Accepted Manuscript

Title: Sieving the Class: Teaching Particle Size Distributions

and Analysis

Authors: Colin Brown, Clive Davies, Nicola Brown, Tony

Paterson

PII: S1749-7728(18)30005-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.03.001
Reference: ECE 162

To appear in: Education for Chemical Engineers

Received date: 1-3-2018

Accepted date: 14-3-2018

Please cite this article as: Brown, Colin, Davies, Clive, Brown, Nicola, Paterson, Tony,
Sieving the Class: Teaching Particle Size Distributions and Analysis.Education for
Chemical Engineers https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.03.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Sieving the Class: Teaching Particle Size Distributions and Analysis

Colin Brown, Clive Davies, Nicola Brown*, Tony Paterson

School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222,

Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.

T
IP
Email addresses: brown.col@gmail.com; C.Davies@massey.ac.nz; N.Brown@massey.ac.nz;

R
A.J.Paterson@massey.ac.nz

SC
*Corresponding author phone number: +64 6 951 7153
U
N
A
Highlights
M

 An interactive method teaching particle size analysis by ‘people sieving’ is presented

 Sieves are constructed by students using cheap and readily available PVC tubing
ED

 Sizes and numbers of sieves are chosen by students based on discussions in class

 People distributions are drawn from student-led ‘people sieving’

PT

 Effects of sieving time and people particle shapes are presented

E
CC

ABSTRACT
A

Some engineering subjects, while mathematically straightforward, can be conceptually

difficult for students to understand. Traditional lecture methods using textbooks and

PowerPoint point slides, while popular with some lecturers, are not always the best teaching

tool when critical concepts require embedding. In this paper we consider the development of a

1
simple exercise to introduce and teach principles of particle size analysis. A practical exercise

we have termed ‘sieving the class’ is introduced and explained and questions relating to size

distributions are discussed. In ‘sieving the class’, the ‘size’ of each person in a volunteer group,

ideally the class itself, is determined using single square apertures analogous to those in a wire

mesh sieve, constructed from plumbing polyvinyl chloride piping. This approach has the

potential to directly engage students in the construction of a size distribution, and to promote

T
and provoke useful supplementary discussion. Ethics approval was required, and obtained, and

IP
an introductory trial was carried out to implement and evaluate the framework outlined here.

R
Student response was assessed in a written survey with more than half the class acknowledging

SC
enhanced understanding of the concept of size distribution and more than eighty percent

recording the lecture experience as enjoyable.

U
N
A
Keywords: Engineering education, particle size analysis, problem based learning
M

1. Introduction
ED

The chemical and process engineering discipline offers students many learning opportunities,
PT

some exciting, others less so, with subject matter of little intrinsic appeal. In the authors’
E

experience, the latter is true of some aspects of particle technology, not because the subject is
CC

theoretically challenging, but because some of the analysis methods used can appear mundane

and somewhat menial and, without context, conceptually difficult to grasp. Despite a
A

reasonable body of literature suggesting that traditional teaching methods are not always best

suited to modern engineering courses, engineering teaching in universities has largely remained

focused on a delivery method that Mills and Treagust (2003) call ‘Chalk and Talk’. A

vernacular equivalent of this might be called ‘Death by PowerPoint’.

2
 In order to enhance students understanding of concepts, active learning is often

proposed (for example Bonwell et al. 1991; Faust and Paulson 1998; Freeman et al. 2014). This

style of learning can take several forms but they all require the students to carry out activities

which facilitate their learning and encourage them to engage with the material in a meaningful

way by applying higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis, evlautaion) (Bonwell et al. 1991).

