Six inputs — chemistry, solubility behavior, thermal sensitivity, crystal-size target, throughput and corrosivity — route your system to one supersaturation method and rank the four crystallizer configurations against each other.
TOOL VISUAL
Two answers, in the order an engineer needs them. First a supersaturation method — evaporative, cooling, vacuum adiabatic flash, or reaction drowning-out — selected by the solubility-vs-temperature behavior of your system. Second a ranked shortlist of the four configurations — FC, DTB, Oslo, stirred-batch — scored on crystal size, scale, purity and fouling tolerance.
Every configuration fails a specific way. FC cannot classify — battery-grade fines carry impurities to the centrifuge. Oslo cements on scaling brines. DTB never reaches 5 mm territory. The wrong method is worse: cooling a flat-curve system buys no yield at all. The tool screens these mismatches out before the first budget number.
Six inputs, two outputs: a recommended supersaturation method and a scored configuration shortlist. Nothing is stored, nothing is sent.
Your System
Six inputs · Step 1 of 2
Recommendation
Route + configuration ranking · Step 2 of 2
| Configuration | Crystal Size | Purity | Fouling Tolerance | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCFORCED CIRCULATION | Fine–medium | Medium | High | Very large |
| DTBDRAFT-TUBE-BAFFLE | Medium–coarse | High | Medium | Large |
| OSLOFLUIDIZED BED | Coarse | Very high | Low | Medium |
| Stirred-batchJACKETED / AGITATED | Medium | High | Medium | Small |
The static scoring basis behind the ranking. Green = strength, amber = workable, grey = weak. Hard exclusions override scores: FC cannot deliver coarse targets, Oslo cannot survive scaling feeds at fine targets.
The reasoning the tool automates, written out. Four methods, four configurations, and how each input moves the answer.
Method selection precedes equipment selection, always. The solubility-versus-temperature curve of your system opens and closes routes before any vendor is consulted:
Four configurations span the industrial range, and each owns a territory:
Chemistry sets property assumptions and triggers special routes (Li₂CO₃ → reaction). Solubility sensitivity elects the method. Thermal sensitivity vetoes surface-boiling routes. Crystal-size target and throughput drive the configuration score — weighted double, because a size or scale mismatch is the failure you cannot commission around. Purity and fouling tolerance complete the score, maximum 11 points. Corrosivity changes only materials of construction, never the ranking.
Very-coarse target on a scaling brine: the Oslo wants clean liquor, the FC cannot reach the size — the honest answer is a DTB with a polishing loop, or a re-specified target. Fine target with battery-grade purity: FC is excluded on classification, Oslo on fines control — DTB with fines destruction is the route. Flat curve with thermal sensitivity: low-temperature vacuum evaporation holds boiling down while the solvent leaves. The full configuration detail lives on Crystallization Technologies.
This tool reproduces the screening logic a process engineer applies on first contact: solubility behavior elects the method, size and scale elect the configuration. It is a routing aid, not a design.
Scores use indicative industrial ranges. Real selection requires measured solubility data on your actual liquor, a bench crystallization test, and a project heat-and-mass balance before any equipment is specified.
Send a liquor sample and your d50 and purity spec. We run bench crystallization on the real material and return a PSD curve, a recommended configuration, and the scale-up basis — data, not a brochure.
Send your feed characterization (TDS, COD, main salts, viscosity), throughput and product targets — we respond with a preliminary process route within two business days.