Literature DB >> 18930239

Comparison of different methods to measure contact angles of soil colloids.

Jianying Shang1, Markus Flury, James B Harsh, Richard L Zollars.   

Abstract

We compared five different methods, static sessile drop, dynamic sessile drop, Wilhelmy plate, thin-layer wicking, and column wicking, to determine the contact angle of colloids typical for soils and sediments. The colloids (smectite, kaolinite, illite, goethite, hematite) were chosen to represent 1:1 and 2:1 layered aluminosilicate clays and sesquioxides, and were either obtained in pure form or synthesized in our laboratory. Colloids were deposited as thin films on glass slides, and then used for contact angle measurements using three different test liquids (water, formamide, diiodomethane). The colloidal films could be categorized into three types: (1) films without pores and with polar-liquid interactions (smectite), (2) films with pores and with polar-liquid interactions (kaolinite, illite, goethite), and (3) films without pores and no polar-liquid interactions (hematite). The static and dynamic sessile drop methods yielded the most consistent contact angles. For porous films, the contact angles decreased with time, and we consider the initial contact angle to be the most accurate. The differences in contact angles among the different methods were large and varied considerably: the most consistent contact angles were obtained for kaolinite with water, and illite with diiodomethane (contact angles were within 3 degrees); but mostly the differences ranged from 10 degrees to 40 degrees among the different methods. The thin-layer and column wicking methods were the least consistent methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18930239     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Colloid Interface Sci        ISSN: 0021-9797            Impact factor:   8.128


  7 in total

1.  Cheap non-toxic non-corrosive method of glass cleaning evaluated by contact angle, AFM, and SEM-EDX measurements.

Authors:  Tania Dey; Daragh Naughton
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Wettability Investigations and Wet Transfer Enhancement of Large-Area CVD-Graphene on Aluminum Nitride.

Authors:  Marius Knapp; René Hoffmann; Volker Cimalla; Oliver Ambacher
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 5.076

3.  Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties.

Authors:  Zuolin Liu; Brandon Dugan; Caroline A Masiello; Helge M Gonnermann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Fogging Control on LDPE/EVA Coextruded Films: Wettability Behavior and Its Correlation with Electric Performance.

Authors:  Miguel A Waldo-Mendoza; Zoe V Quiñones-Jurado; Juan C Pérez-Medina; Bernardo Yañez-Soto; Pedro E Ramírez-González
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2017-02-22

5.  Wettability of Nanostructured Transition-Metal Oxide (Al2O3, CeO2, and AlCeO3) Powder Surfaces.

Authors:  Muidh Alheshibri; H M Albetran; B H Abdelrahman; A Al-Yaseri; N Yekeen; I M Low
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 3.748

6.  Wetting properties of poultry litter and derived hydrochar.

Authors:  Vivian Mau; Gilboa Arye; Amit Gross
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Impact of Surface Properties of Core Material on the Stability of Hot Melt-Coated Multiparticulate Systems.

Authors:  Sonja Schertel; Sharareh Salar-Behzadi; Andreas Zimmer
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 6.321

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.