Advocates of Project Based Learning, where large projects are used to facilitate student

T
lead learning, would suggest that a project based approach to teaching such subject matter

IP
would yield better student results. In reality however, the application of Project Based

R
Learning requires a significant, if not complete, change in direction for many engineering

SC
schools and staff and it is often reported that implementing Project Based Learning can have a

U
significant impact on staff workload (Brodie and Jolly 2010; Chowdhury 2015; Frank et al.
N
2003; Mesquita et al. 2009; Yam and Rossini 2010)
A
A smaller, more manageable change to teaching core knowledge based subjects could
M

be achieved through the application of Problem Based Learning (PBL) approaches where the

problem is carefully designed and the content is managed closely by staff. In some ways this
ED

is similar to the Project-assisted learning system used at Monash University and described by

Mills and Treagust (2003).

PT

Although not a new concept, PBL has been suggested as a framework for teaching

practices. According to Hmelo-Silver (2004), the goals of PBL are designed to help students:
E
CC

(i) construct an extensive and flexible knowledge base;

(ii) develop effective problem-solving skills;

A

(iii) develop self-directed, lifelong learning skills;

(iv) become effective collaborators; and

(v) become intrinsically motivated to learn.

3
The traditional approach to teaching the principles of particle technology has predominantly

targeted goal (i) in the list above, as specialist courses in engineering have centred on the

delivery of knowledge and methods of analysis rather than the development of the non-

knowledge based goals.

The objective of this paper is to outline a framework for teaching particle size analysis

T
principles in a way that better reflects the goals of PBL, with the aim of introducing the

IP
framework to current courses within the School of Engineering and Advanced Technology

(SEAT) at Massey University. The framework is not meant to wholly target the list of goals

R
SC
above but attempts to act as a shift in teaching approach, towards these goals. The

implementation of the framework is in its infancy and, for ethical reasons, content and

U
examples are largely hypothetical, drawing on published data. We have, however, undertaken
N
an introductory trial of ‘sieving the class’, in a formal timetabled lecture, with assistance from
A
staff and postgraduate volunteers, and have surveyed the class with a written questionnaire.
M

2. Current teaching practice

ED

At Massey University, particle technology is first introduced to Chemical and Bioprocess

PT

Engineering and Food Technology students in the second year of a four year degree program

as part of a course on Fluid Flow and Particle Technology. The particle technology content,
E

delivered over twenty 50 minute lectures, includes a section on particle size measurement and
CC

analysis and one of several compulsory laboratory experiments run in conjunction with the

course requires the students to use classical sieving techniques to measure the size distribution
A

of a particulate material. The recommended text is Introduction to Particle Technology

(Rhodes, 2008), which is available to the students through the Massey University library as an

Ebook. New information is introduced using a variety of media, PowerPoint, whiteboard, video

clips, and occasional in-class demonstrations; tutorials are also conducted with a focus on

4
solving realistic problems. Electronic lecture material is also available to the students via a

Virtual Learning Environment termed Stream.

While this particular exercise is focussed on sieving people as a method of simulating

particle size analysis, it is important to note that by undertaking this exercise the students learn

about more than sieving. Sieving is used as a simple method which provides several

opportunities to discuss more fundamental and detailed particle analysis concepts including

T
distributions, influence of shape and it allows the comparison of traditional sieving techniques

IP
with other particle characterisation techniques commonly used in industry.

R
SC
3. Framework for enhancing the teaching of particle size analysis

U
N
A framework is presented with people sieving as its centrepiece. The origins of the idea of
A
people sieving as a teaching aid are unknown to the authors so it is not possible to provide
M

formal acknowledgement to individuals.

ED

3.1 Problem definition

The proposed framework had its origins in the perception by teaching staff that in the absence
PT

of immediate context, many students had difficulty grasping the concepts under pinning
E

particle size distributions and particle size analysis. Implementation of the framework gained
CC

impetus when the Massey University engineering degree offerings were restructured with

significant project based and problem based content.

A

The choice of problem presented to students thus should be:

 Tangible to the students i.e. something that they can visualise without the need for

teaching of background knowledge.

5
  ‘Different’ and provide an opportunity to engage the students who would otherwise be

uninterested in particle technology.

