Agricultural Limestones, Surface Area and Reactivity of Typical Limestones

Love, K. S.; Whittaker, Colin W.

doi:10.1021/jf60045a002

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CaCO 3 had the finest particle size, followed by NLS and Oldcastle, and increasing particle size is known to decrease lime reactivity (Argo and Biernbaum 1996;Barber 1984;Haby and Leonard, 2002;Love and Whittaker 1954). The NLS and Oldcastle had similar percentages of Ca and Mg, and CaCO 3 tends to be more chemically reactive than dolomite (Argo and Biernbaum 1996).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The quantity of lime required (incorporation rate), as well as the time needed to reach a stable pH, depends not only on the materials used to produce the substrate but also on the lime's chemical composition (Argo and Fisher 2002), particle size (Argo and Biernbaum 1996;Chapin 1980;Gibaly and Axley 1955;Sheldrake 1980;Williams, Peterson, and Utzinger 1988), surface area (Barber 1984;Haby and Leonard 2002;Love and Whittaker 1954;Parfitt and Ellis 1966), crystal structure (Rippy 2005), and chemical contaminates (B. Ellis, personal communications).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protocol to Quantify the Reactivity of Carbonate Limestone for Horticultural Substrates

Huang

Fisher

Argo³

2007

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current method for comparing the reactivity of different limestones used to correct pH in horticultural substrates is based on batch trials, where the limestones are incorporated into the substrate and the pH is measured over time (typically up to 28 days). The objective was to test a laboratory approach to provide a rapid analytical test on reactivity of various limestone sources. To a lime sample, 4M hydrochloric acid (HCl) was added, and the volume of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) released into a burette was measured over time. Reagent-grade calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) and two commercially available pulverized dolomitic limestones were tested. In addition, six particlesize fractions derived from each of the limestone samples were also evaluated for reaction rate and the corresponding pH responses. In less than 1 min after acid addition, 100% of CaCO 3 reacted, whereas it took 3.9 and 11.5 min, respectively, for 50% of the limestone samples to react, and 14 and 52 min, respectively, for 90% neutralization. Reaction rate increased as the particle size decreased; however, a similar reaction rate was observed for the particle sizes larger than 150 mm 719 establish a lime reactivity index, for example based on the time required for 50% or 90% reaction, and thereby provide a rapid screening of different limestone sources.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protocol to Quantify the Reactivity of Carbonate Limestone for Horticultural Substrates

Huang

Fisher

Argo³

2007

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hundreds of investigators (Love and Whittaker 1954, Burns and Carpenter 1968, Corn et al 1973, Urano et al 1982, Gasparini and Mhlanga 1986, Frank et al 1987, Friesen and Mikula 1987, Inoue et al 1988, Kaneko et al 1989a got access to the fractal dimensions of the surfaces of various particles by employing different molecules, namely, alkanes, alcohols, benzene, dioxane, naphthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene, N 2 , Ar, and Kr. One example on the application of Equation (13) Avnir et al concluded and reanalyzed the molecular accessibility dimensions of surfaces as determined from the adsorption data in open papers (Avnir et al 1984, Avnir 1989.…”

Section: Monolayer Adsorption Based On the Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brought to you by | University of Queensland -UQ Library Authenticated Download Date | 12/7/15 7:57 AM (5) 2.15 ± 0.10 Equation (29) 2.91 ± 0.02 Equation (14) Love and Whittaker 1954, Farin and Avnir 1987, Avnir 1989 Upper Columbus dolomite (CaCO (5) 2.07 ± 0.06 Equation (29) 2.58 ± 0.01 Equation (14) Love and Whittaker 1954, Farin and Avnir 1987, Avnir 1989 Niagara dolomite (CaCO 2.32 ± 0.08 Equation (29) (5) 2.05 ± 0.08 Equation (29) 3.02 ± 0.07 Equation (14) Walter 1984, Farin and Avnir 1987, Avnir 1989 Fungia skeletal carbonate CaCO 3 Acidic dissolution in seawater 51-513 (5) 1.98 ± 0.07 Equation (29) 2.73 ± 0.05 Equation (14) Walter 1984, Farin andAvnir 1987 Clypeaster, skeletal carbonate (5) 2.15 ± 0.07 Equation (29) 2.69 ± 0.04 Equation (14) Walter 1984, Farin andAvnir 1987 Hybla alkali feldspar (potassium aluminosilicate) Dissolution in HCl (pH 3) 56-400 (4) 3.0 ± 0.1 Equation (29) Holdren andSpeyer 1985, Farin and…”

