Powder Technology 121 Ž2001.

159–167
www.elsevier.comrlocaterpowtec

Estimation of coating time in the magnetically assisted impaction

coating process
P. Singh a,) , T.K.S. Solanky b, R. Mudryy a , R. Pfeffer c , R. Dave a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, UniÕersity Heights, Newark, NJ 07102, USA
b
Department of Mathematics, UniÕersity of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, UniÕersity Heights, Newark, NJ 07102, USA
Received 15 August 2000; received in revised form 6 March 2001; accepted 8 March 2001

Abstract

A model is developed for estimating the coating time in a magnetically assisted impaction coating ŽMAIC. device. The mixture of the
host, guest and magnetic particles is assumed to be in a fluidized state where the distribution of velocities is a Maxwell–Boltzman type. It
is assumed that the collisions among the particles are important for impinging the guest particles onto the surface of host particles, and
thus forming a semi-permanent coating on the surface of host particles. The coating time is shown to depend on several parameters,
including the number density of host particles, the diameter ratio of the host and guest particles, the height of the fluidized particle bed
and the material properties of the host and guest particles. Our model shows that there is an optimal value of the bed height for which the
coating time is a minimum. The coating time increases sharply when the bed height is smaller or larger than the optimal value, and also
when the diameter of host particles is increased. A comparison of the model results with experimental data shows surprisingly good
agreement for the coating time as a function of host particle surface covered considering the many assumptions that were made in
deriving the model. q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Coating time; MAIC device; Bed height

1. Introduction that were popular in the past have become less desirable
because of environmental concerns over the resulting waste
In several key industries, e.g., pharmaceutical, cosmet-
solutions and possible VOC emissions w14x. Dry coating
ics and food, surface modification processes are routinely
processes, on the other hand, which directly attach fine
used to change the physical and chemical surface proper-
materials Žguest particles. onto the surface of larger core
ties of particulates. For example, in pharmaceutical appli-
particles Žhost particles. by mechanical means without
cations, drug particles may be coated onto larger excipient
using any solvents, binders or even water, are a promising
particles and the composite particle further coated with
alternative approach w14x. In this paper, we will discuss
wax or polymer to make the drug enteric or provide
and model one such dry coating process called the magnet-
time-release properties. In the cosmetics industry, particles
ically assisted impaction coating process ŽMAIC. that has
used in eye shadow, for example, are coated with smaller
been successfully used to coat particulates.
guest particles providing anti-bacterial protection. In other
The MAIC process for coating particulates can be used
applications including foods, it is often necessary to de-
in both batch and continuous modes w14,18x. In the batch
crease the rate of moisture absorption of a particulate
mode, a hollow cylinder filled with the magnetic Ž200–
product in order to increase its shelf life. Therefore it is
1000 mm in diameter., host Ž1–200 mm in diameter. and
desirable to have a hydrophobic coating on the particle
guest particles Ž5 nm–1 mm in diameter. is placed in an
surface, which can be achieved by coating hydrophilic
alternating magnetic field generated by a SQUID magne-
particles with hydrophobic guest particles. Conventional
tometer Žsee Fig. 1.. The alternating magnetic field in the
particle coating methods such as pan coaters and a variety
device applies a time-dependent torque to the non-spheri-
of fluidized bed coaters or wet-chemistry based techniques
cal magnetic particles. The magnitude and direction of the
torque depends on the relative orientation of the magnetic
)
Corresponding author. particle and the instantaneous magnetic field. The torque

