Implications of Cation Exchange on Clay Release and Colloid‐Facilitated Transport in Porous Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Column experiments were conducted to study chemical factors that influence the release of clay (kaolinite and quartz minerals) from saturated Ottawa sand of different sizes (710,360, and 240 microm). A relatively minor enhancement of clay release occurred when the pH was increased (5.8 to 10) or the ionic strength (IS) was decreased to deionized (DI) water. In contrast, clay release was dramatically enhanced when monovalent Na+ was exchanged for multivalent cations (e.g., Ca2+ and Mg2+) on the clay and sand and then the solution IS was reduced to DI water. This solution chemistry sequence decreased the adhesive force acting on the clay as a result of an increase in the magnitude of the clay and sand zeta potential with cation exchange, and expansion of the double layer thickness with a decrease in IS to DI water. The amount of clay release was directly dependent on the Na+ concentration of the exchanging solution and on the initial clay content of the sand (0.026-0.054% of the total mass). These results clearly demonstrated the importance of the order and magnitude of the solution chemistry sequence on clay release. Column results and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images also indicated that the clay was reversibly retained on the sand, despite predictions of irreversible interaction in the primary minimum. One plausible explanation is that adsorbed cations increased the separation distance between the clay-solid interfaces as a result of repulsive hydration forces. A cleaning procedure was subsequently developed to remove clay via cation exchange and IS reduction; SEM images demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach. The transport of Cu2+ was then shown to be dramatically enhanced by an order of magnitude in peak concentration by adsorption on clays that were released following cation exchange and IS reduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".