
==== Front
ACS Omega
ACS Omega
ao
acsodf
ACS Omega
2470-1343
American Chemical Society

10.1021/acsomega.4c04585
Article
Research on Optimized Design, Synthesis Mechanism, and Performance of Composite Dust Suppressant for Laterite in a Plateau
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5773-1566
Wu Guixiang †
Xu Chenglin †‡
Yang Yanfei †
Liang Xingxing *†
† School of public safety and emergency management, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming Yunnan 650093, PR China
‡ China Construction Eighth, Shanghai 200000, PR China
* Email: 20180044@kust.edu.cn.
04 09 2024
17 09 2024
9 37 3871038721
14 05 2024
22 08 2024
21 08 2024
© 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society
2024
The Authors
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Permits non-commercial access and re-use, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained; but does not permit creation of adaptations or other derivative works (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Currently, a paucity of targeted dust suppressants exists for the management of laterite dust, and most of them lack sufficient resistance to the harsh conditions in the plateau areas, such as high temperatures, low rainfall, and wind erosion. To solve the problem, a new type of dust suppressant must be developed. Initially, xanthan gum was employed to enhance the viscosity and stability of guar gum. Subsequently, the synergistic mechanism between the reagents was considered, and the composition of the composite dust suppressant was selected as poly(acrylic acid), sodium dodecyl sulfate, guar gum, and xanthan gum by one- and two-factor methods. The dosage of each component was then determined via orthogonal experiments. To increase the suitability of the dust suppressant in high-temperature and low-humidity environments, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose was added to enhance the “film” effect. Both intuitive and polar analysis methods demonstrated that the composite dust suppressant was the optimal choice for controlling laterite dust emissions. The performance test experimental results show that the dust suppressant can fill the gap between particles well after spraying, the solidified layer formed is flat and smooth, and the moisture content of the sample was still above 9% after 72 h. The hardness of the consolidation layer can reach 42 HA, which can resist the destructive ability of external force; when the wind speed is 7 m/s, the mass loss rate stays below 0.63%, and the emission concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 are 32 μg/m3 and 43 μg/m3, respectively, which is in line with the requirements of the emission standards. The dust suppressant components are all less toxic to plants, and the degradation rate can reach 57.84% in the sixth cycle, ensuring degradability and biocompatibility. The composite dust suppressant demonstrated superior performance to that of the two commercially available dust suppressants. It exhibited remarkable adaptability to harsh environments, effectively regulating construction site dust emissions and reducing particulate matter in the air.

Yunnan Provincial Department of Education 10.13039/501100007846 2023J0157 Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects NA 202401CF070138 document-id-old-9ao4c04585
document-id-new-14ao4c04585
ccc-price
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Laterite is a product of intense weathering of sediments in hot and humid climates and is red in color due to its high iron oxide enrichment. It covers 30% of the entire land surface area and 20% of China’s land area and is one of the most abundant formations.1,2 The process of urbanization has led to a rapid increase in civil engineering works such as building and road works on the lateritic soil, such as in China, where new construction area reaches 2 billion square meters per year.3 During the civil construction process, uncovered and open storage of laterite dumps and the bare ground can result in particles from the soil surface being raised into the atmosphere. Due to the long time period and repetitive nature of the construction project, a large amount of dust will be generated, causing serious pollution. Construction activities in a region can increase TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations in the surrounding area by 28.23%, 14.83%, and 10.60%, respectively.4,5 The negative impacts of particle pollution are widespread, especially on public health. Epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that increased mortality from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with exposure to airborne particulate pollutants, with excess PM2.5 emissions contributing to more than 1 million deaths per year.6,7 Dust pollution also affects the safety, comfort, and morale of construction workers, with about 30000 new cases of occupational pneumoconiosis and other respiratory diseases occurring in China each year, with a mortality rate of 22.04%.8