 The basis for a practical exercise that requires direct student involvement.

 Transferable to ‘real world’ applications.

 Achievable within 2-3 hours of lecture time.

T
The following teaching framework would be conducted over three lecture slots -one hour per

IP
lecture- with objectives to:

R
 Introduce the students to the idea of a mean and distribution of particles and discuss the

SC
selection of sieve sizes to gain the best information about a distribution of particles.


U
Construct sieves and collect sieve data into a table.
N
 Calculate a mean and standard error for the distribution, present the information in
A
appropriate plots and discuss the implications of the data collection method.
M

3.2 Lecture one: Preparing the students to conduct particle size analysis.
ED

To minimise the time spent providing background information and to ensure reasonably strict

adherence to the content being targeted, the problem provided to the class should be short and
PT

well defined. For this framework, the chosen problem provided to the students would be:
E

“People come in a range of sizes and shapes. Collectively they form a population
CC

that can be described using statistical tools that are also used in particle

technology. The techniques used to measure size distributions can also be applied
A

to people populations. This class will require you to describe a population of

people using sieving methods”.

The students are then directed to the output of the assignment:

6
 “Using sieving techniques, describe the shape and size of a population of university

students.”

Given that the required teaching is centred on particle size analysis using sieving, the class

would be directed to sieving as a method of data collection. The class should be asked to

answer two questions:

1) “How many sieves do we need?”

T
2) “How big should the sieves be?”

IP
The actual answers to the questions are less important than the discussion they stimulate. The

R
class discussion should be closely led by the lecturer and would be targeted at the collection of

SC
preliminary information about the population. In particular, the students are guided to making

U
assumptions about the likely mean diameter of a person and how large the range of person
N
diameter might be. The discussion should end with the students recognising that the majority
A
of the people diameters will lie within a range centred on the mean, i.e. potentially normally
M

distributed.

The class would then be shown a set of data from Fryar et al. (2012) which describes
ED

the mean, standard deviation and multiple percentiles of the waist circumference of 20+ year

old males and females in the United States of America. The class would then be asked:
PT

“How do we calculate the mean diameter and estimate the distribution of people

diameters?”
E
CC

This would start with a discussion around the characteristic dimension for the ‘particles’.

Depending on the size and shape of the ‘particle’ this might be the shoulders, waist or hips.
A

This provides an opportunity to discuss the importance of shape when characterising particles

via sieving. The class discussion would be centred on the need for the class to make

assumptions, for example, that the characteristic dimension is the waist and that people’s waists

are roughly circular. The relationship between the diameter and circumference is D=C/ π

7
where D is the diameter and C is the circumference. A priority is recognition that particles

exist in populations, and there is opportunity for discussion of different potential distributions,

including the use of a normal distribution for describing the distribution of people sizes as

already noted above.

insert Table 1 here

T
IP
The output of this lecture should be an agreement on the number of sieves and the size of

the sieves that might be needed to conduct this analysis. The lecturer should guide the students

R
SC
to consider:

 The accuracy that comes with the number of sieves versus the effort in

collection of data.
U
N
 The range of sieve apertures, i.e. using non-evenly spaced sieve sizes.
A
M

Students would then be given the task of sieving five to ten people per group on the university

concourse. This can happen within class time, but may not need to. A sample of five to ten
ED

people is suggested as sufficient for the students to observe how their ‘particles’ pass through

the sieve and also ensure a reasonable sample size, i.e. in excess of 30, when the data from all
PT

groups are combined. They should be directed to ask their volunteer ‘particles’ to step through
E

each sieve from the largest to the smallest. They record the first sieve that the ‘particle’ does
CC

not pass through, and the sex of the ‘particle’. No other information should be collected. It is

important to note that represents an ethical concern which will require the lecturer to gain ethics
A

approval at a university level before conducting this class. This is not seen as a significant

hurdle but, given that human participants are involved, ethics approval should form the basis

for an agreed method which can be utilised whenever the course is run, annually in the

foreseeable future.