0032-5910r01r$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 3 2 - 5 9 1 0 Ž 0 1 . 0 0 3 3 5 - 7
160 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167
Fig. 1. Schematic of MAIC device.
causes the magnetic particles to rotate and collide ran-
domly with the host and guest particles, as well as with
each other. These collisions cause the magnetic particles to
orient randomly relative to the applied magnetic field, and,
hence, the torque distribution can be assumed to be ran-
dom. The random torque, and the resulting random colli-
sions among the magnetic and other particles, cause the
particulate mixture to fluidize against gravity. The colli-
sions in this fluidized state are important for mixing of the
host and guest particles, and, as we will discuss later, for
causing the plastic deformations that are important in the
coating Žadhesion. of host particles with the guest parti-
cles.
Our objective in this paper is to identify the factors that
collectively determine the efficiency of the MAIC process,
and develop a model to predict and optimize the MAIC
process. It should be noted that the MAIC process is
difficult to model because the dynamics at several different
length and time scales, that differ by several orders of
magnitudes, are important. The largest length scale is the
device scale at which the magnetic field is applied to
fluidize the mixture. The length scale of the order of
particle size is important because the collisions at this
scale provide the AmechanicalB force needed for impinging
the guest particles onto the surface of the host particles.
Also, the frequency of collision among the fluidized parti-
cles determines the residence time needed for coating the
host particles. If the sizes of host, guest and magnetic
particles differ substantially, the problem of modeling at
the particle scales could also be broken up into a set of
simpler problems. The third length scale is of the order of
the molecular size. This length scale is important because
at this length scale the molecules on the surfaces of
colliding particles are rearranged during the collisions to
form a semi-permanent bond between the host and guest
particles.
The above discussion suggests that the problem of
modeling of the coating process can be divided into three
approximately independent sub-problems, as the length
and time scales for these sub-problems are quite different.
In this paper, we will develop a model that attempts to
capture the physics at the particle scale. Specifically, in
our model we will assume that there are two factors that
collectively determine the coating time for the MAIC
process. First, the host and guest particles are thoroughly
mixed together so that the guest particles are in contact
with the surface of the host particles. This may be difficult
to achieve in practice because the host and guest particles
differ in size by at least an order of magnitude, and, thus,
when the mixture is agitated, the gravitational force can
cause segregation. Second, the relative velocity distribu-
tion for the guest particles, and for the host particles,
includes the range where the collisions are sufficiently
strong for forming semi-permanent bonds. This is required
because when the guest particles are simply placed close to
the surface of a host particle the attractive forces are not
strong enough to hold them together, i.e., the guest parti-
cles can be easily rubbed off. But if the particles collide
with a sufficiently large kinetic energy the resulting plastic
deformation increases the contact area between the host
and guest particles. This in turn increases the magnitude of
the attractive van der Walls force to a level necessary for
forming a semi-permanent bond. The relative velocity of
the particles, however, should not be too large because
then the particles are more likely to rebound away from
each other. Determining the range of kinetic energy for
which the collisions are conducive for forming permanent
bonds is still an active area of research.
 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167
Experiments show that the relative hardness of the host
and guest particles, the surface roughness, and the surface
chemistry of the host and guest particles, which determines
the adhesive force between them, are also important fac-
tors that determine whether a permanent coating can be
formed w14,18x. In our analysis of the MAIC process, we
will ignore these issues, and simply assume that a perma-
nent bond between the particles can be formed provided
the particles collide with a sufficiently large kinetic energy
to impinge the guest particles onto the surface of host
particle.
2. Modeling of the dry coating process
As noted before, in the MAIC process the particle
mixture is in a gas-like or fluidized state where the parti-
cles collide randomly with each other. In this fluidized
state the two factors controlling the rate of coating are the
collision frequency and the fraction of collisions for which
the relative velocity is sufficiently large for forming the
semi-permanent bonds. These two factors collectively de-
termine the time duration for which a batch-coating device
must be operated, and the residence time required in a
continuous process. An estimate of this time is obtained by
assuming that the particles collide randomly with each
other, and that the system is in a state of homogeneous
statistical equilibrium.
For estimating the time scales involved in the coating
process, we will assume that the velocity distribution for
the fluidized state to be Maxwell–Boltzmann w6,10x. Let
n h , n m and n g be the number densities of the host,
magnetic and guest particles, respectively. The average
mean square fluctuation energy or the temperature of the
system is
1 n
Ts
3nk B
Ý m i Õi2 , Ž 1.
is1
where Õi is the velocity of the ith particle, m i is the mass
of the ith particle, n is the number density of particles, and
k B is the Boltzmann constant. It can be shown that for this
fluidized system the average collision frequency among
the host particles is
1 16 k B T
q hh s p n2h d h2
2 ( p mh
, Ž 2.
and between the host and guest particles is
p 8 k BT
q hg s
4
n h n g d h2 ( p mg
, Ž 3.
where d h and m h are, respectively, the diameter and mass
of host particles, and m g is the mass of host particle. Since
the guest particles are at least 10 times smaller than the
161
host particles, the mass of host particles is at least three
orders of magnitudes greater than that of the guest parti-
cles. Therefore, from Eqs. Ž2. and Ž3. we obtain that
q hg 4 q hh . This implies that the time scales for the two
collision processes also differ by several orders of magni-
tudes. Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the two
processes are not coupled, and the mechanisms at these
scales can be investigated independently. This, in fact, can
be used to verify which one of the above two collision
frequencies determines the coating time.
2.1. Estimation of number of collisions needed for coating
In order to estimate the time taken to coat the host
particle surface with the guest particles, we will assume
that the host particle surface can be divided into m hypo-
thetical bins with area equal to the cross-sectional area of
the guest particles. The number of bins thus is approxi-
mately equal to the number of guest particles needed to
coat the particle surface. It is discussed in Appendix A that
the expected value of the number of collisions needed to
hit mX of the m surface bins by random collisions is equal
to Ž d hrd g . 2 f Ž m,mX ., where f Ž m,mX . is defined in terms of
a series Žsee Eq. ŽA.2. in Appendix A.. When m and mX
are known, f Ž m,mX . can be obtained by adding the terms
appearing in the series.
We will also assume that, with probability p, an un-
filled bin is filled when it collides with another host or
guest particle, depending on which collisions are consid-
ered important for forming the semi-permanent bonds.
Therefore, when 90% of the surface bins have suffered
these ArightB kind of collisions, we will assume that 90%
of the host particles surface area is coated.
2.2. Coating time
In our discussion, we will assume that both set of
collisions, i.e., among the host particles as well as between
the host and guest particles, are important. Then, we can
derive two different estimates for the coating time based
on the frequencies of the host–host and the host–guest
collisions. These two estimates for the coating time could
be compared with the experimental data to determine
which set of collisions determine the coating time.
It is noteworthy that the coating time based on the
host–host collisions assumes that in the fluidized state the
guest particles become loosely attached to the host parti-
cles, and the composite particles thus formed move as
independent units. As the total mass of the guest particles
attached to a host particle is much smaller than that of the
host particle, the mass of the composite particle can be
assumed to be approximately equal to that of the host
particle. The collisions between these composite particles
determine the coating time, as during the collisions the
loosely attached guest particles are impinged onto the
162 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167

surface of host particles. Also note that since the guest 2.3. Coating time in terms of the bed height
particles are attached to the host particles this approxima-
tion implies that the guest particles do not move indepen- In order to obtain a simplified expression for the coat-
dently. ing time in terms of the bed height, we will assume that
By using the results for the collision frequencies, it can the volume fractions of the guest and magnetic particles is
be shown that the time taken to cover mX of the m surface much smaller than that of the host particles. The volume
bins of host particles based on the collisions among the fraction of the guest particles is assumed to be small, as
host and guest particles is only a relatively small volume of the guest particles is
2 required to cover the surface of host particles. The volume
4 dh p mg
t c < hg s
p pn g d h2 ž /(
dg 8 k BT
f Ž m,mX . . Ž 4. fraction of magnetic particles required to fluidize particles
in a MAIC device, however, may not be small, especially
when the magnetic strength of magnetic particles or the
Similarly, the coating time based on the collisions among applied field is weak. In this paper, we will simplify our
the host Žor composite. particles is analysis by assuming that the applied magnetic field is
2 dh
2
p mh sufficiently strong to fluidize the bed even when the
t c < hh s
p pn h d h2 ž /(
dg 16 k B T
f Ž m,mX . . Ž 5. volume fraction of magnetic particles is small. The above
two assumptions imply that the pressure acting on the
walls is approximately equal to the collision pressure
It is difficult to compare the above two expressions for
between the host particles and the wall. Therefore, in our
the coating time with the experimental data as they contain
analysis of the pressure acting on the walls we will ignore
variables that may be difficult to measure. To simplify the
the contributions of magnetic and guest particles. This
above expressions, we will relate the collision pressure at
leads to the following simplified relationship between the
the bottom of bed to the total weight of suspended parti-
pressure and the kinetic energy
cles
k B T s m h gH , Ž 8.
D p s p B y p T s r gH , Ž 6.
where H is bed height Žsee Fig. 2., g is the acceleration where m h is the mass of host particles.
due to gravity, r is the averaged mass density in the bed, Assuming that the spatial distributions of particle posi-
and p B and p T are the pressures at the bottom and top of tions and velocities in the bed is uniform, from Eqs. Ž5.
the bed, respectively. We will also assume that the maxi- and Ž8. we obtain the following expression for the coating
mum pressure is at the bottom and the pressure at the top time
is zero, and varies linearly in-between. This assumption 2
1 dh p
allows us to relate the pressure at the bottom of the bed to
the average kinetic energy at the bottom
t c < hh s
2p pn h d h2 ž /(
dg gH
f Ž m,mX . . Ž 9.