Dust suppressants are an efficient means of controlling dust release.9 Inorganic salts and high-fold water-absorbent resins are effective in dust suppression, but the halide of inorganic salts is corrosive, which not only causes damage to equipment but also leads to alkalization of the soil, which affects plant growth.10 The high-fold water-absorbent resin wets the dust source, and the dust reduction effect is obvious, but the dust suppression time is shorter, the resistance to wind erosion is poorer, the preparation process is cumbersome, and the cost is high.11 These dust suppressants are impractical due to low efficiency, high cost, and single function, and dust suppressants are gradually moving toward high efficiency, low cost, and environmentally friendly. Jiang et al. modified pectin by solution polymerization and synergized with long-chain carboxylic acid ester sodium polyoxyethylene sulfonate (LEMS) and isopropyl alcohol polyoxyethylene ether (XL-70) to prepare a dust suppressant with bonding and wetting effects to reduce coal dust.12 Wang et al. used microbial-catalyzed urease hydrolysis of urea, which reacted with calcium ions to produce precipitated carbonate, making a biodegradable and well-bonded dust suppressant.13 Hu et al. investigated the microbial-induced carbonate precipitation in activated sludge under different conditions and optimized the performance of microbial dust suppressants by the response surface curve method.14 Ren et al. prepared a capsule core of a novel dust suppressant by mixing treated waste peanut shells, acrylic acid (AA), and dimethyl diallyl ammonium chloride (DMDAAC), and prepared capsule wall in the presence of calcium alginate. The capsule core and wall synergistically suppressed the dust to prolong the time of dust suppression.15 Kondrasheva et al. prepared a functional dust suppressant with good antifreeze properties in refinery waste, which has strong temperature adaptability, but the product can lead to environmental pollution.16 Medeiros et al. similarly prepared a dust suppressant using byproducts.17 The cost of these dust suppressants is low, but their preparation is cumbersome, and their dust suppression effects need to be improved. Nowadays, there are more than 200 dust suppression products on the market,18 which still face the challenges of secondary pollution and high cost.19 There are also different degrees of poor environmental adaptability, and the main application places are concentrated in the treatment of mining dust.20−24 For example, Zhang et al. investigated the relationship between the amount of urease bacteria adsorbed in a single layer on the surface of pulverized coal and the efficiency of dust suppression.25 The performance of particles produced in the construction process of buildings and roads is different from that of coal dust, and the principles of dust suppression are also very different.

During earthwork construction, dust emissions can cause air pollution, jeopardize the physical and mental health of residents, and reduce the service life of equipment. Therefore, it is of great importance to implement measures to prevent the spread of dust in the geographically vast red earth. However, the development of dust suppressants has two limitations: environmental pollution and high cost. Moreover, these products have not been developed for lateritic soils. Therefore, the development of efficient, environmentally friendly, and low-cost dust suppression products suitable for lateritic soil is an important direction for research in the field of dust removal. Guar gum (GG) is a natural, widely sourced galactomannan gum that is rich in polar groups. In this study, xanthan gum (XG), a natural polysaccharide polymer, was selected to improve its properties and then obtain a composite binder with an excellent bonding effect. To enhance its water retention, permeability, and film-forming properties, the binder was further modified with the addition of poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), and sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate (SDBS). These reagents synergize to form a new type of dust suppression agent, which combines the superior properties of dust suppression, environmental protection, simple operation process, low cost, and resistance to harsh environments. It can effectively control the dust pollution of building and road construction on red land, provides more choices for dust suppression products, and is of great significance in reducing particles in the atmosphere.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Sampling Site Description

Kunming, Yunnan, is located in southwestern China, in the middle of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, between longitude 102°10–103°40′ and latitude 24°23–26°22′, with a center elevation of about 1,891 m above sea level. It belongs to the low-latitude subtropical plateau mountainous monsoon climate in the northern latitude, with an average of about 2200 h of sunshine annually, dryness, and little rainfall. The annual average temperature is 18 °C. Summer rainfall accounts for more than 60% of the annual rainfall, and the average temperature is 22 °C. Kunming belongs to the plateau laterite area, with more than 90% of the area being laterite.

2.2 Lateritic Samples

Yunnan laterite is a red soil layer developed under high temperatures and rainy conditions. It contains a large amount of clay minerals and is one of the soils with special physical and chemical properties. This soil is weakly acidic, low in organic matter, and heavy in clay. In order to minimize the influence of organic matter and other impurities present in the laterite above 0.5 m on the experimental results, we selected the laterite within the depth of 0.5–1 m as the experimental sample. The sampling site is located beside Kunming Changshui Airport, a construction site where earthwork construction is being carried out (longitude 102°55′; latitude 25°5′), and data from geotechnical tests of soil samples were provided by Kunming Exploration and Design Institute (KEDI). The moisture content of the soil sample was 0.21%, and the saturated water absorption rate was 42%; the wet density was 1.73 g/cm3; the porosity ratio was 1.47, and the HCO3– content was 188.4 mg/kg; the pH value was 6.9, which was weakly acidic.

