Breakdown of Colloid Filtration Theory: Role of the Secondary Energy Minimum and Surface Charge Heterogeneities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms and causes of deviation from the classical colloid filtration theory (CFT) in the presence of repulsive Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) interactions were investigated. The deposition behavior of uniform polystyrene latex colloids in columns packed with spherical soda-lime glass beads was systematically examined over a broad range of physicochemical conditions, whereby both the fluid-phase effluent particle concentration and the profile of retained particles were measured. Experiments conducted with three different-sized particles in a simple (1:1) electrolyte solution reveal the controlling influence of secondary minimum deposition on the deviation from CFT. In a second series of experiments, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) was added to the background electrolyte solution with the intent of masking near-neutrally charged regions of particle and collector surfaces. These results indicate that the addition of a small amount of anionic surfactant is sufficient to reduce the influence of certain surface charge inhomogeneities on the deviation from CFT. To verify the validity of CFT in the absence of surface charge heterogeneities, a third set of experiments was conducted using solutions of high pH to mask the influence of metal oxide impurities on glass bead surfaces. The results demonstrate that both secondary minimum deposition and surface charge heterogeneities contribute significantly to the deviation from CFT generally observed in colloid deposition studies. It is further shown that agreement with CFT is obtained even in the presence of an energy barrier (i.e., repulsive colloidal interactions), suggesting that it is not the general existence of repulsive conditions which causes deviation but rather the combined occurrence of "fast" and "slow" particle deposition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".