4.4 Article

Methods of determining cation exchange capacities for clinoptilolite-rich rocks of the Logudoro Region in Northern Sardinia, Italy

期刊

CLAYS AND CLAY MINERALS
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 127-135

出版社

CLAY MINERALS SOC
DOI: 10.1346/000986002761002739

关键词

batch exchange method (BEM); cation exchange capacity (CEC); clinoptilolite; cross exchange method (CEM); Sardinia; Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinoptilolite-rich materials from widespread pyroclastic and epiclastic deposits of northern Sardinia were investigated to assess their cation exchange properties and to find the most reliable experimental method to determine their cation exchange capacity (CEC). The CECs were evaluated using a cross exchange method (CEM) and a batch exchange method (BEM). The CEM resulted in values 30-35% lower than the theoretical or expected CEC calculated from the chemical analyses of the clinoptilolite-rich materials. The BEM resulted in CECs 6-12% lower than the expected CECs. Various parameters, such as the grain-size of powders (<64 mu m and 125-250 mu m) and replacement cation (Na+, K+, Li+, Cs+, NH4+, Ca-2(+), Mg2+, Sr2+) were evaluated in order to optimize the cation exchange process, i.e. enhance complete exchange. The particle size did not affect the exchange process appreciably. The type of replacement cation had a substantial effect on the experimental CEC determined by the BEM. The NH4+ and Cs+ replacement solutions resulted in the best experimental CECs ranging between 75% and 94% of the theoretical CEC with NH4+ as the replacement cation and 79% and 88% of the theoretical CEC with Cs+ as the replacement cation. The exchange efficiency was also measured as a function of ammonium concentration in the replacement solution (0.50, 1.00, 2.00 and 3.00 M). Experimental CECs ranged between 94% (0.5 M NH4Cl solution) and 99% (1 M NH4Cl solution) of the theoretical CEC for one epiclastic rock sample and between 79% (3 M NH4Cl solution) and 87% (2 M NH4Cl solution) of the theoretical CEC for one pyroclastic rock sample.

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

4.4
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