Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Biazzi, Heverton Michael
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Bee Tubin, Jiovani Sergio, Conte, Renato Augusto, Robazza, Weber da Silva, Paiano, Diovani
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/53382
Resumo: We evaluated various sieving methods to estimate particle size (PS) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) of ground corn. The corn had been previously divided in six fractions and each one ground in a hammermill (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- or 12-mm sieves). The stacked sieving method, with prior drying at 105ºC without agitators was the reference. We evaluated eight sieving methods, distributed in a factorial design (2 x 2 x 2 x 6), consisting of the following treatments: i) with and without agitators (two 25-mm rubber spheres), ii) with and without previous drying, iii) with a nest of test sieves set in a stacked or reverse, and iv) employing six ground corn degrees, totaling 48 treatments (four replicates). There was a linear increase in PS estimation for methods without drying and stacking and quadratic increases for the others. Reverse, drying, and agitator methodologies gave better sieving of corn, and consequently gave the lowest PS and highest GSD. The results were more pronounced for high-intensity grinding (hammermill sieve with small apertures) in which the differences between the reference method with the drying and reverse methods were up to 210 µm. Reverse sieving combined with agitators allowed the greatest passage of corn particles through the test sieves and promoted better characterization of ground corn.
id UEM-7_8c2ce0fed89220bc57cdbdea6f7bca22
oai_identifier_str oai:periodicos.uem.br/ojs:article/53382
network_acronym_str UEM-7
network_name_str Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground cornDifferent sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground cornanimal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.We evaluated various sieving methods to estimate particle size (PS) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) of ground corn. The corn had been previously divided in six fractions and each one ground in a hammermill (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- or 12-mm sieves). The stacked sieving method, with prior drying at 105ºC without agitators was the reference. We evaluated eight sieving methods, distributed in a factorial design (2 x 2 x 2 x 6), consisting of the following treatments: i) with and without agitators (two 25-mm rubber spheres), ii) with and without previous drying, iii) with a nest of test sieves set in a stacked or reverse, and iv) employing six ground corn degrees, totaling 48 treatments (four replicates). There was a linear increase in PS estimation for methods without drying and stacking and quadratic increases for the others. Reverse, drying, and agitator methodologies gave better sieving of corn, and consequently gave the lowest PS and highest GSD. The results were more pronounced for high-intensity grinding (hammermill sieve with small apertures) in which the differences between the reference method with the drying and reverse methods were up to 210 µm. Reverse sieving combined with agitators allowed the greatest passage of corn particles through the test sieves and promoted better characterization of ground corn.We evaluated various sieving methods to estimate particle size (PS) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) of ground corn. The corn had been previously divided in six fractions and each one ground in a hammermill (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- or 12-mm sieves). The stacked sieving method, with prior drying at 105ºC without agitators was the reference. We evaluated eight sieving methods, distributed in a factorial design (2 x 2 x 2 x 6), consisting of the following treatments: i) with and without agitators (two 25-mm rubber spheres), ii) with and without previous drying, iii) with a nest of test sieves set in a stacked or reverse, and iv) employing six ground corn degrees, totaling 48 treatments (four replicates). There was a linear increase in PS estimation for methods without drying and stacking and quadratic increases for the others. Reverse, drying, and agitator methodologies gave better sieving of corn, and consequently gave the lowest PS and highest GSD. The results were more pronounced for high-intensity grinding (hammermill sieve with small apertures) in which the differences between the reference method with the drying and reverse methods were up to 210 µm. Reverse sieving combined with agitators allowed the greatest passage of corn particles through the test sieves and promoted better characterization of ground corn.Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá2021-12-22info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/5338210.4025/actascianimsci.v44i1.53382Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; Vol 44 (2022): Publicação contínua; e53382Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; v. 44 (2022): Publicação contínua; e533821807-86721806-2636reponame:Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)instacron:UEMenghttps://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/53382/751375153374Copyright (c) 2021 Acta Scientiarum. Animal Scienceshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBiazzi, Heverton Michael Bee Tubin, Jiovani Sergio Conte, Renato AugustoRobazza, Weber da Silva Paiano, Diovani2022-02-17T17:40:22Zoai:periodicos.uem.br/ojs:article/53382Revistahttp://www.periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSciPUBhttp://www.periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/oaiactaanim@uem.br||actaanim@uem.br|| rev.acta@gmail.com1807-86721806-2636opendoar:2022-02-17T17:40:22Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
title Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
spellingShingle Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
Biazzi, Heverton Michael
animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.
animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.
title_short Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
title_full Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
title_fullStr Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
title_full_unstemmed Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
title_sort Different sieving methods for determining the physical characteristics in ground corn
author Biazzi, Heverton Michael
author_facet Biazzi, Heverton Michael
Bee Tubin, Jiovani Sergio
Conte, Renato Augusto
Robazza, Weber da Silva
Paiano, Diovani
author_role author
author2 Bee Tubin, Jiovani Sergio
Conte, Renato Augusto
Robazza, Weber da Silva
Paiano, Diovani
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Biazzi, Heverton Michael
Bee Tubin, Jiovani Sergio
Conte, Renato Augusto
Robazza, Weber da Silva
Paiano, Diovani
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.
animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.
topic animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.
animal nutrition; corn milling; feed processing; geometric particle size; geometric standard deviation.
description We evaluated various sieving methods to estimate particle size (PS) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) of ground corn. The corn had been previously divided in six fractions and each one ground in a hammermill (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- or 12-mm sieves). The stacked sieving method, with prior drying at 105ºC without agitators was the reference. We evaluated eight sieving methods, distributed in a factorial design (2 x 2 x 2 x 6), consisting of the following treatments: i) with and without agitators (two 25-mm rubber spheres), ii) with and without previous drying, iii) with a nest of test sieves set in a stacked or reverse, and iv) employing six ground corn degrees, totaling 48 treatments (four replicates). There was a linear increase in PS estimation for methods without drying and stacking and quadratic increases for the others. Reverse, drying, and agitator methodologies gave better sieving of corn, and consequently gave the lowest PS and highest GSD. The results were more pronounced for high-intensity grinding (hammermill sieve with small apertures) in which the differences between the reference method with the drying and reverse methods were up to 210 µm. Reverse sieving combined with agitators allowed the greatest passage of corn particles through the test sieves and promoted better characterization of ground corn.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-12-22
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/53382
10.4025/actascianimsci.v44i1.53382
url https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/53382
identifier_str_mv 10.4025/actascianimsci.v44i1.53382
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/53382/751375153374
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; Vol 44 (2022): Publicação contínua; e53382
Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; v. 44 (2022): Publicação contínua; e53382
1807-8672
1806-2636
reponame:Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)
instacron:UEM
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)
instacron_str UEM
institution UEM
reponame_str Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)
collection Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv actaanim@uem.br||actaanim@uem.br|| rev.acta@gmail.com
_version_ 1799315363586899968