Mutah University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
Unit Operations Lab 0404533
A Report About Mixing of Powders
Experiment no. 5
Instructors: Prof. Dr. Nabeel Al Jarrah
Eng. Saja Al Awasa
Date of submission: 26th of May 2025
Student Name Student Number
Arwa Musallam Lassassmeh 120210414019
Rayan Othman Al Masri 120210414078
Ro’a Baker Al Btoush 120210414050
Sarah Muneer Abu Alkhair 120210414081
• Abstract
This experiment investigates the mixing behaviour of powder systems using a
double-cone mixer to evaluate homogeneity in a binary mixture of sand and
salt. A key focus is the effect of mixing time on blend uniformity, assessed using
the statistical parameter known as the Mixing Index (Iₛ). Sampling was
performed at regular intervals, and the composition of each sample was
determined by dissolving salt and isolating sand through filtration and drying.
The results revealed non-linear and inconsistent changes in Iₛ values across
the mixing timeline, suggesting that homogeneity was not achieved uniformly
over time. Variability in results may be attributed to sampling inconsistency,
minor segregation, or inherent limitations of the mixer. Nonetheless, the
experiment demonstrated the complexity of powder mixing and highlighted key
factors influencing uniformity, such as time, equipment design, and particle
characteristics.
• Introduction
Powder mixing is a fundamental operation in industries such as
pharmaceuticals, food processing, chemicals, and materials engineering. It aims
to achieve a uniform distribution of two or more solid components to meet
specific quality or functional requirements. However, due to differences in
particle size, shape, and density—as well as inter-particle forces—achieving
perfect mixing is often difficult.
This experiment explores the mixing behaviour of dry granular solids using a
double-cone mixer. A binary mixture of sand and salt was used, with
measurements taken at timed intervals to assess uniformity using the Mixing
Index (Iₛ). By observing how mixing duration affects blend homogeneity, this
study provides insight into the dynamics and performance of a commonly used
powder mixing method.
• Objectives
1. Investigate how particle size distribution and other material properties
influence mixing behaviour.
2. Examine the relationship between mixing duration and the resulting blend
uniformity.
3. Analyse how variations in mixing speed affect the efficiency and
consistency of the mixing process.
• Theory
Powder mixing is a critical operation in industries such as pharmaceuticals, food
processing, chemicals, and materials engineering. It involves the deliberate
combination of two or more particulate solids to achieve a homogeneous
mixture. The goal is to ensure uniform distribution of components throughout
the batch to meet quality, performance, or downstream processing requirements.
In both industrial and laboratory applications (particularly those involving
granular solids like powders) achieving a uniform blend is essential but often
challenging. Perfect mixing is rarely attainable due to variations in particle size,
shape, density, and inter-particle interactions such as agglomeration or
segregation, which can lead to inhomogeneity if not properly controlled.
Purpose of Powder Mixing
- Ensure consistent composition in each unit dosage (e.g., tablets,
capsules).
- Improve reaction kinetics or processing uniformity in chemical
manufacturing.
- Minimize product variability in food and cosmetic formulations
- Avoid segregation or de-mixing during storage, transport, or further
processing.
A tumble mixer is a commonly used piece of equipment for powder mixing in
both laboratory and industrial settings. It is especially effective for blending
free-flowing, dry particulate solids, making it suitable for the initial and
intermediate stages of powder homogenization.
Working Mechanism of a Powder Mixer (Double-Cone Mixer)
A commonly used device for powder blending is the double-cone mixer,
favoured for its simplicity and gentle mixing action. It consists of a conical
vessel mounted on a horizontal axis, which rotates to lift and cascade the
powder bed.
Operation principles
▪ As the vessel rotates, particles undergo tumbling and cascading,
promoting convective and diffusive mixing.
▪ No internal blades mean minimal shear, ideal for fragile or cohesive
materials.
▪ Segregation risks are low when component particle sizes and
densities are closely matched.
Key variables affecting performance:
▪ Fill level: Optimal fill is typically 50–70% of total volume to ensure
adequate tumbling.
▪ Rotational speed: Must be high enough to promote movement but
low enough to avoid centrifugal compaction.
▪ Mixing time: Sufficient to reach steady-state homogeneity without
overmixing or causing segregation.
Mixing Index (𝐈𝐬 )
The Mixing Index (Is ) provides a statistical measure of uniformity in powder
mixtures, quantitatively evaluates the extent to which the mixture has
approached equilibrium. It compares the observed standard deviation of a key
component across sampled locations with the theoretical standard deviation in
a fully random (ideally mixed) system.
▪ Simplified Mixing Index
σe
Is =
s
Where:
- σe : Theoretical standard deviation of a perfectly mixed system.