8
3.3 Lecture Two: Collection of data

Lecture two begins with the creation of the ‘sieves’ by the students. Students would be broken

into groups of four to five and presented with lengths of ½” polyvinyl chloride pipe, 90° elbows

and pipe cutters. They should first spend an appropriate period, approximately 20 minutes,

cutting the pipe to length to create squares of tubing with apertures that were decided on the

T
day before. An example of such a ‘sieve’ is given in Fig. 1. While it would be ideal for the

IP
piping to be glued using the appropriate adhesive, experience has shown that it is not needed

R
as the elbows and piping are a tight fit. In any case, the fumes given off by the adhesive are

SC
unacceptable for a classroom environment and the ability to readily break the connections

facilitates rescues of subjects stuck in the sieves.

U
N
A
Insert Fig 1 here
M

3.4 Lecture Three: Presentation of data

ED

Lecture three would begin with the collection of all data by the lecturer. This is best done on

a spreadsheet which can be displayed live during the class. Example tables, as might be
PT

generated from the class, are given in Tables 2 and 3. The data in the tables was produced from

30 randomly selected data points along a normal distribution created from the information
E
CC

presented in Table 1. Different methods of presenting mean particle sizes (i.e. D[4,3] versus

D[3,2]) would have been presented in an earlier lecture and are not part of this framework.
A

insert Table 2 and 3 here

9
 The class would then be asked to calculate a variance or standard deviation for the two

data sets (male and female) assuming that the data is normally distributed. This assumption

can be discussed and reference made to the data set presented by Fryar et al. (2012) which

suggests that the data is normally distributed. The class could be taken through the calculation

of a standard deviation for the distribution. For reference, standard deviations of 22.43 and

25.25 cm were calculated from the data presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

T
Finally, the class should be asked to draw frequency and cumulative frequency plots

IP
assuming a normal distribution. While this should be second nature to students who have

R
already been through an appropriate statistics course, for many this usually represents a

SC
significant challenge. After an initial period of unassisted endeavour, drawing on the

U
introductory material presented in the first lecture, it is likely that they would need assistance,
N
and at this point the lecturer would intervene and take the class through the calculation; two
A
plots would be developed. For the data given in Tables 2 and 3, and the calculated standard
M

deviations given above, Figs. 2 and 3 were created.

ED

insert Figs. 2 and 3 here

PT

The differences between the plots should then be briefly discussed. Students would be

asked to identify mean diameter on both plots. The students are then taken through a brief
E
CC

discussion based on the differences in the distributions. The discussion should require no more

than five to ten minutes. In the case of the data presented in Figs. 2 and 3, it would be
A

reasonable to discuss the differences in the width of the distributions, pointing out that the male

population had a larger proportion of diameters near the mean than the female population. This

provides an opportunity to introduce the differences between possible particle distributions and

statistics. As a minimum, the differences in D50, D10 and D90 values should be discussed in

10
order to allow the basic distribution statistics to be compared. It would also be of value to

discuss the meaning of the higher and lower diameters on the plot. Specifically, the likelihood

of having a person with a diameter approaching 10 cm or, on the other end of the scale, 120

cm should be discussed.

The final but arguably most important aspect of the lecture series involves the closing

of a loop by asking:

T
“What do these results actually mean?”

IP
By this stage it would be expected that the students are able to describe the numbers

R
produced (mean and variances). This discussion would aid realisation of what the sieving

SC
method is measuring. Three key messages are targeted:

U
1) Sieving measures the magnitude of the second largest dimension and that there is a need
N
to have some way of describing the shape of particles (linking to previously taught
A
material).