2.3 Main Reagents

The reagents used in the experiment mainly included sucrose, PAA, XG, GG, HPMC, SDBS, ethylene glycol (EG), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether (AEO), and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). These reagents were purchased from Tianjin Komio Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., and Henan Wanbang Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. All chemicals are AR-class reagents.

2.4 Procedures

First, the water-retaining agent, binder, and surfactant with better coupling effect with laterite were screened by one-factor and two-factor experimental methods. Then, the preliminary formulation of dust suppressants was performed using orthogonal experiments. Finally, the dust suppressant product was obtained by adding a film-type enhancer to reduce the cracking phenomena of the sample. The composite dust suppressant was compared and examined with two dust suppressants purchased from the market in terms of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), antievaporation, compressive strength, resistance to wind erosion, degradation, and other related performance characterization experiments. Details are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Preparation and performance analysis of the composite dust suppressant.

2.5 Dust Suppressant Preparation

According to the requirements of water retention performance, wetting speed, and film-forming strength of the dust suppressant, considering the interaction between the components and the purchase cost and adhering to the concept of environmental protection, a composite dust suppressant with excellent dust suppression performance was developed.

2.5.1 Component Screening

2.5.1.1 Binder

When selecting the binder, it is usually necessary to choose a polymer with a longer molecular branch chain and higher plasticity and also to prevent the viscosity of the binder from being too large to cause the phenomenon of equipment clogging. GG is a natural galactomannan gum that is cheap to obtain, nontoxic, nonhazardous, and naturally degradable. Kim et al. have identified GG as a potential soil stabilizer and metal chelator.26 However, GG solution has poor thermal stability, and its viscosity decreases after heating at high temperature for a period of time. These drawbacks make the application of GG extremely limited.27 XG is a natural neutral water-soluble polysaccharide polymer with a wide range of applications due to its unique rheological properties, excellent physicochemical properties, and biodegradability.28 When XG is added to GG, it forms a polymer with galactose-free branches on the main chain of the GG molecule. Due to the small proportion of galactose-free branches, no gel is formed after compounding with XG. Consequently, the combination of the two reagents enhances the viscosity and also ensures the ease of spraying.

The laterite was crushed and passed through a 40-mesh sieve.29 A total of 40 g of laterite was spread evenly in a 9 cm diameter glass Petri dish (subsequent samples of laterite were treated in the same way). To understand the ratio of the two binders better, we tested 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12, 0.14, and 0.16 g. Two reagents began to float in 0.1 g and 0.12 g. The amounts of reagents for the experiment were 0.02 g, 0.04 g, 0.06 g, and 0.08 g. Two-factor analysis was employed to compounds of GG and XG. First, XG and 100 mL of deionized water were heated and stirred until dissolution at 75 °C in a water bath. Thereafter, GG was added and stirred. Following cooling to room temperature, the viscosities of the 16 configured solutions were measured and compared by using a viscometer.

2.5.1.2 Water-Retaining Agent

Yunnan laterite has a certain viscosity, and the soil particles are not easily disturbed by external forces after being moistened. The wettability of the soil plays an important role in preventing the release of particles. Considering that the composite dust suppressant needs to meet the requirements of environmental protection and economy, sucrose, PAA, and EG, which have better water retention effect and are in line with the concept of ecological and environmental protection, were chosen as the experimental reagents.30,31 Through the antievaporation experiment of the sample, the agent with the best water retention effect was selected.

In order to determine the mass concentrations of sucrose, PAA, and EG at optimal water retention, solutions of each reagent were configured and analyzed at mass concentrations of 2.0%, 2.5%, and 3.0%, respectively.32−34 Each reagent solution and water were sprayed on the samples at a rate of 1.5 L/m2 (each solution was sprayed with the same 4 samples).35 The samples sprayed with the reagents were placed in a natural environment, and the average moisture contents of the samples were measured after 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 h, respectively. The moisture content was calculated by the formula:1

where Wb is the moisture content of the sample, %; W0 is the mass of the sample, g; W1 is the mass after spraying the reagent, g; and W2 is the mass of the sample after standing for a specified time, g.