- s : Standard deviation of actual sample concentrations.
When Is→1, the system approaches perfect homogeneity.
This expression shows that when the standard deviation of the actual
mixture matches the expected equilibrium deviation, the system is well-
mixed (Is approaches 1). If variability remains high, the mixture is still far
from uniform (Is < 1).
▪ Comprehensive Formula
For granular materials, a more detailed formula is often used to calculate Is ,
based on particle distribution in sample spots:
μp (1 − μP )(N − 1)
Is = √ N (x
nΣⅈ=1 ⅈ−x ̅ )2
Where:
- μp : Overall fraction of one component (e.g., sand) in the total mixture,
based on number of particles.
- N : Total number of sample locations taken from the mixture
(e.g., top, middle, bottom).
- n : Number of particles in each individual sample.
- xⅈ : Fraction of sand in sample i.
- x̅ : Average fraction of sand across all samples.
This equation incorporates both the statistical variation in composition and
the expected behaviour of an ideally mixed system. The denominator
represents the observed spread of concentrations, while the numerator
accounts for the theoretical equilibrium state.
Key Phenomena Affecting Powder Mixing
Several physical mechanisms influence the effectiveness of powder mixing:
• Agglomeration: This occurs when fine or cohesive particles stick together
due to moisture, static charge, or surface forces. Agglomeration prevents
free movement and leads to clustering, which reduces mixing efficiency
and results in non-uniform regions.
• Segregation: Caused by differences in particle size, density, or shape. For
example, heavier or larger particles tend to settle to the bottom, while
lighter or finer ones rise to the top. This leads to de-mixing during or after
the mixing process, especially if the equipment or handling method isn’t
optimized
Mitigation strategies
These phenomena must be minimized through:
• Use size- and density-matched components
• Select appropriate mixer type (e.g., V-blender, ribbon blender, planetary
mixer)
• Optimize process conditions: rotation speed, time, batch size
• Add surfactants or anti-static agents for cohesive powders
Industrial Applications
- Pharmaceuticals: Ensures uniform distribution of active ingredients and
excipients in tablets and capsules. Critical for dose accuracy, efficacy,
and regulatory compliance.
- Food Industry: Blends dry ingredients like flour, sugar, and spices for
consistent flavour and texture. Uniform mixing affects product stability
and shelf life.
- Construction Materials: Mixes cement, sand, and additives in dry
mortar and concrete products. Ensures mechanical strength and reliable
performance.
- Cosmetics: Combines fine powders like talc and colorants in makeup
products. Mixing impacts product texture, appearance, and skin feel.
• Apparatus & Materials
- Apparatus
1. Double-Cone Mixer (Pascall Lab Mixer)
▪ Composed of two conical sections joined at their bases,
designed to rotate and tumble powder mixtures for
improved uniformity.
▪ Includes a rotating drum, electric motor, timer, and speed
controller to control the mixing duration and intensity.
▪ The symmetrical shape helps reduce dead zones and
promotes consistent blending of powders.
2. Funnel (for Filtration)
▪ Used to hold the filter paper during the filtration process.
▪ Supports the separation of solids (e.g., sand) from liquids
(e.g., dissolved salt in water) by guiding the liquid into a
collection flask while retaining undissolved particles.
3. Filter Paper
▪ Placed inside the funnel to capture solid particles such as
sand during filtration.
▪ Allows the dissolved salt in the phenol solution to pass
through for analysis.
4. Drying Oven
▪ Used to dry the filtered solid (typically sand) at a controlled temperature.
▪ Ensures accurate mass measurements by removing residual moisture after
filtration.
- Materials
▪ Sodium Chloride (NaCl) – 320 grams
▪ Sand – 320 grams
Both materials were chosen with approximately equal particle sizes and
equal masses to maintain consistency and facilitate accurate mixing analysis.
• Procedure
1. Sample Preparation
A specified amount of salt and sand was weighed and loaded into the
mixer.
2. Mixer Operation
The mixer speed was set to a fixed value, and the machine was started.
3. Initial Sampling
After 5 minutes of mixing, the mixer was stopped, and 3–5 samples were
taken from different locations within the mixture.
4. Timed Sampling
The mixer was restarted, and additional samples were collected after 10,
15, and 20 minutes of total mixing time.
5. Sample Weighing
Each sample was weighed prior to filtration.
6. Salt Dissolution and Filtration
Distilled water was added to each sample to dissolve the salt, and the
mixture was filtered to isolate the remaining solid.
7. Drying and Final Weighing
The filtered residue was dried, and the mass of the remaining sand was
recorded.
• Safety Precautions
1. Powders must be handled with caution to prevent inhalation and direct
contact with skin.
