Regime Map of Dry Neutralization Agglomeration Process Containing Non-Reactive Ingredient on a Laboratory Scale

  • Leping Dang
  • Xu Li
  • Jinsheng Fu
  • Xiaojun Lang
  • Hongyuan Wei
RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

This study described a regime map for dry neutralization agglomeration. Based on the map, the effects of selected key parameters, such as ingredient composition, operation temperature, agitation speed, and size of Na2CO3 particles, were investigated using a laboratory-scale mixer, and properties of the agglomeration product were analyzed, including particle size distribution, Hunter color, and flowability. Torque curves evolving during the process were correlated with the system flowability. Three distinguishable regimes were indicated, dry, wet, and transitional, and the agitation speed was found to have a different influence on the agglomeration process for the three regimes. Furthermore, the influence of temperature on reactive agglomeration significantly differed from that in agglomeration processes in which the binder was non-reactive.

Keywords

Regime map Dry neutralization Agglomeration Non-reactive particles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Procter and Gamble Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd for providing support and guidance during experiments.

References

  1. 1.
    Seto CT, Whitesides GM (1990) Self-assembly based on the cyanuric acid-melamine lattice. J Am Chem Soc 112(17):6409–6411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smulders E, Rybinski WV, Sung E et al (2001) Laundry detergents. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borchers G (2005) Design and manufacturing of solid detergent products. J Surf Deter 8(2):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davies JF, Knight PC, Travill AW et al (1988) Process for manufacture of detergent powder incorporating polyhydric structuring agents. US4755318A, Jul. 5, 1988Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schæfer T (2001) Growth mechanisms in melt agglomeration in high shear mixers. Powder Technol 117(1–2):68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scheibel JJ (2004) The evolution of anionic surfactant technology to meet the requirements of the laundry detergent industry. J Surf Deter 7(4):319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mungray AK, Kumar P (2009) Fate of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates in the environment: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 63(8):981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tardos GI, Khan MI, Mort PR (1997) Critical parameters and limiting conditions in binder granulation of fine powders. Powder Technol 94(3):245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knight PC, Instone T, Pearson JMK et al (1998) An investigation into the kinetics of liquid distribution and growth in high shear mixer agglomeration. Powder Technol 97(3):246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holm P, Schaefer T, Kristensen HG (1985) Granulation in high-speed mixers. Part VI. Effects of process conditions on power consumption and granule growth. Powder Technol 43(3):225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kristensen HG (1996) Particle agglomeration in high shear mixers. Powder Technol 88(3):197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schöngut M, Smrčka D, Štěpánek F (2013) Experimental and theoretical investigation of the reactive granulation of sodium carbonate with dodecyl-benzenesulfonic acid. Chem Eng Sci 86(5):2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schöngut M, Smrčka D, Gregor T et al (2014) Investigation of rate-limiting steps during granulation with a chemically reactive binder. Powder Technol 270:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Germaná S, Simons S, Bonsall J et al (2009) LAS acid reactive binder: wettability and adhesion behaviour in detergent granulation. Powder Technol 189(2):385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Germaná S, Simons S, Bonsall J (2008) Reactive binders in detergent granulation: understanding the relationship between binder phase changes and granule growth under different conditions of relative humidity. Ind Eng Chem Res 47(17):6450–6458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chitu TM, Oulahna D, Hemati M (2011) Wet granulation in laboratory scale high shear mixers: effect of binder properties. Powder Technol 206(1–2):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landin M, York P, Cliff MJ et al (1996) Scale-up of a pharmaceutical granulation in fixed bowl mixer-granulators. Int J Pharm 133:127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ameny MA, Wilson PW (1997) Relationship between Hunter color values and b-carotene contents in white-fleshed African sweetpotatoes (Ipomoea batatas Lam). J Sci Food Agric 73(3):301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lavelli V, Torresani MC (2011) Modelling the stability of lycopene-rich by-products of tomato processing. Food Chem 125(2):529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faure A, York P, Rowe RC (2001) Process control and scale-up of pharmaceutical wet granulation processes: a review. Eur J Pharm Biopharm Off J Int Assoc Pharm Technol 52(3):269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rough SL, Wilson DI, Bayly AE et al (2005) Influence of process parameters on the tapping characteristics of high shear mixer agglomerates made with ultra-high viscosity binders. Chem Eng Res Des 83(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mills PJT, Seville JPK, Knight PC et al (2000) The effect of binder viscosity on particle agglomeration in a low shear mixer/agglomerator. Powder Technol 113(1):140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tianjin University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leping Dang
    • 1
  • Xu Li
    • 1
  • Jinsheng Fu
    • 2
  • Xiaojun Lang
    • 1
  • Hongyuan Wei
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Chemical Engineering and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Procter and Gamble Technology (Beijing) Co., LtdBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations