Sample assessment
The feed was granular hydroxyapatite. Neither the starting distribution nor an analytical particle-size method was provided.
Analyst consideration: For hydroxyapatite, a useful distinction is fracture of larger particles versus breakup of existing agglomerates. Tooling-derived contamination may also matter to the eventual use, although no application is established here.
Recorded objective
No numerical target was entered; the record records an exploratory assessment of the milled material.
Equipment and selection
The machine entry is XQM-1. TENCAN Vertical square planetary ball mill is associated at the recorded series level. No exact housing variant is inferred from jar capacity or an abbreviated machine label.
Test setup
| Jar entry | Zirconia 250 |
|---|---|
| Media entry | Zirconia 300g |
| Media-charge notation | Φ3-200/Φ5-50/Φ8-50 |
| Sample-load entry | 40 (unit not stated) |
| Controller speed setting | 500 |
| Cycle notation | 5/1 |
Unlabelled jar, media and load numbers remain source notation, not assigned units. Controller settings are not certified rpm. The cycle notation has no independently stated timing unit or reversing definition.
Recorded procedure and results
The setup lists a zirconia jar and zirconia balls. Water, 40 g, was added and the sample was wet milled for two hours. The procedure describes the particle-size result favorably, and the result field repeats that favorable assessment. No percentile, mesh recovery or measured size was included.
Interpretation
The observation supports a favorable two-hour wet-milling response for this particular hydroxyapatite sample. It cannot be converted into a submicrometre claim, a biomedical specification or a quantified reduction factor.
Practical precautions
Retain the water quantity and take a feed reference sample. Agree an analytical distribution and recovery check before making a finer-size or application-specific claim.
TENCAN alternatives to evaluate
TENCAN Laboratory Full-Directional Planetary Ball Mill. An full-directional trial can compare hydroxyapatite suspension movement with the same 40 g water addition and two-hour sample. Measure a distribution before claiming any improvement. Tumbling would change suspension redistribution and therefore provides a specific motion comparison; its value should be judged by measured distribution and recovery rather than the favorable appearance description alone. This is an untested comparison proposal, not a result of this trial.
Association follows the explicit XQM-1 source entry; only recorded tested series/configurations are related. No jar-volume inference.
About this trial
TENCAN laboratory trial, 2017–2020. Observations above come from this experimental record; selection considerations and proposed comparisons are engineering interpretation. Results apply to this sample and recorded conditions.