2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.08.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of particle velocity on the stickiness of milk powder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, it is quite likely that these two methodological approaches would produce different stickiness results. An example of this can be seen in the study by Murti et al [9] in which the authors reported a 10-15 • C difference in the SPTs of the same powder when measured using a fluid bed and a particle gun. Although these are both pneumatic methods, the air velocities and particle trajectories vary greatly between the two methods.…”
Section: Comparison Of α-Relaxation Stickiness and Glass Transitionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, it is quite likely that these two methodological approaches would produce different stickiness results. An example of this can be seen in the study by Murti et al [9] in which the authors reported a 10-15 • C difference in the SPTs of the same powder when measured using a fluid bed and a particle gun. Although these are both pneumatic methods, the air velocities and particle trajectories vary greatly between the two methods.…”
Section: Comparison Of α-Relaxation Stickiness and Glass Transitionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In contrast, pneumatic methods, in which the particles come into direct contact with an air stream of increasing/alternating RH, may be considered more accurate, as they most closely simulate the conditions that occur during spray drying. Examples of pneumatic methods that have been used to characterize the stickiness behavior of dairy powders include the fluidization rigs used by Hogan et al [5] and Murti et al [9], the blow test method developed by Brooks [10] and Paterson et al [2], and the particle gun created by Zuo et al [4]. However, the stickiness data generated from these methods can also differ due to differences in air velocities [9], particle trajectories, and contact times between particles and the air stream.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the influence of air humidity on sticking behaviour. Where stickiness is governed by the carbohydrate content, sticking is in general observed at temperatures above glass transition, and the results obtained using different techniques are in general comparable, with differences between techniques attributable to impact velocities or pressures or contact times (Murti et al 2010). Glass transition temperature by rheology method (Tgr), °C Measure of glass transition temperature, °C Fig.…”
Section: Measurement Of Stickinessmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The model involves adhesive forces due to surface tension leading to liquid bridges which become sinter bridges after a minimum contact time; he fitted this model to a previously cited work. However, particle velocity was not directly included in this model, and Murti et al (2010) cast some doubt on the applicability of the model to high-velocity situations. Woo et al (2010) developed a model for wall-particle collisions in which a particle is modelled as a sphere of viscoelastic material that deforms upon colliding with a surface.…”
Section: Measurement Of Stickinessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental deposition tests are performed using the same rig as reported Walmsley et al [10]. The experimental results are analysed in terms of localised wall shear stresses [7] and particle impact angle [11] to determine which is important in relation to the deposition of milk powder. Results are compared to the experimentally validated SMP deposition model reported by Walmsley et al [12] for deposition in an in impingement jet on an angled flat plate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%