge-to-mass ratios with calculated contact potential difference for sieved samples with different particle sizes and different protein content percentages (data labels). Error bars show the deviation of charge measurements during multiple experimental runs.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 6859 KiB  
Article
Tribo-Electrostatic Separation Analysis of a Beneficial Solution in the Recycling of Mixed Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) and High-Density Polyethylene
by Wieslaw Lyskawinski, Mariusz Baranski, Cezary Jedryczka, Jacek Mikolajewicz, Roman Regulski, Dariusz Sedziak, Krzysztof Netter, Dominik Rybarczyk, Dorota Czarnecka-Komorowska and Mateusz Barczewski
Energies 2021, 14(6), 1755; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061755 - 22 Mar 2021
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3138
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate and analyze the impact of selected parameters during the tribocharging process of shredded poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and high-density polyethylene (PE-HD) plastics on accumulated electric charge and electrostatic separation effectiveness. The accumulation of electric charge on [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to investigate and analyze the impact of selected parameters during the tribocharging process of shredded poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and high-density polyethylene (PE-HD) plastics on accumulated electric charge and electrostatic separation effectiveness. The accumulation of electric charge on surfaces of polymer particles as a result of their circular motion forced by the airflow cyclone container was investigated. The impact of the container material, time of tribocharging and the airflow intensity were experimentally examined. A container in which the particles of the considered polymers are electrified with opposite charges was selected. A high ability to accumulate surface charge on small particles of both polymers was demonstrated. The electrified mixed PET/PE-HD was subjected to a separation process. An electrostatic separator designed and constructed by the authors was used for to the separation. In turn, to assess the effectiveness of this separation, a dedicated vision system was used. Based on the result of the carried out tests, it has been assumed that the proposed approach’s effectiveness has been demonstrated by means of empirical validation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section B: Energy and Environment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>A free-fall triboelectrostatic separator (<b>a</b>) parallel plate, (<b>b</b>) skew plate.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The scheme of a high voltage roll separator.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The granulator (<b>a</b>) with crushing blades and milling modules (<b>b</b>) for grinding the mixed plastic waste.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The view of vibratory sieve shaker (<b>a</b>) and sieves (<b>b</b>) used for the sieve analysis of the mixed plastic waste.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The sieved polymer fractions for electrification process: (<b>a</b>) PET, (<b>b</b>) PE-HD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The view of tribocharging containers made of: (<b>a</b>) PET-G, (<b>b</b>) PLA/ABS, (<b>c</b>) ASA, (<b>d</b>) PP, (<b>e</b>) assembled container, air filter and airflow in suction head.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>The view of tribocharging containers made of: (<b>a</b>) PET-G, (<b>b</b>) PLA/ABS, (<b>c</b>) ASA, (<b>d</b>) PP, (<b>e</b>) assembled container, air filter and airflow in suction head.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Dimensions of the container for circulation of the tested mixed polymers and (<b>b</b>) movement of polymer particles during the tribocharging process.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>A system for measuring the accumulated charge on particles of (<b>a</b>) PET and (<b>b</b>) PE-HD polymers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The view of electrostatic separator (<b>a</b>) and stand for the vision system (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Charge density per mass as a function of time t of tribocharging in a container for PET with fractions (<b>a</b>) 1.8–2.8 mm and (<b>b</b>) 2.8–4 mm at airflow V = 1.6 cpm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Charge density per mass as a function of time t tribocharging in a PET-G container for PE-HD with fraction (<b>a</b>) 1.8–2.8 mm and (<b>b</b>) 2.8–4 mm at airflow V = 1.6 cpm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Charge density per mass as a function of airflow for tribocharging process of (<b>a</b>) PET in the container made of PP; (<b>b</b>) PE-HD in the container made of PET-G for a constant time of the charging process t = 30 s for fraction mass 10 g.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Charge density per mass as a function of airflow for tribocharging process of (<b>a</b>) PET, size of material 1.8–2.8 mm in the container made of PP, ABS, ASA, PLA; (<b>b</b>) PE-HD, size of material 1.8–2.8 mm, in the container made of PET-G, ABS, ASA and PP for a constant time of the charging process t = 30 s for fraction mass 10 g.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The separation result of (<b>a</b>) without charging and after tribocharging for t = 60 s in a container with (<b>b</b>) PET-G, (<b>c</b>) ASA, (<b>d</b>) PP at an airflow of 2.19 cpm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Electrostatic separator (<b>a</b>), the percentage ratio of PET (gray) to PE-HD (yellow) particles as determined by the image from a dedicated vision system in a container with (<b>b</b>) PP, (<b>c</b>) PET-G, (<b>a</b>) ASA (Sec. I—splitting the mixture of plastics into two sets of materials; Sec. I—percentage share of PET and PE-HD in each box; Sec. III—percentage content of PET and PE-HD in relation to the surface of the boxes).</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop