Int.

Agrophysics, 2005, 19, 119-124 INTERNATIONAL

Agrophysics
www.ipan.lublin.pl/int-agrophysics

Wheat flour flowability as affected by water activity, storage time and consolidation**
E. Domian* and K. Poszytek
Department of Food Engineering and Process Management, Warsaw Agricultural University, Nowoursynowska 159c
02-787 Warszawa, Poland

Received December 2, 2004; accepted January 26, 2005

A b s t r a c t. The influence of water activity, storage time and Changes in particle properties (moisture content,
consolidation on the flowability of wheat flour were evaluated. particle size) and storage conditions may influence the
Powder flowability was measured using a Jenike shear tester flowability of powders, sometimes even small changes can
according to the Jenike procedure at four levels of normal
have significant effects. Storage conditions include storage
consolidating stress within the range of 4.9-17.5 kPa. Flour was
placed in a humidity chamber to obtain samples of flour at 0.33 and temperature, exposure to humidity of air, storage time, and
0.8 water activity. Instantaneous shear tests were performed at consolidation (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004b; Horabik, 2001;
temperature of 20°C on each sample, from which the instantaneous Teunou and Fitzpatrick, 1999). Moisture content usually has
flow functions were obtained. Time consolidation tests on the flour a significant impact on powder flowability. Increasing
at 0.33 and 0.8 water activity were carried out using a Jenike shear moisture content leads to reduced flowability due to the
cell and consolidating bench for the consolidation time of 1 and 7 increase in liquid bridges and capillary forces acting
days. Temporal flow functions of the flour were determined to between the powder particles. Even a free flowing powder
quantify the combined effect of moisture content, time and
can develop flow problems after an extended period of
compression stress.
K e y w o r d s: flow function, powder, shear test, wheat flour
storage. This effect is due to time-consolidation, where a pow-
der consolidates under its own weight over time (Teunou
INTRODUCTION and Fitzpatrick, 2000).
It is obvious that flow characteristics of powders are
Powder properties measurement is important because highly dependent on their compaction. Powders can be more
these properties intrinsically affect powder behaviour or less expanded or contracted when stressed, thus leading to
during storage, handling and processing. Powder flow a large variety of inter-particle forces. Factors associated
properties are important in handling and processing with the nature of the particles are size, shape, surface
operations, such as flow from hoppers and silos, morphology (Molerus and Nywlt, 1984; Teunou et al.,
transportation, mixing, compression and packaging. Powder 1999). Packing ability should be considered when studying
flow characteristics are commonly investigated by various powder flow properties, but particle forces associated with
measurements, such as handling angles, tap testing, shear these factors should also be taken into consideration. Then,
cell measurements, etc. All these approaches allow the a powder must be considered as a whole medium that sums
calculation of indices characterizing powder flowability up all these interactions at the particle contacts. Powder flow
(Peleg, 1978; Schwedes, 1996; Tchoreloff et al., 1999). properties are influenced by any factor that can have an
Flow properties of powder must be studied in terms of effect on these interactions (Deleuil et al., 1994).
quality control of raw materials in order to maintain product Powder flow characteristics are commonly investigated
uniformity, but also to avoid situations in which process under loading conditions of gravity, using measurements
breakdown may occur, with respect to imposed conditions. such as the angle of repose and other handling angles,
standardized flow rate, apparent and ‘tapped’ densities, and
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: domian@alpha.sggw.waw.pl derived indices such as defined by Abdullah and Geldart
**The paper is published in the frame of activity of the Centre of
Excellence AGROPHYSICS - Contract No. QLAM-2001-00428
sponsored by EU within the 5FP.
© 2005 Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences
120 E. DOMIAN and K. POSZYTEK

(1999), Carr (1965) or Hausner (1967). Such measurements commercial and moistened flour. A pneumatic moistening
have demonstrated the dependence of powders flow on cell (laboratory made model) was used to obtain the required
particle shape and size distribution, on temperature and level of water activity.
relative humidity, but they have been proved difficult to
relate to features at particulate level. Physical properties measurement
Thus, a more fundamental and physical measurement
• Particle size distribution determination was performed
should be easily achievable using shear cells (Horabik and
with a Kamika model AWK – V 97 particle size analyzer
Grochowicz, 2002; Jenike, 1964; Kamath et al., 1993;
in air with powder feeder unit.
Schulze, 1996). These cells are designed to condition
• Moisture content (wet basis) was measured gravime-
powders under a known load and to measure forces needed
trically by weighing 3 g of a sample before and after
to shear powder beds (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004a; Knowlton et
drying at 105°C for 6 h. Each test was carried out in
al., 1994). This measurement is able to provide useful
triplicate.
indications of powder flow threshold, while the powder bed
• Bulk density was measured using an Engelsmann model
is being loaded. Then, if the forces applied on a powder are
A-G mechanical tapping device, where the volume of a given
approximately known during a given process, intrinsic mass of powder after 500 taps was measured to calculate
information regarding the frictional and cohesive nature of the tapped bulk density.
granular material can be gathered. This information could • Water activity was measured using a Rotronic model
then be relevant during a real process. It is important to note Hygroskop DT 1 device.
that this methodology is time and product consuming and
that correct and reproducible preparation of samples is quite Shear cell measurements
difficult to achieve, and results can be very operator and
know-how dependent. Once frictional properties of a given All measurements were performed with a Jenike shear
powder have been identified by shear testing, tap testing can cell (laboratory made model, diameter of 9.5 cm). Under
be profitably used for routine checks or to establish a uniaxial normal stress, s, a powder bed may develop
conformity of different batches because empirical connec- irreversible packing, resulting in consolidation and leading
tions have been found between tap density values and shear to a tangential force needed to shear the bed. The shear cell
cell determined flow functions (Tchoreloff et al., 1999). was then placed in a chamber, with a temperature of 20°C,
As the characterization of flowability, wide where the shear tests for measuring the instantaneous flow
acknowledgment was gained by the flow function FF function were conducted. The procedure used to measure the
introduced by Jenike (1964), being the dependence of the instantaneous flow function, using the Jenike shear cell. For
unconfined yield strength, sc, on the major consolidating any flow function, four yield loci and four points for each
stress, s1. The flow function FF characterizes the yield locus were obtained. To construct a yield locus, the
susceptibility of a material to disturbances of free outflow powder was critically consolidated under a known normal
from container under the force of gravity, and applies it for consolidating stress, s1, and the shear stress, t, required to
design engineering of silo hoppers. Besides, results of shear cause the powder to fail under four normal stress, s, less
cell tests make possible the qualitative comparison of than the consolidating stress and at the consolidating stress
different bulk materials, on the basis of a parameter were measured. A yield locus is a plot of failure shear stress
proposed by Jenike and Carson (1985) and Schubert (1987). versus normal stress for a given consolidating stress. This is
This parameter is the flow index, ffc, calculated as the repeated for four different consolidating stresses to obtain
relation s1 / sc. Bulk materials can be classified in four yield loci. Every point of the yield locus was repeated
accordance to their flowability using values of the flow four times. A yield locus is presented in Fig. 1. The results of
index, ffc into the following manner: very cohesive (ffc < 2); shear stress measurements are classically interpreted as
cohesive (2 < ffc < 4); easy flowing (4 < ffc < 10); free yield loci in the Mohr space (Schubert, 1987; Schwedes,
flowing (10 < ffc). 1996). The intercept of the yield loci with t axis gives the
The aim of this work was to evaluate the influence of cohesion parameter t and the slope gives rise to kinematic
moisture content, storage time and consolidation on wheat angles, j, of internal friction. From each yield locus, the
flour flowability. following two quantities were estimated by two specific
Mohr circles tangent to the yield loci give rise to the major
MATERIAL AND METHODS consolidating stress, s1, and to the unconfined yield
strength, sc. It gives the stress needed to make an arch
Wheat flour type 500 with different degrees of collapse and make the material flow. A plot of sc versus
moistening was used as a material for investigation. The major consolidating stress, s1 can be obtained and
flour was examined at the water activity, aw: 0.33 and 0.8; represents the flow function FF (Schwedes, 2002).
the water content, u: 11 and 16.1% w w-1 respectively, ei the Time-consolidation tests were carried out using a Jenike
 WHEAT FLOUR FLOWABILITY 121

shear cell and a consolidating bench. Time-consolidation criterion as follows: dry flour – a powder weakly cohesive
test is performed in a similar way to an instantaneous and easy flowing, moist flour – a cohesive material with
flowability test. The four normal consolidating stress, sE, quite difficult flow. The storage time of moist flour can
was 4.9, 9.1, 13.3 and 17.5 kPa and 1 and 7 days result in considerable difficulties in the gravitational
consolidation times were chosen. discharge – in a partial set-back (the creation of tunnels) or
complete stoppage (the creation of vaults over the spout) of
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the flow of material and damage of the behindhand flour
basin.
Unconsolidated wheat flour type 500 with the standard Detailed analysis of the parameters of plastic flow
water activity of 0.33 showed good flowing properties. showed a statistically significant influence of the
Materials characterized by Hausner ratio, IH, smaller than consolidation time and water activity on bulk density,
1.25 are qualified as powders with good flowability cohesion and strength of stored consolidated flour.
(Abdullah and Geldart, 1999; Hausner, 1967). The Bulk density for consolidated (stored) flour, r,
moistening of the flour to the water activity of 0.8 (moisture increases with storage time aside from of the consolidation
content of about 16%) causes the decreasing of loose and stress sE and water activity, aw. The kinetic angle of internal
tapped bulk density, r L , rT – respectively (Table 1). friction, j, of stored flour is characteristic for the given
According to the Jenike criterion, the moistening of flour to water activity, aw, and is related to the storage time (Table
the water activity of 0.8 of the tested flour does not cause 2). The value of the angle j fluctuates within 19-31° for the
changes in the flowability. The instantaneous flow functions flour with aw = 0.33 and within 27-30° for the flour with aw
of the flour with the water activity of 0.33 and 0.8 are found =0.8. Values of the effective angle of internal friction, d,
in one section of the flowing criterion (the flow index 4 < ffc change with consolidation time for the flour with aw = 0.33
< 10) and present them as weakly cohesive, easy flowing in the range 25-36°. The average effective angle of internal
materials (Table 1, Fig. 2). Moisture content affected flow friction, d, for the consolidated flour about aw = 0.8 in the
parameters, however the impact was not strong (Domian range 30-38°.
and Poszytek, 2004). Cohesion, C, of stored flour increases together with the
The storage time of the consolidated flour with the value of the consolidating stress, sE , from 4.89 to 17.5 kPa,
consolidating stress sE = 17.5 kPa causes a worsening of with the extension of the storage time from 0 to 7 days and
the flowability, especially conditioned to the higher with the moisture content from 11 to 16% (Table 2).
moisture content. Flow function FF of the dry flour (aw Differences in cohesion between dry flour (aw = 0.33) and
=0.33) stored for 0, 1 or 7 days was included in the range (4 < moist flour (aw = 0.8) decrease along with increasing storage
ffc < 10) (Fig. 2a). Instead, the flow function of the moist time. The dry flour, characterized with the lower level of
flour (aw = 0.8) consolidated respectively for 0, 1 and 7 days cohesion, C, after 0 and 1 day of storage, after 7 days of
was found in the range (4 < ffc < 10) and (2 < ffc < 4) (Fig. 2b). storage attains the level of cohesion of the moist flour. The
The position of the flow function FF curve gives a basis to cohesion C of the flour with the water activity aw = 0.33 and
the classification of stored flour according to the Jenike 0.8 increases with increasing consolidation time.

t Effective yield locus

Yield locus

C
d

s
sC s1
Fig. 1. Illustration of a powder yield locus. j – kinetic angle of internal friction (°), t – shear stress (Pa), d – effective angle of internal
friction (°), s – normal stress (Pa), s1 – major consolidating stress (Pa), sc – unconfined yield strength (Pa).
122 E. DOMIAN and K. POSZYTEK

T a b l e 1. Physical properties of tested wheat flour

d50* u aw rL rT IH
(mm) (% w w-1) (-) (kg m-3) (kg m-3) (-)
103 11.0 0.33 600 744 1.24
16.4 0.80 593 725 1.22

*d50 – mean particle size.

a
8 0 day
ffc = 2 ffc = 4 1 day

Non-flowing Cohesive 7 days

6
Easy - flowing
sc (kPa)

4
ffc = 10

2
Free-flowing

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
s1 (kPa)

b 8 0 day

ffc = 2 ffc = 4 1 day

Cohesive 7 days
Non-flowing
6
Easy - flowing
sc (kPa)

4
ffc = 10

2
Free-flowing

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
s1 (kPa)
Fig. 2. Effect of storage time and water activity on flow functions FF of wheat flour: a) water activity, aw =0.33; b) water activity, aw=0.8.
 WHEAT FLOUR FLOWABILITY 123

T a b l e 2. Effect of storage time, water activity and consolidation stress on the flow parameters of wheat flour

Storage time aw sE r j d C sc s1 ffc

(days) (-) (kPa) (kg m-3) (°) (°) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (-)
0 0.33 4.89 792 27 33 0.60 1.9 8.2 4.3
9.09 805 26 29 0.74 2.2 12.4 5.6
13.30 820 28 30 0.74 2.3 21.2 9.2
17.50 825 28 33 0.97 3.2 26.2 8.2

0 0.80 4.89 772 31 38 0.92 2.4 8.6 3.6

9.09 789 30 33 1.02 2.5 19.7 7.9
13.30 795 32 34 1.19 3.0 24.8 8.3
17.50 805 26 32 1.79 4.3 31.5 7.3

1 0.33 4.89 813 25 33 0.61 2.2 9.5 4.3

9.09 827 33 39 0.83 3.7 15.0 4.1
13.30 837 33 36 0.95 4.0 22.7 5.7
17.50 842 34 35 1.01 4.5 29.2 6.5

1 0.80 4.89 781 21 30 1.17 2.3 6.8 3.0

9.09 805 30 36 1.52 3.8 14.3 3.8
13.30 813 32 35 1.63 4.1 21.9 5.3
17.50 832 30 33 1.94 4.7 30.4 6.5

7 0.33 4.89 827 17 24 0.77 1.9 7.5 3.9

9.09 840 19 25 1.38 3.3 14.7 4.5
13.30 844 20 25 1.51 3.7 19.2 5.2
17.50 847 21 26 1.90 5.0 29.6 5.9

7 0.80 4.89 789 28 38 1.07 3.4 8.7 2.6

9.09 818 24 32 1.49 4.2 14.6 3.5
13.30 827 30 36 1.69 5.4 21.3 3.9
17.50 837 25 30 2.02 5.9 29.3 5.0
aw – water activity, sE – consolidating stress, r – bulk density of consolidated material, j – kinetic angle of internal friction, d – effective
angle of internal friction, C – cohesion, sc – unconfined yield strength, s1 – major consolidating stress, ffc – flow index.

The unconfined yield strength, sc, increases with the 3. The bulk density and cohesion of the flour increased
storage time and the consolidating stress, sE. The moist flour during the consolidation time resulting in a more compact
(aw = 0.8) is characterized by a higher strength, sc, in and cohesive powder with reduced flowability.
comparison with the dry flour (aw = 0.33). Differences in the 4. The wet flour with water activity of 0.8 (water content
strength increase along with the extension of the storage of 16.1%) was more cohesive than the flour with water
time (Table 2). After 7 days of storage, the moist flour (aw activity of 0.33 (water content of 11%) and showed greater
=0.8) was characterized by a higher unconfined yield sensitivity to time-consolidation.
strength, by 34% in relation to the same flour with water 5. The storage of the moist flour could cause a lot of
activity of 0.33. Aside from of the water activity of the flour difficulties at the gravitational outflow from the reservoir.
and the storage time, an increase in the value of unconfined
yield strength, sc, together with the level of the consoli-
REFERENCES
dating stress, sE, was observed.
Abdullah E.C. and Geldart D., 1999. The use of bulk density
CONCLUSIONS measurements as flowability indicators. Powder Technol.,
102, 151-165.
1. Temporal flow functions were used to assess the Carr R.L., 1965. Evaluating flow properties of solids. Chemical
effect of moisture content, storage time and consolidation on Eng., 72, 163-167.
the flowability of flour. Deleuil M., Chulia D., and Pourcelot Y., 1994. Particle and
2. The tested flour demonstrated time-consolidation powder dynamics. In: Handbook of Powder Technology and
effect. Flowability was reduced with increasing consolidation Pharmaceutical Processes, Chapter 5. (Eds M. Deleuil, D.
time, especially conditioned to the higher moisture content. Chulia, Y. Pourcelot). Elsevier, 115-163.
124 E. DOMIAN and K. POSZYTEK