Section: Interpretation Of Dissolution Mechanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fractal analysis in particle dissolution: a review

Bao

Long

et al. 2014

Reviews in Chemical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Fractal is a geometric language to describe the objects, the systems, and the phenomenon spatially and temporally. This paper reviews the literature on fractal models developed to describe the dissolution of particles. Dissolution, the process by which a solid forms a homogeneous mixture with a solution, is the behavior of a population of particles rather than a single one in most of the cases. The fractal models developed for the particle population are reviewed on the basis of two key particle surface properties, namely, the surface fractal nature and the chemical reactivity of particle surfaces. In terms of the surface fractal nature, fractals have been used to describe the change in the superficial roughness of particles, surface area-particle size relation, and particle size distribution (PSD). In terms of the reactive fractal dimensions, the models that describe the dissolution process have been developed to obtain the empirical noninteger exponent, the reactive fractal dimension that can dictate the chemical reactivity of a solid surface. The comparison between the surface fractal dimension and the reactive fractal dimension provides the dissolution mechanisms in many aspects of surface morphology. Further research is necessary to modify the current models to coincide with the real industrial processes and production and to develop the specific models for a better understanding of many processes involving the dissolution of particles encountered in many areas, including pharmaceutical and chemical applications and hydrometallurgy.

show abstract

“…The CEC indicates the number of negatively charged binding sites in the surface of the adsorbent material that are available to bind positively charged ions, also referred to as nutrient holding capacity (Kitsopoulos, 1999;Camberato, 2001;Yara, 2012). The surface area is calculated using the BET (Brunauer, Emmett and Teller) method (Brunauer et al, 1938) and refers to the surface that is accessible to the molecules -of any particular gas or liquidbeing sorbed (Love & Whittaker, 1954). The higher the CEC and surface area are of any particular material, the greater will be the capacity to adsorb positively charged ions (Shukla et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrient removal capacity of wood residues for the Agro-environmental safety of ground and surface waters

Dumont

Chadwick

Robinson

2014

Sust. Agric. Food Env. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of wood residues in the removal of nutrients (ammonium-N; NH 4 -N) from nutrient-rich (NH 4 -N) waters. The water holding capacity of the wood materials was also determined. Carried out at Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, UK, this controlled laboratory experiment tested two wood residues; in length, one being 1-2cm and the other from 150 µm (microns) to 9.5mm. Although a wide range of studies have shown the effectiveness and performance of various absorbent materials as animal beddings, such as straw (cereal straw), woodchip (sawdust, bark or wood shavings), bracken and rushes, only few have focused on the NH 4 -N sorption/desorption capacity.The depuration capacity of wood residues from nutrient-rich effluents such as those from cattle bedded on woodchip or straw will be controlled by processes such as sorption (adsorption- Results showed that although the cation exchange capacity (CEC) and surface area (SA)absorptionare both fundamental properties of adsorbent materials, no correlation was found with CEC and adsorption or desorption. Nor did changes in pH appear to be sufficiently important to cause changes in CEC. For this reason, osmotic pressure appeared to be a more predominant parameter controlling processes of adsorption and desorption of NH 4 + -N in both wood residues. Thus, wood Sustainability, Agri, Food and Environmental Research, 2014, 2(2): 47-67 ISSN: 0719-3726 48 residues high in NH 4 + -N should be avoided, as they could have an opposite effect in the adsorption of nutrients from nutrient-rich effluents.The results also showed that some wood residues (G30) had great capacity to adsorb NH 4 + -N to levels up to nearly 90% whilst demonstrating low desorption capacity of NH 4 + -N (less than 1%). These are ideal relevant features for an adsorbent material for the removal of nutrients (or heavy metals) from contaminated waters such us farm o industrial effluents, or for the depuration of eutrophic watercourses. This could help reduce the concentration of farm effluents making them more manageable, subsequently contributing towards the compliance of new environmental regulations.

show abstract

Agricultural Limestones, Surface Area and Reactivity of Typical Limestones

Cited by 23 publications

References 3 publications

Protocol to Quantify the Reactivity of Carbonate Limestone for Horticultural Substrates

Protocol to Quantify the Reactivity of Carbonate Limestone for Horticultural Substrates

Fractal analysis in particle dissolution: a review

Nutrient removal capacity of wood residues for the Agro-environmental safety of ground and surface waters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About