2.5.1.3 Surfactant

Surfactants can enhance the diffusion and wetting capacity of water molecules on the surface of soil particles and alter repulsive forces between soil particles into attractive forces through the hydrophilic group, thus achieving a good wetting effect.36 Currently, anionic and nonionic surfactants are the most commonly used types. Representative AEO, SDBS, and SDS were selected as the analytical objects, and the capillary reverse osmosis experiment was used to compare the performance.37,38 The laterite was initially sieved through a 40-mesh sieve and then packed into a glass tube with a filtering fiber membrane at the bottom. The lateritic column is approximately 60 mm high. The configured glass tubes were placed vertically in the 0.75% and 1.0% surfactant solutions. After a period of time, the glass tubes were removed and weighed to calculate the amount of solution absorbed (i.e., weight gain).

2.5.2 Preparation of Dust Suppressant

2.5.2.1 Orthogonal Experiment

Three factors (PAA, composite binder, and SDBS) and three levels (concentration values or dosages at the time of the experiment) of the orthogonal test method were determined according to the previous one- and two-factor methods. Then, the dust suppressant solution was configured according to orthogonal experiment table L4 (23). The water-retaining agent was dissolved in deionized water, then the composite binder was added and stirred, and finally, SDBS was added to obtain 9 kinds of solutions. Each solution was sprayed on the samples and the moisture content of each group of samples was determined at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h to derive the preliminary formulations of the dust suppressants. Finally, the suitability of the preliminary formulation was verified by polarity analysis.

2.5.2.2 Addition of Film-Type Enhancer

After the preliminary dust suppressant is sprayed on the sample and left in the natural environment for a period of time, cracking occurs to varying degrees. To prevent this phenomenon, it is necessary to strengthen the “wrapping” effect of the reagent on the soil and its antievaporation function. It is, therefore, necessary to add cellulose to the preliminary formulation. Cellulose has good water solubility and can be effectively distributed in the solution system under the action of surfactants.39 It forms a network structure with the hydrogen bond of the formula to increase the rigidity of the chain structure and make it unable to rotate so that it cannot be rotated, thereby improving the consolidation layer force on the soil surface after spraying and enhancing the moisture absorption and water retention effect of the dust suppressant.

The common cellulose is mainly methylcellulose (MC), CMC, hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), and HPMC. MC has poor temperature resistance and high requirements for product fineness; HEC on the market has a large water content and high ash content, resulting in a significant decline in actual performance during the experiment. Therefore, CMC and HPMC are selected. Add 0.1, 0.15, and 0.20g of CMC and HPMC to the formulation and stir, and the configured solution and water were sprayed on the samples. After 24 h, the moisture content of the samples was measured to evaluate the reagents’ resistance to evaporation.

2.6 Performance Analysis Experiments

The reagents were diluted in deionized water at a ratio of 1:100 according to the solution proportioning instructions for purchased dust suppressants and references to the literature.40 To determine the performance of the dust suppressant, the following experiments were conducted and compared with two commercially available dust suppressants, A and B, and water.

2.6.1 SEM

Composite dust suppressants A and B were sprayed on the soil samples and allowed to dry naturally until the quality stabilized. The film formed by the dust suppressants was collected, and the micromorphological characteristics were observed by SEM experiments to elucidate their mechanisms of action.41

2.6.2 Antievaporation Experiments

The antievaporation of the dust suppressant is an important index to evaluate its performance, which refers to its ability to reduce wind erosion by keeping the soil particles in a moist state. To explore the potential for cost savings, a dust suppressant spray rate of 1.0 L/m2 was added for side-by-side comparison with 1.5 L/m2. The composite dust suppressant, dust suppressant A and B solutions, and water were sprayed on the samples, The samples were weighed at 0, 6, 18, 24, 30, 42, 48, 54, 66, and 72 h to calculate the moisture content of each sample.42 The data were recorded and analyzed for resistance to evaporation.

