Wet grinding RFQ / Feed qualification
A candidate slurry can look mixed while still containing poorly wetted agglomerates, sediment, hard contamination or a coarse tail that the proposed mill, pump or media-retention arrangement has not reviewed. Record the actual feed state and upstream preparation, then ask the responsible supplier to approve a configuration-bound representative trial.
Separate three feed questions
The buyer, laboratory and responsible equipment supplier need a common record of what enters the mill, how that state was created and what the proposed pump, chamber, media-retention and cleaning route must handle.
Identify each liquid and solid phase, solids loading, addition order, wetting aid, hold history, settling or floating behavior and the difference between primary particles, soft agglomerates and hard foreign material. Do not convert a visual description into a universal size limit.
Attach method-specific rheology and temperature, transfer distance and elevation, hold and recirculation history, screens or strainers, pump interface and candidate separator or media boundary. One component label cannot approve the route.
Agree the sampled material, upstream preparation boundary, recorded feed observations, trial configuration, endpoint methods, retained product properties, interruption rules and disposition owner before treating a laboratory or production result as transferable.
Feed-state comparison
The table is an RFQ gap check, not an operating procedure. It prevents an OEM example, a single micron value or an unreviewed screen mesh from becoming a claimed JINPIONEER limit.
Swipe or scroll horizontally to review every evidence column.
| RFQ layer | Buyer / laboratory record | Candidate route record | Approval evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material identity and feed state | Formula and revision, liquid and solid phases, solids basis, batch or lot, sampled stage and hold history. | Candidate supplier's recorded feed assumptions and unresolved composition or state questions. | One representative material identity and sample chain shared across review and trial. |
| Wetting and predispersion history | Addition order, wetting aid, mixing device, observed wet-out, energy or time record where available, rest and transfer history. | Proposed upstream conditioning boundary and explicit exclusions; no inferred pregrinder or recipe. | Agreed preparation record with deviations and ownership before the mill feed point. |
| Particle, agglomerate and oversize evidence | Method-specific distribution or fineness result plus coarse-tail, agglomerate and foreign-body observations. | Exact proposed chamber, media-retention and transfer interfaces reviewed against the supplied evidence. | Method, sample preparation, units, observations and open limits retained without a universal conversion. |
| Pumpability, rheology and temperature | Property, method, instrument, shear condition, temperature, sample history, settling and time dependence. | Candidate transfer and feed arrangement with the required operating envelope left for supplier confirmation. | Configuration-bound review and representative evidence; no generic pump or mill compatibility claim. |
| Hard contaminants and screening history | Foreign-material risk, prior screen or strainer identity, retained material, blockage, cleaning and inspection record. | Proposed protection and retention interfaces, source of each limit and explicit field or buyer-supplied scope. | Reviewed contaminant controls and disposition record without prescribing mesh, gap or cutoff. |
| Representative trial and disposition | Trial lot, preparation state, feed sample, acceptance methods, retained properties and responsible approver. | Exact candidate configuration, monitored observations, interruption criteria supplied by responsible parties and deviations. | Signed trial record, accepted endpoint, unresolved risks and defined scale-up or rejection action. |
Qualification route
The responsible parties must define safe sampling and trial controls for the actual material. These steps organize the evidence; they do not prescribe a preparation or milling procedure.
Freeze the formulation revision, solids basis, material lot, sampled process stage and intended downstream endpoint.
Record wetting and predispersion history, distribution or fineness methods, visible agglomeration, hard-contaminant risk, rheology, temperature and transfer behavior.
Trace every upstream tank, hold, pump, pipe, screen or strainer, mill feed interface, media-retention boundary and excluded field item.
Use a representative material and configuration-bound record, then preserve feed, endpoint, retained-property, deviation and disposition evidence for scale-up review.
Bead-mill feed-readiness RFQ checklist
Unknown values stay open for the buyer, responsible laboratory and candidate supplier. Do not replace them with a competitor value, a universal feed-size limit or an invented JINPIONEER capability.