p B s nTk B . Ž 7. The above expression contains only macroscopic quanti-

From Eqs. Ž6. and Ž7., we can obtain a relationship ties, and, thus, it can be easily compared with experimental
between the average kinetic energy within the bed and the data.
bed height. Expression Ž5. for the coating time can be simplified for
another important case where the volume fraction of guest
particles is negligible but that of the magnetic particles is
of the same order as that of the host particles. For this
case, it is easy to show that expression Ž5. reduces to
2
1 dh p mh Ž nh q nm .
t c < hh s
2p pn h d h2 ž /(
dg Hg Ž m h n h q m m n m .

Fig. 2. A schematic of a magnetically fluidized bed. H is the fluidized
bed height and H0 is the height before fluidization.
=f Ž m,mX . . Ž 10 .
where m h and n h are the mass and number density of
magnetic particles, respectively. It is noteworthy that in
this expression for the coating time only the host–host
collisions are considered important. But, when the volume
fraction and size of the magnetic and host particles is
comparable the collisions among the host and magnetic
particles may also be important. An expression for the
coating time that includes the contribution of the collisions
 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167 163

among the host and magnetic particles can be obtained case the particles cannot collide with each other, and,
easily using the expression obtained above. therefore, the analysis presented here is not valid. In other
It is convenient to write expression Ž9. in terms of the words, the bed should be fluidized to convert the magnetic
number density and the bed height before the magnetic torque acting on the particles into the kinetic energy. The
field is switched on. From the conservation of number above expression, however, does not account for the fact
density, we have that when the bed expands the kinetic energy of particles
increases which may increase the fraction of collisions that
n h H s n h 0 H0 , result in the formation of semi-permanent bonds.
where H0 is the bed height, and n h0 is the host number It has been suggested that the material properties of the
density before the bed is expanded. This allows us to write host and guest particles determine the kinetic energy re-
the expression for the coating time as quired during collisions for forming semi-permanent bonds
w1–5,7,9,11–16x. More specifically, a collision results into
1 dh
2
p the formation of a semi-permanent bond only when the
t c < hh s
2p pn h 0 H0 d h2 ž /(
dg gH
f Ž m,mX . . Ž 11 . relative velocity is between v1 and v2, where v1 is the
minimum velocity that is required for impinging the guest
particle into the host particle surface and v2 is the upper
Alternatively, we may write the above expression for the limit of relative velocity above which the particles simply
coating times in terms of the solids fraction of host parti- rebound. It can be shown that when v1 and v2 are known,
cles p for a bed height of H is given by
2
dh H dh p 1 v2 2 yÕ 2 rŽ4 g H .
t c < hh s
12 pf h 0 H0 ž /(
dg gH
f Ž m,mX . , Ž 12 . ps
2'p Ž gH .
3r2 H
v1
Õ e dÕ. Ž 13 .

The above assumes that all collisions with the relative

where f h0 s Žp d h3r6. n h0 is the solids fraction of the host
velocity between v1 and v2 lead to the formation of
particles before the magnetic field is switched on.
semi-permanent bonds. This expression for p can be sub-
This expression suggests that the coating time decreases
stituted in Eq. Ž12. to obtain the following expression for
with increasing H0 suggesting that the initial height of the
the coating time in terms of v1, v2, bed height, solids
particle bed should be as large as possible. It may, how-
fraction and the host and guest particle diameters
ever, not be practical to have H0 very large, as the bed
may be difficult to fluidize. The coating time also de- 2
creases with increasing n h0 or solids fraction indicating dh H dh p
that the solids fractions of guest and magnetic particles
should be kept small. Of course, sufficient magnetic parti-
t c < hh s
12 f h 0 H0 ž /(
dg gH
f Ž m,mX .

cles must be present to allow for fluidization of the hosts 3r2

2'p Ž gH .
and guest particles.
The coating time can be obtained using expression Ž12.
when the particles size, their number densities, the bed
height and p are known. For example, consider the case
=
v2 2 yÕ 2 r Ž 4 g H .
Hv1 Õ e dÕ 0 . Ž 14 .

It is noteworthy that expression Ž14. for the coating

where the host particles diameter is 10 mm, and the guest
time contains no adjustable parameters and therefore the
particle diameter is 0.1 mm. Before fluidization, the solids
coating time can be obtained when the particles size, their
fraction of host particles is 0.6 and the bed height is 2 cm.
number densities, H, H0 , v1 and v2 are known. Note that
After the magnetic field is applied, the bed expands to a
for d hrd g and the other parameters fixed, the coating time
height of 10 cm. In this example, we will assume that
increases with increasing d h . It also suggests that the
p s 0.01, i.e., only 1% of the collisions leads to coating.
initial bed height H0 and the initial solids fraction f h0
By substituting in Eq. Ž12., for this case we find that the
should be as large as possible for reducing the coating
time to coat 99% of the surface is equal to 255 s. This
time.
estimate of coating time is of the same of order of magni-
tude as we found in our experiments w14x.
From expression Ž12., we note that when p is constant
the coating time increases as the square root of the bed 3. Results and discussions
height. This increase of the coating time is due to the
decrease in the number density of host particles as the bed In Fig. 3, the time required for 99% coating given by
is expanded. Expression Ž12. suggests that for increasing expression Ž14. is plotted as a function of the bed height
the coating efficiency the bed height should be kept as for three different values of v1 and v2. The other parame-
small as possible. This, however, does not imply that the ters are the same as in Section 2. It is interesting to note
bed should not be allowed to expand at all because in that that for all three cases there is an optimal value of H,
164 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167

Fig. 3. The time tc required to coat 99% of the host particle surface given by Eq. Ž14. is shown as a function of the bed height H. d h s 10 mm, d g s 0.1
mm, f h0 s 0.6, H0 s 0.02 and g s 9.81. Ža. v1 s 1.5, v2 s 3, Žb. v1 s 1.5, v2 s 5, Žc. v1 s 2.5, v2 s 5. Notice that there is an optimal value of H for
which the coating time is minimum.

denoted by Hopt , for which the coating time is minimum.
For example, in Fig. 3a the coating time is minimum when
Hopt ; 0.06. When the bed height is larger or smaller than
Hopt , the coating time is larger. The coating time increases
relatively rapidly when the bed height is decreased below
Hopt . This is a consequence of the fact that when H is
much smaller than Hopt the relative velocity for most
collisions is smaller than v1. On the other hand, when H
is much larger than Hopt the relative velocity for most
collisions is larger than v2, and thus the coating time is
 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167 165

Fig. 4. For four different values of H, the time t c required to coat the fractional surface area Scoated of the host particle is shown. d h s 10 mm, d g s 0.1
mm, f h0 s 0.6, H0 s 0.02, g s 9.81, v1 s 1.5 and v2 s 5. Notice that t c increases exponentially with Scoated and that the coating time for H s 0.08 is
smaller than that for H s 0.04 and 0.2.

larger. From Fig. 3, we also note that the width of t c
versus H curve near the minimum increases with increas-
ing v2–v1. The optimal value of H increases when v1 or
v2 is increased. This may be desirable because when
H ; Hopt , the coating time is relatively insensitive to H,
and therefore approximate operating conditions for the
coating device can be selected relatively easily. The time
required to coat a fractional surface area Scoated of the host
particle is shown in Fig. 4 for four different values of H.
The figure shows that t c increases exponentially with
Scoated. Also notice that the coating time for H s 0.04 is
smaller than that for H s 0.08, indicating, as noted above,
that there is an optimal value of coating time.
In Fig. 5, we have compared our estimate for the time t c
required to coat the fractional surface area Scoated with the
experimental data available for the PMMArAl 2 O 3 system
w14x. The size of the PMMA particles is 200 mm and that
of the alumina particles is 0.7 mm. Here we have estimated

Fig. 5. The time t c required to coat the fractional surface area Scoated of the host particle is compared with the experimental data for H s 0.08. d h s 200
mm, d g s 0.7 mm, f h0 s 0.6, H0 s 0.02, g s 9.81, v1 s 1.5 and v2 s 5. Notice that for these values of v1 and v2, there is good agreement between
experimental data and the model predictions.
166 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167
that the bed height, H f 0.08, f h0 f 0.6, H0 f 0.02 and
g s 9.81. For the PMMArAl 2 O 3 system, v1 and v2 are
not known, but when v1 s 1.5 and v2 s 5 there is a good
agreement between the experimental data points and model
predictions.
It is noteworthy that the problem of developing an
estimate for the coating time for a general case is far more
complicated than assumed in our model. Specifically, the
coating process is a multi-length and time scale process,
and, therefore, strictly speaking, the mechanics at all rele-
vant scales must be included in the model. But, when the
collision among particles determines the coating time, the
diameter of guest particles is at least 10 times smaller than
that of the host particles, and the system is in a fluidized
state of equilibrium, the model developed in this paper can
be used to estimate the coating time.
Finally, we note that the two coating times based on the
host–guest and host–host collisions, given by expressions
Ž4. and Ž5., differ by several order of magnitudes. They
can be compared with the experimental data for the time
taken to coat the particles, and thus determine the role of
the host–guest and host–host collisions in the coating
process. In particular, these two expressions for the coating
time can be used to test the hypothesis advocated by Singh
et al. w18x that a semi-permanent coating is formed in a
two-step process. The first set of collisions among the host
and guest particles causes the guest particles to loosely
attach with the host particle surface. Then a set of colli-
sions among the host particles is required to impinge the
loosely attached guest particles into the surface of the host
particle, making the coating semi-permanent. Our prelimi-
nary results support this hypothesis, as the time needed to
coat particles is of the order given by Eqs. Ž12. and Ž14.
that assume that only the host–host collisions are impor-
tant.
4. Conclusions
According to our model, the coating time in the MAIC
device depends on the number density of host particles, the
diameters of the host and guest particles, the initial and
final bed heights, and the material properties of the host
and guest particles. Also, as discussed in the previous
section, there is an optimal value of the bed height for
which the coating time is a minimum. The coating time
increases sharply when the bed height is smaller or larger
than the optimal value, and also when the diameter of host
particles is increased. The model also suggests that the
coating time decreases when the initial bed height is
increased and also when the ratio of host and guest particle
diameters is reduced. There is good agreement between the
model predictions and our experimental data for the coat-