2) Different ‘particles’ get caught in the sieves at different points of the particle. The
M

majority of people being sieved are not circular in the waist and so can squeeze through
ED

the sieve by aligning their widest point along the widest axis of the sieve (diagonal from

corner to corner).
PT

3) Different results might be gained if a sieving time limit applied, i.e. would the overall

population look larger if a limited time was allowed to pass through the sieves?
E
CC

This discussion represents an acknowledgement of the limitations of the sieving technique.

Students should be readily able to recall how people moved through their sieves during data
A

collection. The class should conclude with a short discussion outlining the differences between

the methods used to sieve people and those used to sieve particles.

In the event that ethics approval is not granted or if the lecturer or students are not

comfortable with the practical sieving exercise, the discussions and analysis procedures could

11
be applied using hypothetical data without involving the sieving of individuals, as has been

done in this paper. It is expected that the students will still find the example tangible and will

be able to take part in the discussions.

Finally the discussion can focus on the use of traditional sieving as a method of

characterising particles and this can be compared to other particle analysis methods used in

industry.

T
IP
3.5 Resource Implications

R
The contact time in class for the new approach remains unchanged from the traditional lecture

SC
style of delivering this topic. Depending on progress there may be a requirement for the

U
students to conduct the sieving of their sample of people outside of class time but this is not
N
expected to take long.
A
The sieves are constructed from polyvinyl chloride pipes and elbows in order to
M

minimise the cost and allow the pipe to be easily cut by the students. If this exercise was to be

repeated the elbows and a large proportion of the pipe could be reused. Thus, after the initial
ED

setup, there would only be a small annual cost associated with this addition to the teaching

repertoire.
PT

This exercise may raise some ethical concerns and therefore formal ethics approval

should be considered; this is not expected to be an onerous task.

E
CC

4. Student perceptions of the proposed approach

A

To establish how effective this new teaching approach was a pilot study was conducted

involving a class of 19 second year process engineering students. First the particle size analysis

material was delivered in a traditional lecture format and then this was followed by the

12
construction of a series of sieves and a sample of staff and postgraduate volunteers were then

sieved in class as a demonstration. After the exercise the students were invited to participate in

an anonymous survey which asked them to list the most important points they had learnt,

whether the exercise had improved their understanding, and to give comments. This research

was reviewed and approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee: Southern A,

Application number 15/42.

T
The key concepts taught as part of this course were that particles are part of a

IP
distribution, the relevance of mean particle size, and that distributions can be described using

R
variance or standard deviation. To test whether the students had grasped that these were the

SC
key concepts, the questionnaire first asked them to list the three most important points they had

U
learnt about particle size analysis. From Table 4, it is seen that that the three most frequent
N
responses were: distribution of particle sizes within sample, vibrations are used to sieve
A
particles, and the geometric mean. These responses to an open-ended question indicate that key
M

concepts relating to the use of sieves in particle size analysis and key features of size

distributions are accessible to the students and are recognised as such.

ED

insert Table 4 here

PT

The students were then asked to rate three statements about the exercise on a five point
E
CC

Likert scale. First the students were asked to evaluate whether the sieving exercise helped them

understand the properties of particles better than just the lecture material. It was found that 63%
A

of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the exercise had indeed enhanced their

understanding (Fig. 4a). The class was also asked whether they had a better understanding of

particle size distributions and 53% of participants agreed or strongly agreed (Fig. 4b). These

responses indicate that the students felt they had grasped these concepts more easily as a result

13
of the sieving exercise rather than the traditional lecture format. Finally the students were asked

whether they enjoyed the exercise and 47% agreed and 37% strongly agreed (Fig. 4c). These

findings were consistent with comments such as:

“This was a nice change to the normal lectures, getting up and about makes the lecture

more enjoyable”.

“It’s a cool fun idea. Would be great to see this sort of demonstration across more

T
topics in class”.

