Reply to the comment by A. Revil on “Review of Self-potential methods in Hydrogeophysics” by L. Jouniaux et al. [C. R. Geoscience 341 (2009) 928–936]

Jouniaux, Laurence; Maineult, Alexis; Naudet, V.; Pessel, Marc; Sailhac, Pascal

doi:10.1016/j.crte.2010.07.002

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The influence of hydrodynamic conditions at the pore scale, its implications on the air/matrix interface description and water flow velocity should be further studied. Measurements from Allègre et al (2010) do not follow the model from Revil et al (2007) as many other studies, as shown by many replies and comments to A. Revil (Johnston et al 2002; Glover 2007; Nicollin et al 2007; Kuwano et al 2007; Gibert & Sailhac 2008; Jouniaux et al 2010). We think that the physics of streaming potential for unsaturated conditions is still not well understood and needs further works and new experimental data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Reply to comment by A. Revil and N. Linde on ‘Streaming potential dependence on water-content in Fontainebleau sand’

Allègre¹,

Jouniaux²,

Lehmann

et al. 2011

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YRevil and Linde recently commented our paper concerning streaming potential (SP) measurements in unsaturated sand during drainage experiments. This comment suggests that the approach used to infer SP coefficients was inappropriate for unsaturated conditions, and therefore yielded wrong conclusions and 'unphysical' results regarding the behaviour of the relative SP coefficient. This reply argues that even if in Allègre et al. we neglected some secondary electrokinetic sources, the resulting conclusions are still representative of the behaviour of the true SP coefficient, and that the remarks of Revil & Linde arose from a misunderstanding of the drainage experiment conditions. We also find support for our results from a comparison between our observations and previous experimental studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Reply to comment by A. Revil and N. Linde on ‘Streaming potential dependence on water-content in Fontainebleau sand’

Allègre¹,

Jouniaux²,

Lehmann

et al. 2011

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the SP measurements could be used to characterize active volcanic areas [1,2], to detect and monitor groundwater flow [3,4], contaminant plumes [5,6] or to study landslides [7,8]. In natural porous media, several main mechanisms proposed to explain SP signals are associated with streaming potential, electrochemical, thermoelectric, redox, or piezoelectric effects [9]. An overview of other possible mechanisms is available in [e.g., 10].…”

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective Excess Charge Density in Water Saturated Porous Media

Thanh¹

2018

MaP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model for the effective excess charge in a capillary as well as in porous media is developed for arbitrary pore scales. The prediction of the model is then compared with another published model that is limited for a thin electric double layer (EDL) assumption. The comparison shows that there is a deviation between two models depending on the ratio of capillary/pore radius and the Debye length. The reasons for the deviation between two models are not only due to the thin EDL assumption to get electrical potential and charge distribution in pores but also to some other approximations for integral evaluations. The results suggest that the model developed in this work can be used with arbitrary capillary/pore scale and thus is not restricted to the thin EDL assumption. Keywords: Zeta potential, porous media, electric double layer, effective excess charge. References [1] M. Aubert, Q.Y. Atangana, Groundwater, 34 (1996) 1010–1016.[2] A. Finizola, J.-F. Lénat, O. Macedo, D. Ramos, J.-C. Thouret, F. Sortino, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 135 (2004) 343–360.[3] C. Doussan, L. Jouniaux, J.-L. Thony, Journal of Hydrology 267 (2002) 173–185.[4] F. Perrier, M. Trique, B. Lorne, J.-P. Avouac, S. Hautot, P. Tarits, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (1998) 1955–1958.[5] Martinez-Pagan, P., A. Jardani, A. Revil, and A. Haas, Geophysics 75 (2010) WA17–WA25.[6] Naudet, V., A. Revil, J.-Y. Bottero, and P. Bgassat, Geophysical Research Letters 30 (2003).[7] V. Naudet, M. Lazzari, A. Perrone, A. Loperte, S. Piscitelli, V. Lapenna, Engineering Geology 98 (2008) 156-167.[8] A. Perrone, A. Iannuzzi, V. Lapenna, P. Lorenzo, S. Piscitelli, E. Rizzo, F. Sdao, Journal of Applied Geophysics 56 (2004) 17-29.[9] Jouniaux, L., A. Maineult, V. Naudet, M. Pessel, and P. Sailhac, C. R. Geoscience 341 (2009).[10] Revil, A., and A. Jardani, The Self-Potential Method: Theory and Applications in Environmental Geosciences, Cambridge University Press, 2013.[11] Hunter, R., Zeta Potential in Colloid Science: Principles and Applications, Colloid Science Series, Academic Press, 1981.[12] Leroy, P., and A. Revil, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 270 (2004) 371–380.[13] T. Ishido, H. Mizutani, Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (1981) 1763-1775.[14] P. W. J. Glover, E. Walker, M. Jackson, Geophysics 77 (2012) D17–D43.[15] Revil, A., and P. Leroy, Journal of Geophysical Research 109 (2004).[16] Linde, N., D. Jougnot, A. Revil, S. K. Matthäi, T. Arora, D. Renard, and C. Doussan, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (2007) L03306.[17] Revil A. and Mahardika H, Water Resources Research 49 (2013) 744–766.[18] Jardani, A., A. Revil, A. Bolève, A. Crespy, J. Dupont, W. Barrash and B. Malama, Geophysical Research Letters, 34 (2007) L24,403.[19] L. Guarracino, D. Jougnot, Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth 123 (2018) 52-65.[20] Jackson M.D., Leinov E., International Journal of Geophysics 2012 (2012).[21] Gierst L., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 88 (1966) 4768.[22] Rice, C., and R. Whitehead, J. Phys. Chem. 69 (1965) 4017–4024.[23] Pride, S., Physical Review B 50 (1994) 15,678–15,696.[24] Bear, J., Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Dover Publications, New York, 1988. [25] Chan I. Chung, Extrusion of Polymers: Theory & Practice, Hanser-2nd edition, 2010.[26] J. Vinogradov, M. Z. Jaafar, M. D. Jackson, Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (2010).

show abstract

“…The monitoring of self-potential (SP), or naturally occurring electric potentials, is suitable for generated from water flow (Jouniaux et al, , 2010Mauri et al, 2010). The applications for SP comprehend characterization of contaminant plumes (Arora et al, 2007), groundwater flow (Perrier et al, 1998), landslides studies (Colangelo et al, 2006), identifying permeable layers in wellbore analysis (Hunt and Worthington, 2000), identifying possible volcano structures (Aizawa, 2008;Zlotnicki et al, 1998), and SP anomalies related to CO 2 degassing in volcanoes (Byrdina et al, 2009;Finizola et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory study of self-potential signals during releasing of CO2 and N2 plumes

Vieira

Maineult

Zamora

2012

Comptes Rendus. Géoscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reply to the comment by A. Revil on “Review of Self-potential methods in Hydrogeophysics” by L. Jouniaux et al. [C. R. Geoscience 341 (2009) 928–936]

Cited by 3 publications

References 49 publications

Reply to comment by A. Revil and N. Linde on ‘Streaming potential dependence on water-content in Fontainebleau sand’

Reply to comment by A. Revil and N. Linde on ‘Streaming potential dependence on water-content in Fontainebleau sand’

Effective Excess Charge Density in Water Saturated Porous Media

Laboratory study of self-potential signals during releasing of CO2 and N2 plumes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About