2. The double cone blender must be thoroughly cleaned following each use
to maintain equipment hygiene and prevent cross-contamination
• Data & Calculations
- Experimental Data
Time Sample Mass Before Mass After Mass of Filter
(min) Location Filtration (g) Filtration (g) Paper (g)
Top 2 1.58 0.7
5 Middle 1.88 1.78 0.66
Bottom 1.7 1.72 0.72
Top 3.68 2.82 0.72
10 Middle 3.68 2.78 0.72
Bottom 3.62 2.08 0.66
Top 3.44 2.34 0.72
15 Middle 3.68 2.78 0.7
Bottom 3.44 1.98 0.72
Top 4.08 3.1 0.72
20 Middle 4.44 3.02 0.72
Bottom 4.18 2.5 0.72
Top 4.7 3.24 0.72
25 Middle 4.5 3.28 0.74
Bottom 3.6 3.32 0.74
- Mass of Sand = Mass After Filtration – Mass of Filter Paper
- Mass of Salt = Mass Before Filtration – Mass of Sand
- Given Data
Mass of Salt (g) 320
Mass of Sand (g) 320
Particle Size of Salt (μm) 375
Particle Size of Sand (μm) 375
Density of Salt (g/cm3) 2.65
Density of Sand (g/cm3) 2.16
- Calculated Data
Mass of Sand (g) Mass of Salt (g) N sand, location n
0.88 1.12 12031.71999
1.12 0.76 15313.09817 13672.40908
1 0.7 13672.40908
2.1 1.58 28712.05906
2.06 1.62 28165.1627 25430.68089
1.42 2.2 19414.82089
1.62 1.82 22149.30271
2.08 1.6 28438.61088 22605.04968
1.26 2.18 17227.23544
2.38 1.7 32540.33361
2.3 2.14 31446.54088 29441.25422
1.78 2.4 24336.88816
2.52 2.18 34454.47088
2.54 1.96 34727.91906 34819.06845
2.58 1.02 35274.81542
Nsalt, location x location x̄ Is
18786.90284 0.390404206
12748.2555 0.545700623 0.491362465 0.0486
11741.81428 0.537982565
26502.95223 0.520004586
27173.91304 0.508956146 0.457899467 0.0317
36902.84487 0.34473767
30528.71712 0.420465742
26838.43264 0.514474166 0.41839363 0.034
36567.36447 0.320240981
28515.83468 0.532957349
35896.40365 0.466961181 0.458894135 0.0369
40257.64895 0.376763876
36567.36447 0.485125042
32877.07998 0.513688626 0.557399573 0.0262
17109.50081 0.67338505
Graph
Mixing Index Vs Time
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
Is
0.02
0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (min)
Calculation Samples
- To calculate the overall fraction of sand 𝛍𝐩 :
Nsand
μp =
Nsand + Nsalt
1. Find Nsand
mass of sand
Nsand =
mass of 1 sand particle
mass of 1 sand particle = density of sand × volume of sand particle
π
volume of sand particle = × d3
6
π
volume of sand particle = × (375 × 10−4 cm)3 = 2.76 × 10−5 cm3
6
g
mass of 1 sand particle = 2.65 × 2.76 × 10−5 cm3 = 7.314 × 10−5 g
cm3
320 g
Nsand = −5
= 4.375 × 106
7.314 × 10 g
2. Find Nsalt
mass of salt
Nsalt =
mass of 1 salt particle
mass of 1 salt particle = density of salt × volume of salt particle
π
volume of salt particle = × d3
6
π
volume of salt particle = × (375 × 10−4 cm)3 = 2.76 × 10−5 cm3
6
g
mass of 1 salt particle = 2.16 3
× 2.76 × 10−5 cm3 = 5.961 × 10−5 g
cm
320 g
Nsalt = −5
= 5.367 × 106
5.963 × 10 g
3. Find μp
4.375 × 106
μp = = 0.449
4.375 × 106 + 5.367 × 106
- To find the number of particles in a sample n:
Nsand,Top + Nsand,Mⅈddle + Nsand,Bottom
n=
3
1. Find Nsand,Locatⅈon
mass of sand at location
Nsand,Locatⅈon =
mass of 1 sand particle
0.88 g
Nsand,Top = = 12031.71999
7.314 × 10−5 g
1.12 g
Nsand,Mⅈddle = = 15313.09817
7.314 × 10−5 g
1g
Nsand,Bottom = = 13672.40908
7.314 × 10−5 g
2. Find n
12031.71999 + 15313.09817 + 13672.40908
n=
3
n = 13672.40908
- To find the fraction of sand in each spot sample xi
Nsand,Locatⅈon
xⅈ =
Nsand,Locatⅈon + Nsalt,Locatⅈon
1. Find Nsalt,Locatⅈon
mass of salt at location
Nsalt,Locatⅈon =
mass of 1 salt particle
1.12 g
Nsalt,Top = = 18786.90284
5.961 × 10−5 g
0.76g
Nsalt,Mⅈddle = = 12748.2555
5.961 × 10−5 g
0.7 g
Nsalt,Bottom = = 11741.81428
5.961 × 10−5 g
2. Find xi
Nsand,Top
xTop =
Nsand,Top + Nsalt,Top
12031.71999
xTop = = 0.390404206
12031.71999 + 18786.90284
Nsand,Mⅈddle
xMⅈddle =
Nsand,Mⅈddle + Nsalt,Mⅈddle
15313.09817
xMⅈddle = = 0.545700623
15313.09817 + 12748.2555
Nsand,Bottom
xBottom =