R IP
SC
insert Fig. 4 here

U
While the students found the shortened version of the proposed approach to teaching particle
N
size distributions enhanced their understanding and they enjoyed the experience, it is expected
A
that if the full teaching method explained in this paper was carried out and evaluated the
M

feedback would be even more positive and would further facilitate the students embedding
ED

these concepts. In fact utilising the data was proposed by some of the students in the comments

section of the questionnaire:

PT

“Do something with the data eg example calculations on the board/draw the

distribution curve”.
E
CC

“The calculations are the hardest part”.

It was also suggested that the exercise could be expanded to include a report:
A

“Make the exercise part of a report. Collect the data on the entire class and use this data for

calculations. I believe this would greatly increase understanding and get everyone involved”.

5. Conclusions
14
A problem based learning exercise was developed in order to enhance students understanding

of particle technology concepts.. This paper proposed a framework that utilises simple sieving

methods and analysis techniques to measure the distribution of people. The use of a tangible

problem, strict direction from a lecturer, and a shift from lectures to class discussions and

activities is suggested as being suited to teaching particle size analysis. While not strictly PBL,

T
the framework provided represents a significant shift in teaching method for this course at

IP
Massey University and aligns more closely with Project Based Learning techniques used in

R
other papers within the Bachelor of Engineering courses. Based on student feedback from a

SC
shortened version of this exercise they grasped the key concepts and enjoyed this new approach

to teaching particle size analysis.

U
N
A
Acknowledgement

The central theme of this paper, ‘sieving the class’, is not original to us, but we do not know
M

who pioneered this approach. We acknowledge the originators of the idea of using people
ED

sieving as a teaching aid. The artwork is by Muhammad Seraj.

E PT
CC
A

15
References

Bonwell, C.C., Eison, J.A., 1991. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1 Washington, D.C. The George

Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brodie, L., Jolly, L., 2010. Providing ongoing just in time professional development in

T
engineering education. Proceedings of the 2010 AAEE Conference, Sydney, Australia.

R IP
Chowdhury, R.K., 2015. Learning and teaching style assessment for improving project-based
learning of engineering students: A case of United Arab Emirates University. Aust. J.

SC
Eng. Ed. 20 (1), 81-94.

U
Faust, J.L., Paulson, D.R., 1998. Active learning in the college classroom. J. Excel. Coll. Teach.
N
9 (2), 3-24.
A

Frank, M., Lavy, I., Elata, D., 2003. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an
M

academic engineering course. Int. J. Technol. Des. Ed. 13, 273-288.

ED

Freeman S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth,

M.P., 2014. Active learning increase student performance in science, engineering and
PT

mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 111 (23), 8410-8415

E
CC

Fryar C.D., Gu Q., Ogden C.L., 2012. Anthropometric reference data for children and adults:

United States, 2007–2010. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat
A

11(252). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf

Hmelo-Silver, C.E., 2004. Problem-Based Learning: What and how do students learn? Educ.

Psychol. Rev. 16 (3), 235-266.

16
Mesquita, D., Alves, A., Fernandes, S., Moreira, F., Lima R.M., 2009. A first year and first
semester project-led engineering education approach. First Ibero-American
Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education, Guimaraes, Portugal.

Mills J.E., Treagust, D.F., 2003. Engineering Education – Is problem-based or project-based

T
learning the answer? Aust. J. Eng. Educ. Retrieved from

IP
http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf

R
SC
Rhodes, M.J., 2008. Introduction to Particle Technology, second ed. Chichester, England;

Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.

U
Terenzini P.T., Cabrera, A.F, Colbeck, C.L., Parente, J.M., Bjorklund, S.A., 2001.
N
Collaborative learning vs lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains. J. Eng.
A
Educ. 90, 123-130.
M

Yam, L.H.S., Rossini P., 2010. Implementing a project-based learning approach in an

introductory property course. 16th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference,
ED

Wellington, New Zealand.

