Quick answer

200 mesh ≈ 0.074 mm opening

Handbook references cite roughly 0.074 millimeters (74 µm / 0.0029 inches) as the nominal aperture for 200 mesh woven cloth.

Nominal opening

Mesh
200
Millimeters (mm)
0.074
Microns (µm)
74
inch
0.0029

Powder coatings, metals

Millimeter openings remain nominal

Digital micrometers and SEM inspections routinely diverge from handbook millimeter rounding — especially past 400 mesh.

Nearby mesh comparison

MeshµmmmLink
200740.074Micron-focused page
170900.09Micron-focused page
230630.063Micron-focused page

Try the calculators

Switch between mesh ↔ micron modes instantly when estimating powders or filtration stacks.

Why mesh ≠ pure math

Opening width equals nominal spacing minus wire thickness — charts freeze mid-process assumptions so engineers can communicate faster.

Typical applications

Metal powders, ceramics, toner, pigments, and hydraulic filtration specs routinely cite millimeter-friendly openings alongside micron targets.

People also ask

Why show mm if microns dominate?
Mechanical drawings and legacy ERP templates still prefer millimeters — mm keeps spreadsheets concise.
Can I specify only millimeters on a PO?
Pair mm openings with mesh counts plus supplier tolerance bands to avoid ambiguity.
Does ASTM publish mm columns?
Modern ASTM listings emphasize micron aperture — mm derives from dividing microns by 1000.
ASTM vs ISO — still approximate?
Yes — refer to MeshToMicron sieve standards primer for citations.
Should QA rely on these mm figures?
Use them as intake estimates — retained mass tests settle disputes.

Millimeter rounding can hide microns of error on fine sieves — escalate to microscopy if needed.