4.6 Article

Development of new water-based anticaking agents for NPK fertilizers using response surface methodology

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 140, 期 34, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.54317

关键词

Box-Behnken design; NPK fertilizers; surface response methodology; water-based anticaking agents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Caking is a persistent issue in the fertilizer industry in Thailand, particularly for NPK fertilizers. The study developed water-based anticaking agents with high performance using response surface methodology. Different compositions were needed for different fertilizer formulas, and only surfactant showed a positive effect on caking prevention. The optimized anticaking coatings achieved excellent performance with 92.0% and 98.8% decrease in caking for 15-7-18 and 18-4-5, respectively.
Caking remains a problem for the fertilizer industry in Thailand, especially for NPK fertilizers (15-7-18 and 18-4-5), leading to difficulty in application. In this work, we developed new water-based anticaking agents to obtain high anticaking performance using response surface methodology (RSM) with Box-Behnken Design (BBD). Nineteen chemical substances were screened and effects of three independent variables (polymer, surfactant, and solvent contents) were investigated. The practicability of the model validated through analysis of variance (ANOVA) and experiments were compared. Anticaking performance of the coatings was validated using our designed-accelerated caking method, expressed as the percentage of decrease in caking (%DC). Crushing strength and SEM/EDS analysis were used to evaluate the mechanical property and elemental composition of the coated fertilizers, respectively. The results suggested that different optimal compositions were required for different fertilizer formulas. In addition, only surfactant had a positive effect on caking prevention. The optimized anticaking coatings for 15-7-18 and 18-4-5 showed excellent performance with 92.0 %DC and 98.8 %DC, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据