2.6.3 Wind Erosion Resistance Experiments

External wind was simulated using an air blower, and wind speed was measured using an anemometer. At wind speeds of 3, 5, and 7 m/s (lasting for 30 min), the mass loss rates were calculated to assess the wind resistance of each reagent.43 The calculation formula is as follows:2

where E is the wind erosion rate,%; W1 is the initial mass, g; and W2 is the mass of the sample after wind erosion, g.

To better study the actual situation of site dust emissions, the ductility test were added to check whether the dust emissions of samples sprayed with reagents under wind erosion exceeded the standards. The 1 m2 laterite was paved flat in the laboratory, water and composite dust suppressants were evenly sprayed on the sample. The dust concentration detector was used to measure the changes in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations before and after spraying (24 h) to verify the dust suppression effect.

2.6.4 Hardness Experiment of the Consolidation Layer

The samples were treated with composite dust suppressant, dust suppressant A, B, and water, and allowed to stand for 24 h.44 The hardness of the consolidated layer of each sample was measured by a Shore hardness tester

2.6.5 Degradability Experiments

The consolidation layer of 4 samples treated with composite dust suppressant was placed in a glass dish and buried in the soil. The degradation rate was calculated in 6 cycles (5 days in one cycle), and the average value was taken.45 The calculation formula is as follows:3

where u is the degradation rate, %; m0 is the initial mass of the consolidation layer, g; and m1 is the mass of the consolidation layer after a certain period, g.

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Optimization and Preparation of Dust Suppressants

3.1.1 Composite Binder Selection

The experimental results of the two-factor method for the binder are shown in Table 1. The combination of GG and XG confers a distinct advantage resulting in a maximum viscosity of 57.50 mPa·s, which is considerably higher than that of similar products. Furthermore, it solves the problem of the “inverse ratio” between viscosity and playability. To obtain the maximum viscosity, the ratio of higher concentration solution was selected. Three ratio experiments were carried out (0.08, 0.08), (0.08, 0.09), and (0.08, 0.10), and the viscosity values were 73.00 mPa·s, 71.50 mPa·s, and 75.00 mPa·s, respectively. However, the solutions were found to have more or less suspended material, indicating that the concentration value was too large and therefore not desirable. The viscosity values of groups 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 in Table 1 are roughly at the same relatively high level. These results are superior to those obtained in similar bonding experiments with the dust suppressants prepared by Zhang et al.46 Considering the principle of maximum solubility and viscosity values, groups 8, 12, and 16 were selected for the next orthogonal experiment.

Table 1 Viscosity Values under Different Compounding

Number	GG, XG (g)	Viscosity value (mPa·s)	Number	GG, XG (g)	Viscosity value (mPa·s)	
1	0.02, 0.02	13.25	9	0.06, 0.02	17.00	
2	0.02, 0.04	16.50	10	0.06, 0.04	18.25	
3	0.02, 0.06	23.00	11	0.06, 0.06	45.00	
4	0.02, 0.08	47.50	12	0.06, 0.08	51.25	
5	0.04, 0.02	15.00	13	0.08, 0.02	17.50	
6	0.04, 0.04	17.25	14	0.08, 0.04	22.55	
7	0.04, 0.06	27.50	15	0.08, 0.06	47.50	
8	0.04, 0.08	52.50	16	0.08, 0.08	57.50	

3.1.2 Water-Retaining Agent Selection

The water retention effect of different concentrations of PAA, sucrose, and EG with water is shown in Figure 2. These three reagents exhibit a distinct advantage over water in terms of the water retention effect. Since it takes time for the reagents to work, each reagent has approximately the same effect within 4h, keeping the moisture content above 70%. The loss of moisture content increased with increasing temperature and leveled off at a later stage. The ranking of the moisture retention effect of each reagent was: PAA > EG > sucrose. PAA remained above 43% at 8 h, with moisture contents of 43.71%, 47.15%, and 48.03% at 2%, 2.5%, and 3.0% by mass concentration respectively, which were higher than those of sucrose and EG. Furthermore, it also had a good water-retaining effect in other periods.

Figure 2 Moisture content of samples sprayed with different water-retaining agents: (a) sucrose, (b) PAA, and (c) EG.

PAA contains a multitude of strongly hydrophilic functional groups, carboxyl (−COOH), hydroxyl (−OH), and H2O hydration to form hydrogen bonds. The ionization causes the molecular chains to become negatively charged, and the electrodynamic repulsive forces generated by these negative charges cause a difference in the ion concentration, leading to osmotic pressure. Water molecules penetrate and are stored within the PAA structure under osmotic pressure, providing a continuous water retention effect.47 PAA has a high water-retaining efficiency, so it was chosen as the water retention agent.

3.1.3 Surfactant Selection

A capillary reverse osmosis experiment was used to obtain the wetting properties of the surfactants on laterite. The weight gains in 0.75%, and 1.0% mass concentration of AEO, SDBS, and SDS was 0.06 g, 0.10 g, and 0.09 g; 0.11 g, 0.17 g, and 0.16 g. It shows that SDBS is more penetrating among the 3 reagents. It has the ability to reduce the surface tension of soil particles the fastest and increase the interaction force with laterite particles. SDBS has good acid and alkali resistance and is basically nontoxic,48 so it was used as the surfactant in this experiment.

3.1.4 Primary Formulations

According to the screening results of a water-retaining agent, binder, and surfactant and referring to the orthogonal experimental table L4 (23), the formula experiment table of each component was compiled and is detailed in Table 2.

Table 2 Orthogonal Experimental Design Scheme

 	Agent	
 	PAA	Composite binder	SDBS	
Number	Level	Mass concentration (%)	Level	Mass concentration (%)	Level	Mass concentration (%)	
1	1	2. 0	1	0.04:0.08	1	0.75	
2	1	2.0	2	0.06:0.08	2	1.0	
3	1	2.0	3	0.08:0.08	3	1.25	
4	2	2.5	1	0.04:0.08	2	0.75	
5	2	2.5	2	0.06:0.08	3	1.0	
6	2	2.5	3	0.08:0.08	1	1.25	
7	3	3.0	1	0.04:0.08	3	0.75	
8	3	3.0	2	0.06:0.08	1	1.0	
9	3	3.0	3	0.08:0.08	2	1.25	

Groups 1–9 were sprayed on samples, and then the moisture content of each sample was measured at different times, as shown in Figure 3. Before 6 h, the moisture content of each group of samples did not differ much and remained at a high level when the samples were all in a wet state and evaporation was low. At 12 h, the differences between the formulations began to appear. Group 4 had the most obvious advantage of antievaporation, with the least water loss and a moisture content of 67.22%; in contrast, on the other hand, Group 7 had the most significant water loss, with the water content dropping to 38.79%; while the other groups of samples did not differ significantly. At 24 h, significant differences were observed between the groups, with Group 4 still having the highest moisture content at 46.17%, while Group 9 had the greatest decrease in moisture content at 18.15%. At 72 h, the wetting effect of Group 4 samples was more than 4%, and the antievaporation was higher than that of the other groups. Consequently, the Group 4 formulation is the optimal formulation under the intuitive method.

Figure 3 Comparison of the moisture content under different formulations.

The sum of the moisture contents of each factor at different levels after 6 h were calculated for 9 groups of samples, and they were recorded as Ki, and then the range value R was calculated. The results are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that the composite binder has a higher range value of R, indicating that the composite binder has the greatest effect on the moisture content. This result also verifies the view of Copeland et al.,49 that is, the magnitude of the viscosity value of the dust suppressant directly affects the actual dust suppression effect. The extreme deviation of the water-retaining agent is lower than that of the other two factors, indicating that it has a lesser effect. The optimal formulation of the dust suppressant in the polar analysis method was PAA 2.5 g, composite binder (0.04 g, 0.08 g), SDBS 1.0 g.

Table 3 Calculation Results of Range Value R

 	Factor	
Range value	PAA	Composite binder	SDBS	
K1	85.0	89.7	83.4	
K2	88.5	83.2	88.8	
K3	85.1	85.7	86.4	
R	3.5	6.5	5.4	

The optimal formulations of the dust suppressant from the intuitive and polar analysis methods were the same, so the preliminary formulation of the dust suppressant was PAA 2.5 g, composite binder (0.04g, 0.08g), SDBS 1.0 g.

