Representation and Evaluation of Particle Size Analysis Data

Abstract

While editing the first issues of Particle Characterization it has been recognized by the editors that the papers submitted differ widely in the representation of data and in the nomenclature chosen to characterize such common variables as particle size, different equivalent particle diameters, average particle sizes, cumulative and density values of a distribution etc. In oder to make papers published in this Journal more readily assimilable and graphs representing particle size analysis data instantly recognizable by using agreed upon standardized nomenclature the following paper has been submitted by one of the editors. It was first presented at the Harold Heywood Memorial Symposium, September 1974, at the University of Technology, Loughborough, U. K.

Mean Particle Diameters. From Statistical Definition to Physical Understanding

“…German (DIN) Notation System (Rumpf and Ebert, 1964;DIN 66 141;Leschonski, 1984) The acronym DIN is the abbreviated name of the German Institute for Standardization (Deutsches Institut für Normung) and is used in the names of its standards, like DIN 66 141. This section does not present full details of the DIN system, but only gives an overview of aspects necessary for a comparison (in Section 2.3.3) of this system with the M-R system.…”

“…), is rather complicated interrelationships between mean diameters. For example, it has been shown (Leschonski, 1984) that…”

“…Substitution of Eq. (26) (Rumpf and Ebert, 1964;Leschonski, 1984), is used for estimation of both parameters of a lognormal distribution function, i.e., for the location parameter ) ( exp y µ and for the dispersion parameter ) ( exp y σ .…”

“…(16), given in the DIN/ISO notation, describes this saw-tooth shape (Eq. (27) in (Leschonski, 1984)):…”

“…of particles), but also with physical quantities such as "length, area, volume or with constant particle density: mass. This is the decisive difference from ordinary statistics where the type of quantity used always is a number" (Leschonski, 1984). However, the difference is not as decisive as stated, as the estimation of higher moments is also of interest in ordinary statistics (Yule and Kendall, 1965;Aitchison and Brown, p. 12, 94).…”