Nsand,Bottom + Nsalt,Bottom
13672.40908
xBottom = = 0.537982565
13672.40908 + 11741.81428
- To find the average fraction of sand in all spot samples x̄:
xTop + xMⅈddle + xBottom
x̄ =
3
0.390404206 + 0.545700623 + 0.537982565
x̄ =
3
x̄ = 0.491362465
- Substituting to find the index of mixing Is:
μp (1 − μP )(N − 1)
Is = √ N (x
nΣⅈ=1 ⅈ−x ̅ )2
Where N is number of spot samples which equals 3.
Is = 0.0486
• Results
- Experimental Observations
• Samples were taken at 5-minute intervals from the mixer (top, middle,
bottom).
• Mass before and after filtration was recorded.
• Salt was dissolved, and the remaining sand was dried and weighed.
• The number of sand particles per location was calculated using density
and particle size.
• The Mixing Index (Iₛ) was computed for each time point based on
variation in composition across samples.
- Key Data Summary
Time (min) Average Iₛ Value
5 0.0486
10 0.0317
15 0.0340
20 0.0369
25 0.0262
Lower Iₛ values indicate higher deviation from perfect mixing; a rise in Iₛ
over time reflects improved homogeneity.
- Graph
A line plot of Mixing Index (Iₛ) vs. Time shows fluctuating values with no
clear monotonic trend toward homogeneity.
• Discussion
This experiment aimed to examine how mixing time affects the homogeneity of
a binary powder mixture using a double-cone mixer. The expected trend was a
gradual improvement in the Mixing Index (Iₛ) as mixing time increased.
However, the results did not display a steady or consistent increase in Iₛ.
Instead, the values fluctuated, indicating irregular changes in blend uniformity.
▪ Analysis of Mixing Index Behaviour
While some improvement was observed at specific time intervals, the
variation across samples and between locations (top, middle, bottom)
remained significant at others. This inconsistency suggests that uniform
mixing was not reliably achieved, even at longer mixing times.
Several factors could have contributed to this:
- Sampling error: Variability in sample collection technique may have
introduced inconsistency in measured compositions.
- Minor segregation: Despite using similar-sized materials,
gravitational settling or mixer geometry could have caused local
separation.
- Non-ideal mixer dynamics: The double-cone mixer, while gentle,
may not provide sufficient internal agitation to fully randomize
powder distribution in a short period.
- Inherent material behaviour: Even small differences in salt and sand
density or flowability could result in micro-segregation.
These factors highlight the importance of not just mixing time but also
equipment design, fill level, and material compatibility in powder mixing.
• Conclusion
The powder mixing experiment revealed that increasing mixing time does not
guarantee consistent improvement in blend uniformity. While the double-cone
mixer promoted some redistribution of components, the calculated Mixing
Index (Iₛ) values varied across time intervals and sampling locations, indicating
incomplete or uneven mixing.
This outcome emphasizes the complexity of powder behaviour during mixing
and suggests that other parameters—such as particle cohesion, equipment
geometry, or sampling method—play a critical role in achieving a homogeneous
mixture. The experiment demonstrates the need for precise process control and
mixer optimization when uniformity is essential in industrial powder
applications.
• References
- Laboratory Manual
- Rhodes, M. Introduction to Particle Technology, 2nd Ed., Wiley, 2008.
[Link]
- Lacey, P.M.C. “Developments in the Theory of Particle Mixing,” Journal
of Applied Chemistry, 1954. [Link]
- Tüzün, U., Savage, S.B. “Powder Mixing,” Powder Technology, Vol. 43,
1985. [Link]
- Osorio, J.G., Muzzio, F.J., & Alexander, A.W. “Powder Mixing,”
Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology, Informa Healthcare, 2007.