E PT
CC
A

17
 T
R IP
SC
U
Fig. 1 - Image of three example sieves. From outside in, the sieves have apertures of 55,
N
45, and 35 cm.
A
M
ED

0.020
0.018
Proportion of people (number basis)

0.016
PT

0.014
0.012
0.010
Males
E

0.008
Females
CC

0.006
0.004
0.002
A

0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Diameter (cm)

Fig. 2 - Hypothetical distribution of people diameters and measured using the sieving

technique developed in class.

18
 1
0.9
Cumulative frequency less than

0.8
0.7
(number basis)

0.6
0.5
Males

T
0.4
Females
0.3

IP
0.2
0.1

R
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

SC
Diameter (cm)

Fig. 3 - Hypothetical cumulative frequency less than plot of people diameters and
U
N
measured using the sieving technique developed in class.
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

19
 A B

T
R IP
SC
C

U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

Fig. 4 - Student responses to survey questions. A: The sieving exercise helped me

understand the properties of particles better than just the lecture material. B: I have a

better overall understanding of particle size distributions as a result of the sieving

exercise. C: I enjoyed the sieving exercise.

20
Table 1 - Population data of waist circumferences. Source Fryar et al. (2012).

Percentile (cm)

Mean (cm) Standard Number in 5th 15th 25th 50th 75th 85th 95th

Error Sample

Females

T
95.2 0.34 5552 72 78 83 93 105 113 125
(20+ years)

IP
Males

R
100.9 0.41 5410 78 85 91 99 110 116 128
(20+ years)

SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

21
Table 2 - Particle size analysis table. Data represents 30 randomly selects data points for

a normal distribution of males with a mean and standard error presented in Table 1.

Sieve Diameter (cm) Geometric mean Count Count fraction on Cumulative (𝒇𝒊 .𝒅𝒊 )𝟑
(𝒇𝒊 .𝒅𝒊 )𝟐
(cm) sieve sum

𝒙𝒊 𝒅𝒊 = √𝒙𝒊−𝟏 × 𝒙𝒊 𝒏 𝒏𝒊
𝒇𝒊 = ⁄∑ 𝒏

T
IP
10

R
30 17.32 2 0.07 0.07 1.15

SC
50 38.73 5 0.17 0.23 6.45

60 54.77 4 0.13 0.37 7.30

70 64.81 8
U
0.27 0.63 17.28
N
90 79.37 7 0.23 0.87 18.52
A
110 99.50 4 0.13 1.00 13.27
M

Total Number 30 D[3,2] in cm 63.98

ED
E PT
CC
A

22
 Table 3 - Particle size analysis table. Data represents 30 randomly selects data points for

a normal distribution of females with a mean and standard error presented in Table 1.

Sieve Diameter (cm) Geometric mean Count Count fraction on Cumulative (𝒇𝒊 . 𝒅𝒊 )𝟑
(𝒇𝒊 . 𝒅𝒊 )𝟐
(cm) sieve sum

𝒙𝒊 𝒅𝒊 = √𝒙𝒊−𝟏 × 𝒙𝒊 𝒏 𝒏𝒊
𝒇𝒊 = ⁄∑ 𝒏

T
IP
10

17.32 4 0.13 0.13 2.31

R
30

SC
50 38.73 5 0.17 0.30 6.45

60 54.77 5 0.17 0.47 9.13

70 64.81 2 0.07
U 0.53 4.32
N
90 79.37 11 0.37 0.90 29.10
A
110 99.50 3 0.10 1.00 9.95
M

Total Number 30 D[3,2] in cm 61.27

ED
E PT
CC
A

23
 Table 4 – Key concepts learnt according to the questionnaire

Key point Frequency

Distribution of particle sizes within sample 8

Vibrations used during sieving 8

Geometric mean 7

Aspect ratios 3

T
Standard sieving tests 2

IP
Cumulative and differential distribution 2

R
Sieves placed in decreasing size 1

SC
Different surface area 1

Error in results important

U 1
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

24