Probing Surface Charge Potentials of Clay Basal Planes and Edges by Direct Force Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dispersion and gelation of clay suspensions have major impact on a number of industries, such as ceramic and composite materials processing, paper making, cement production, and consumer product formulation. To fundamentally understand controlling mechanisms of clay dispersion and gelation, it is necessary to study anisotropic surface charge properties and colloidal interactions of clay particles. In this study, a colloidal probe technique was employed to study the interaction forces between a silica probe and clay basal plane/edge surfaces. A muscovite mica was used as a representative of 2:1 phyllosilicate clay minerals. The muscovite basal plane was prepared by cleavage, while the edge surface was obtained by a microtome cutting technique. Direct force measurements demonstrated the anisotropic surface charge properties of the basal plane and edge surface. For the basal plane, the long-range forces were monotonically repulsive within pH 6-10 and the measured forces were pH-independent, thereby confirming that clay basal planes have permanent surface charge from isomorphic substitution of lattice elements. The measured interaction forces were fitted well with the classical DLVO theory. The surface potentials of muscovite basal plane derived from the measured force profiles were in good agreement with those reported in the literature. In the case of edge surfaces, the measured forces were monotonically repulsive at pH 10, decreasing with pH, and changed to be attractive at pH 5.6, strongly suggesting that the charge on the clay edge surfaces is pH-dependent. The measured force profiles could not be reasonably fitted with the classical DLVO theory, even with very small surface potential values, unless the surface roughness was considered. The surface element integration (SEI) method was used to calculate the DLVO forces to account for the surface roughness. The surface potentials of the muscovite edges were derived by fitting the measured force profiles with the surface element integrated DLVO model. The point of zero charge of the muscovite edge surface was estimated to be pH 7-8.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".