Industrial Centrifuge Buyer Guide
Pusher vs Decanter vs Peeler Centrifuge
Pusher, decanter and peeler centrifuges solve different separation problems. Compare mechanisms and feed behaviour before models, ratings or price.
Direct answer
Choose a pusher when a representative, free-draining, screen-retained cake supports continuous axial transport; consider a decanter when density-driven settling in a solid bowl and screw conveyance suit a suspension; consider a peeler when batch filtration, staged washing and controlled cake discharge fit the process. These are screening rules, not universal recommendations.
Principle comparison
| Dimension | Pusher | Decanter | Peeler |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary mechanism | Screen filtration and cake transport | Solid-bowl sedimentation and screw conveyance | Batch screen filtration and mechanical cake removal |
| Operation | Continuous | Continuous | Batch |
| Evidence focus | Retention, drainage, transport, washing, breakage | Settling, rheology, conveyance, cake and centrate | Cake formation, cycle, washing, heel and discharge |
| Common trigger | Free-draining crystals | Fine suspension or sludge | Controlled batch filtration and washing |
| Do not assume | Every salt is suitable | Every fine solid will settle acceptably | Every cake peels cleanly |
Why particle size is not enough
Distribution must be connected to shape, density, fragility, agglomeration, liquor viscosity, solids concentration and observed filtration or settling. A single average omits the fines tail and process history that often drive risk.
How operation mode changes the choice
Continuous operation can reduce batch transitions but requires stable feeding, discharge and control across the envelope. Batch operation can support staged washing or segregation but introduces cycle, heel, discharge and cleaning questions.
How washing changes the choice
Define wash liquid, sequence, distribution, quantity basis, purity target and recovery route. Do not assume a principle provides a result without demonstrating the actual cake or solids behaviour.
What if no principle is clearly suitable?
Keep the decision open, improve feed characterization and use representative tests. Upstream conditioning or a different separation route can be safer than forcing a centrifuge into an unsupported duty.
A practical buyer decision path
Define
Application, specification, quantity, destination and evidence needs.
Compare
Align supplier responses, methods, exclusions and commercial basis.
Verify
Check the agreed company, product, document or on-site scope.
Control
Record samples, approvals, changes, inspection and shipment milestones.
Close
Deliver the agreed record, open-item list and next-step decision.
Why it matters
Model-first comparison can align prices for technically different duties. A principle screen makes each supplier explain the mechanism, assumptions and evidence.
Buyer decision criteria
- Filtration versus settling behaviour
- Continuous versus batch operation
- Cake or solids transport
- Washing and purity needs
- Breakage and product handling
- Feed variability and control
- Containment, cleaning and site constraints
Specification checklist
| Question | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| Can solids retain and drain? | Screen/cake observations and representative PSD |
| Can solids settle and convey? | Settling/rheology observations and solids behaviour |
| Is batch or continuous preferred? | Production, traceability, cleaning and interface needs |
| What must outlets achieve? | Cake, liquid, recovery, purity and breakage methods |
| What can be tested? | Sample, pilot, FAT and SAT plan with limits |
Document checklist
- Controlled process and equipment data sheet with revision status
- Supplier technical offer and line-by-line deviation register
- General arrangement, interfaces, foundation information and utility list
- Wetted-material schedule and buyer-requested source evidence
- Motor, drive, instrument, interlock and control-system documents
- Inspection and test plan with hold or witness points
- Material-test, FAT and SAT protocols and records where included
- Operation, safety, cleaning and maintenance manuals in the agreed language
- Spare-parts, wear-parts, packing, preservation and shipment-document list
Common mistakes
- Treating all centrifuges as interchangeable
- Selecting from particle size alone
- Assuming continuous is always better
- Ignoring discharge and cleaning
- Comparing universal moisture claims
- Hiding unknown feed behaviour in a safety factor
Questions to ask suppliers
- Which submitted process inputs and representative tests support the proposed principle?
- Which assumptions, exclusions and open technical items remain?
- How are throughput, cake, recovery, liquid quality and wash results measured?
- Which wetted material applies to each component, and what evidence is available?
- What is demonstrated during material test, FAT and SAT respectively?
- Which drawings, manuals, inspection records, spares and commissioning services are included?
- Which buyer-requested conformity documents are available for this exact source and scope?
Related products and pages
Technical RFQ
Submit process, result, site and document inputs.
Frequently asked questions
Is a decanter a filtering centrifuge?
A decanter primarily uses sedimentation in a solid bowl rather than a filtering screen.
Are pusher and screen scroll identical?
No. Both can use screen filtration, but their solids-transport mechanisms and source-specific arrangements differ.
When is peeler washing attractive?
When a representative cake supports a defined batch wash and discharge sequence, subject to testing.
Can one principle be selected before a sample test?
Sometimes data are adequate, but material testing is useful when behaviour or scale-up materially affects risk.
Should price be compared at this stage?
Only after feed basis, result, scope and technical deviations are aligned.
Can XiangtanExport switch suppliers without changing the public page?
Yes. Public pages describe the buyer problem and principle; private routing selects current sources.
Sources & references
GB 19815-2021, Centrifuge—Safety requirements, National Public Service Platform for Standards, published 2021-04-30, effective 2022-05-01, accessed 2026-09-07.
GB/T 10895-2025, Centrifuge & separator—Measurement and evaluation of mechanical vibration, National Public Service Platform for Standards, published 2025-08-01, effective 2026-02-01, accessed 2026-09-07.
Standards titles are cited for review context. A source-specific declaration, certificate or test record must still be checked for model, scope, revision, validity and project applicability.
Send us your sourcing requirement
Share the specification, quantity, destination and required documents. We will review the request before matching a suitable supply source.
Review and evidence note
Last reviewed: 2026-09-07
This guide provides non-numeric buyer controls. It does not confirm a supplier, machine size, material compatibility, certification or performance guarantee.
Final product availability, specification, documentation and commercial terms are confirmed during supplier matching and quotation.