ing time as a function of host particle surface covered.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the New Jersey
Commission on Science and Technology grant Ž97-100-
020-2890-051-6130., the Particle Technology Center at
NJIT and the National Science Foundation grants ŽCTS-
98-73236 and CTS-9985618.. The authors also wish to
thank Michelle Ramlakhan for providing the experimental
data shown in Fig. 5.
Appendix A
In this appendix, we discuss the problem of estimating
the time taken to coat the host particles. We will assume
that during each collision a fraction of the host particle
surface, equal to the guest particles cross-sectional area, is
coated. In order to estimate the number of collisions
needed to coat a fraction of the host particle surface, we
will divide the host particle into m hypothetical bins of
equal area. The area of one of these bins is approximately
equal to the cross-sectional area of the guest particles.
Thus, the number of bins is equal to the number of guest
particles needed to coat the particle surface. We will
assume that both filled and unfilled surface bins are equally
likely to suffer the next collision as all orientations of the
host particle are equally likely. The filling of bins, there-
fore, is a Poisson process. Since both filled and unfilled
bins are equally likely to suffer collisions, we expect the
number of collisions needed to fill m bins to be larger than
m. The expected value of the number of collisions needed
to hit mX of the m surface bins by random collisions can be
shown to be w8,17x
2
dh
f Ž m,mX . ,
n coll s
ž / dg
Ž A.1 .
where
X
m 1
X
f Ž m,m . s 4 Ý . Ž A.2 .
js1 myj
The above analysis assumes that, with probability one, an
unfilled bin is filled when it collides with another host or
guest particle. In the MAIC device, on the other hand, only
a fraction of the collisions will lead to the formation of
semi-permanent bonds because for some collisions the
kinetic energy may not be in the right range. By assuming
that only a fraction p of the total collisions leads to the
formation of semi-permanent attachment between particles,
we may write
2
1 dh
f Ž m,mX . .
n coll s
p ž /
dg
Ž A.3 .
 P. Singh et al.r Powder Technology 121 (2001) 159–167
References
w1x R.S. Bradley, Philos. Mag. 13 Ž1932. 853.
w2x R.S. Bradley, Trans. Faraday Soc. 32 Ž1936. 1088.
w3x B. Dahneke, Particle-Surface Collision Dynamics: What Might They
Tell Us. Advances in Particle Adhesion, Gordon Breach Publisher,
1996, pp. 125–137.
w4x B.V. Derjaguin, Kolloid-Z. 69 Ž1934. 155.
w5x B.V. Derjaguin, V.M. Muller, P.Y. Toporov, J. Colloid Interface
Sci. 53 Ž1975. 314.
w6x T.L. Hill, An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics. Dover
Publications, New York, 1986.
w7x K.L. Johnson, K. Kendall, A.D. Roberts, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser.
A 324 Ž1971. 301.
w8x N.L. Johnson, S. Kotz, Urn Models and their Applications. Wiley,
New York, 1977.
w9x H. Krupp, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1 Ž1967. 111.
w10x L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics. 3rd edn., Pergamon,
Oxford, England, 1989 Part 1.
167
w11x D.J. Quesnel, D.S. Rimai, L.P. DeMejo, Solid State Commun . 85
Ž1993. 171.
w12x D.J. Quesnel, D.S. Rimai, L.P. DeMejo, Phys. Rev. B 48 Ž1993.
6795.
w13x D.J. Quesnel, D.S. Rimai, L.P. DeMejo, Molecular dynamic model-
ing of interfacial energy. J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 9 Ž1995. 1015–
1030.
w14x M. Ramlakhan, C.Y. Wu, S. Watano, R.N. Dave, R. Pfeffer, Dry
particle coating using magnetically assisted impaction coating
ŽMAIC.: modification of surface properties and optimization of
system and operating parameters. Powder Technol. 112 Ž2000.
137–148.
w15x J. Reed, in: K.L. Mittal ŽEd.., Particles on Surfaces 2: Detection,
Adhesion, and Removal. Plenum, New York, 1988, pp. 3–18.
w16x L.N. Rogers, J. Reed, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 17 Ž1984. 677.
w17x D.B. Percival, A.T. Walden, Spectral Analysis for Physical Applica-
tions. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993.
w18x R.K. Singh, A. Ata, J. FitzGerald, Y.I. Rabinovich, W. Hendrickson,
Coating method for synthesis of composite particulates. Kona 15
Ž1997. 121.