4.8 Article

Observed Dependence of Colloid Detachment on the Concentration of Initially Attached Colloids and Collector Surface Heterogeneity in Porous Media

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 2811-2820

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06264

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271009, 41671222]
  2. Beijing Nova Program [Z161100004916116]
  3. National Key Technology RD Program [2012BAD05B02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sand column experiments were conducted to examine the effects of the concentration of attached colloids (CAC) on their subsequent detachment upon decreasing solution ionic strength (IS). Different pore volumes of latex microparticle suspensions were injected into the columns to allow different amounts of colloids to attach at ISs of 0.001, 0.01, and 0.2 M. Then, deionized water was introduced to release the attached colloids. Results show that the fraction of attachments that were reversible to reduction of IS (FRA) increased with increasing CAC at a given IS if the sand was extensively treated using acids to reduce surface charge heterogeneity. This indicates that colloids were preferentially immobilized in sites favoring irreversible attachment and then gradually occupied reversible sites. In contrast, the FRA decreased with increasing CAC at 0.001 M in sand without the acid treatment, illustrating the opposite attachment sequence. Scanning electron microscope examinations reveal that the concave regions favored irreversible colloid attachment. Reversible attachment is likely due to immobilization on flat surfaces with charge heterogeneities, retention in stagnation point regions via secondary minimum association, ripening in the acid-treated sand, and capture of colloids by protruding asperities with charge heterogeneity in the untreated sand. At ISs of 0.01 and 0.2 M, the FRA was essentially independent of CAC in the untreated sand because the colloids were randomly attached on the sand surfaces over time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据