4.7 Article

Direct determination of contact angles of model soils in comparison with wettability characterization by capillary rise

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 382, 期 1-4, 页码 10-19

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.12.014

关键词

Capillary rise; Contact angle; Mixed water repellency

资金

  1. Niedersachsen Foundation [NHDF N22002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An accurate method to determine contact angles (CA) of soils as a measure of water repellency is still missing In the present research, we evaluated and compared different methods to determine the CA of dry soil samples Experiments were made by using a set of porous materials (slit, sand and glass beads) with different levels of water repellency. The CAs were measured with the Capillary Rise Method (theta(CRM), liquid penetration into a 3-d system), the Wilhelmy plate method (theta(WPM); measurement of capillary forces acting on a plane sample) and the Sessile Drop Method (theta(SDM), optical CA analysis of chop Contour oil a plane sample) Results were compared with the CAs calculated from capillary rise in long vertical columns (theta(CR)(E)), where liquid profiles of the final capillary rise of water and ethanol, respectively, were used to derive the contact angle under the assumed equilibrium conditions The results showed the overestimation of the CA by using the well established bi-liquid CRM technique for porous materials, in particular for material with a low degree of water repellency (CA < 401) and for the finer textured materials In contrast, a variant of the Wilhelmy plate method, i e. the cosine-averaged advancing CA and receding CA (theta(WPM)(E)), as well as the Sessile Drop CA, theta(SDM), were close to the ones of OCR. We Concluded that theta(WPM)(E) and theta(SDM) are apparent CA, but nevertheless able to predict the impact of wettability on the final capillary rise which is affected by pore topology as well as by wettability. (C) 2009 Elsevier B V. All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据