Compaction

Co-processing engineers particle morphology, density, and surface structure into a single composite excipient particle. Flow function and compactibility testing show what that buys formulators on continuous direct compression lines, and where it does not.

Two lots that pass the same incoming flowability spec can still granulate differently after roller compaction. The reason usually traces to ribbon density, which responds to roll force, gap width, and feed screw speed as an interacting set, not to roll pressure in isolation.

Talc's expected EU restriction is forcing cosmetic formulators toward mica, kaolin, silica, and starch. None of them reproduce talc's platelet slip, oil absorption, and low dustiness at the same time, and each substitution changes flow and compaction behavior in pressed powder products differently.

Cement fineness is not a single number. Blaine surface area, particle size distribution, grinding aid chemistry, and moisture history each pull on hydration reactivity in different ways, and a fineness specification that ignores any one of them will eventually let a bad batch through.

Article updated February 2026 Porosity controls hydration speed, dissolution, compressibility, and [...]

Water activity in powders predicts caking, sticking, and flow loss better than moisture [...]

Sulfide solid electrolytes promise fast ion transport and strong stack contact. Yet [...]

Powder caking vs compaction can look identical in production. However, they need [...]

Powder behavior control starts with fifteen core factors. Tune particle size, shape, [...]

Powder creep mechanisms occur in various ways; powders creep in bins. Sintered [...]

No single flow test defines powder behaviour completely. Each method measures different [...]

Packing density and powder flow rarely align naturally. Engineering this balance requires [...]