Open the process briefProduct identity, controlled formula revision, each liquid and solid phase, supplier or lot changes and representative sample identity.
Exact stage before milling, sampling location and time, batch or vessel state, homogenization or splitting and elapsed hold or transfer history.
Solids on a stated mass or volume basis, liquid vehicle, density basis where relevant, settling, floating, separation and re-mixing observations.
Order and rate context, surface or subsurface addition, wetting agents or other aids, observed dusting, floating, lumping and incomplete incorporation.
Actual upstream device and vessel, controlled run record where available, observed endpoint and deviations without converting the record into a universal recipe.
Soft or hard lumps, sediment, skin, dried residue, re-agglomeration, recirculation or rework history and how each observation was identified.
Reported distribution percentile, coarse-tail result, grind-gauge reading or other feed evidence with value, unit and intended meaning.
Method and edition, instrument, model or scale, weighting, sample preparation, dispersion treatment, repeats, uncertainty and raw report reference.
Observed or measured coarse material, hard particles, fibres, dried product, packaging debris, corrosion products or other foreign-body questions and detection method.
Location, supplier-defined identity, record basis, retained material, pressure or blockage observation, inspection, cleaning and disposition without prescribing a mesh or cutoff.
Reported property and original unit, method, instrument, geometry or spindle, speed or shear condition, temperature, conditioning, timing and validity status.
Vessel and agitation state, transfer path and elevation, pipe or hose context, hold and recirculation time, settling, foaming, air pickup, heating or cooling observations.
Exact proposed supplier configuration, included pump or external feed boundary, instruments, controls, auxiliaries, exclusions and unresolved operating envelope.
Candidate media identity and condition, supplier-defined separator or retention configuration and the evidence required to review their combination with the feed.
Proposed wetting, predispersion, pregrinding, screening, straining or contaminant-control steps, scope owner and evidence source; no assumed JINPIONEER supply.
Trial lot and quantity, preparation record, actual feed sample, exact equipment configuration, monitored observations, deviations and responsible safety or technical controls.
Particle or fineness endpoint, method, sampling and repeats plus temperature, colour, contamination, stability, yield or other product properties that must remain acceptable.
Named buyer, laboratory and supplier reviewers, open questions, accept, rework or reject decision, scale-up evidence required and controlled record location.
Draft source record / Pending technical review
These sources were reviewed on 31 July 2026. The named OEM pages describe only their own published equipment or process context; the standards define only their stated measurement scope. No configuration, size, limit, setting or result transfers to this site.
Buyer decision FAQ
There is no single transferable maximum for every material and mill. Ask the responsible supplier to review the exact chamber, media, separator, pump and feed path against method-specific particle or fineness evidence, agglomerate and hard-contaminant risk, rheology, temperature and a representative trial.
No. Visual uniformity can miss poor wetting, a coarse tail, sediment, hard contaminants or re-agglomeration. Record the preparation history and use technically appropriate observations and methods for the actual product risk.
No. D90 is not a maximum, and a Hegman trace is not a particle-size distribution. Keep the applicable method and sample preparation with the result, then record separate coarse-tail, agglomerate, foreign-body, rheology and transfer evidence where those risks matter.
Not as a universal rule. Screening, straining, pregrinding or another conditioning step must follow the material risk, existing process evidence and the responsible supplier's configuration review. This page prescribes no mesh, cutoff or process step.
No. Pumpability is one part of the feed path. The review also needs the property method and temperature, time dependence and settling, transfer and hold history, the exact pump interface, chamber, media-retention arrangement, contamination risk and trial evidence.
No. It publishes an RFQ and evidence framework only. Any feed limit, upstream conditioning equipment, pump, screen, mill configuration, operating envelope, compatibility, capacity or result remains unconfirmed until supported by project-specific supplier and buyer evidence.