Domian E. and Poszytek K., 2004. Flowability of the wheat flour Molerus O. and Nywlt M., 1984. The influence of the fine particle
affected by water activity and consolidation (in Polish). Acta content on the flow behavior of bulk materials. Powder
Agrophysica, 4(2), 259-268. Technol., 37, 145-154.
Fitzpatrick J.J., Barringer S.A., and Iqbal T., 2004a. Flow Peleg M., 1978. Flowability of food powders and methods for its
property measurement of food powders and sensitivity of evaluation – a review. J. Food Process Eng., 1, 303-328.
Jenike’s hopper design methodology to the measured values. Schubert H., 1987. Food particle technology. Part I: Properties of
J. Food Eng., 61, 399-405. particles and particulate food systems. J. Food Eng., 6(1),
Fitzpatrick J.J., Iqbal T., Delaney C., Twomey T., and Keogh 1-32.
M.K., 2004b. Effect of powder properties and storage Schulze D., 1996. Measuring powder flowability: a comparison of
conditions on flowability of milk powders with different fat test methods. Part I and II. Powder and Bulk Eng., 10, 45-61,
contents. J. Food Eng., 64, 435-404. 17-28.
Hausner H.H., 1967. Friction conditions in a mass of metal Schwedes J., 1996. Measurement of flow properties of bulk solids.
powder. Int. J. Powder Metallurgy, 3, 7-13. Powder Technol., 88, 285-290.
Horabik J., 2001. Characteristic of physical properties of plant Schwedes J., 2002. Consolidation and flow of cohesive bulk
granular solids important for storage (in Polish). Acta solids. Chemical Eng. Sci., 57, 287-294.
Agrophysica, 54. Tchoreloff P., Leclerc B., Guerin E., Tanguy D., Deleuil M.,
Horabik J. and Grochowicz M., 2002. Strength characteristics and Couarraze G., 1999. Rheological characterization
and dilatation of food powders. Int. Agrophysics, 16, 183-189. of pharmaceutical powders using tap testing, shear cell
Jenike A.W., 1964. Storage and flow of solids. Bulletin No. 123 and mercury porosimeter. Int. J. Pharmaceutics, 189,
Engineering and Experiment Station, 53(26), Utah Univ., USA. 91-103.
Jenike A.W. and Carson J., 1985. Measurement principles of the Teunou E. and Fitzpatrick J.J., 1999. Effect of relative humidity
flowability of powders. Advance Ceramic, 21, 759-766. and temperature on food powder flowability. J. Food Eng.,
Kamath S., Puri V., Manbeck H., and Hogg R., 1993. Flow 42, 109-116.
properties of powders using four testers-measurement, com- Teunou E. and Fitzpatrick J.J., 2000. Effect of storage time and
parison and assessement. Powder Technol., 76, 277-289. consolidation on food powder flowability. J. Food Eng., 43,
Knowlton T.M., Carson J.W., Klinzing G.E., and Yang W.C., 97-101.
1994. The importance of storage, transfer and collection. Teunou E., Fitzpatrick J.J., and Synnott E.C., 1999. Characte-
Chemical Eng. Progress, 90, 44-54. risation of food powder flowability. J. Food Eng., 39, 31-37.