3.1.5 Membrane Enhancement Experiment Result and Analysis

The membrane enhancement experiments were conducted in August, the hottest month of the year when evaporation rates from the topsoil layer increase, and comparative results are more informative. Figure 4 shows the effect of adding different concentrations of HPMC and CMC on the moisture contents of the samples at different time periods. HPMC has a strong protective effect on enhancing the topsoil “membrane”, and its advantages gradually become PAA argent after 12 h. The impact of varying HPMC concentrations on moisture content was not discernible prior to 24 h, with each sample exhibiting a moisture content of approximately 50%. At this stage, the solidified layer has a notable capacity to impede evaporation. After 72h, the influence of concentration variation on moisture content became more pronounced, and the best effect was 9.32% when adding 0.20 g.

Figure 4 Moisture content of samples sprayed with different cellulose: (a) HPMC, (b) CMC.

The hardness value of the consolidated layer after the addition of cellulose is shown in Table 4. Compared with CMC, HPMC can improve the hardness of the consolidation layer, and the samples are more resistant to external damage. The hardness value of the consolidated layer is directly proportional to the amount of HPMC, and the hardness value of the consolidated layer was maximum at 0.2 g of addition, which is 43 HA.

Table 4 Hardness Value of the Consolidated Layer

Cellulose	Mass (g)	Hardness value (HA)	Cellulose	Mass (g)	Hardness value (HA)	
HPMC	0	16	CMC	0	16	
0.10	26	0.10	29	
0.15	32	0.15	32	
0.20	43	0.20	31	

Based on the experimental results of moisture content and hardness value of the solidified layer, 0.2 g of HPMC was added to the orthogonal experimental formulation to further enhance the antievaporation ability of the dust suppressant and to prevent the surface cracking of the sample in a harsh environment.

3.2 Synthesis and Synergistic Mechanism of Composite Dust Suppressants

Composite dust suppressants are mainly composed of PAA, XG, GG, SDBS, and HPMC. XG was first dissolved by heating and stirring in a water bath, a process in which the XG helical chain structure stretches into a disordered coiled chain. After the mixture was cooled to room temperature, an appropriate amount of GG was added and dissolved by slow stirring. The galactose-free branch section on the main chain of the guar gum molecule forms a polymer with XG, and the nonbranched chain part of GG and the double helix structure of the XG are combined in the form of a secondary bond to form a three-dimensional network structure to achieve a synergistic effect, as shown in Figure 5. The viscosity of the composite product is much higher than the sum of the two viscosities.

Figure 5 Synthesis mechanism of the composite binder.

Upon evaporation, the PAA polymer chain undergoes a process of self-shrinkage into a coil, which impedes the formation of a network structure capable of effectively covering dust particles. This inherent limitation of traditional PAA monomers is one of the reasons why their dust suppression efficacy is not optimal. In this case, it was used as a water-retaining agent for a composite dust suppressant. PAA was incorporated into the composite binder solutions and extended through slow stirring. This process facilitated uniform dispersion of PAA within the composite binder polymer, leading to the formation of an interlocking network structure. A significant quantity of carboxyl and hydroxyl functional groups present in the mixture of PAA and the composite binder interacted with the polar functional groups of the soil particles, resulting in the generation of hydrogen bonding forces. This process promotes agglomeration of the soil particles.

To further improve the mechanical properties of the composite binder, HPMC was added to the consolidation layer, thereby improving its strength. Cellulose is used to increase the rigidity of the chain structure so that the soil particle cannot rotate and prevent the consolidation layer from drying out and cracking, so that the consolidation layer is further enhanced to resist disturbance. Finally, SDBS was added. SDBS reduces the surface tension of the solution, allowing the dust suppressant to penetrate and fill the gaps between the dust particles, thereby enhancing the wettability of the soil particles. Furthermore, the reagents enhanced the mutual attraction between soil particles, thereby increasing the compactness of the soil layer. The reagent was then combined to synthesize a dust suppressant, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Synthesis mechanism of composite dust suppressant.

3.3 Analysis of Dust Suppression Performance

3.3.1 Micromorphology of Soil Layer Consolidation

The micromorphology of the laterite was observed by SEM before and after spraying the reagents, and the results are shown in Figure 7. From Figure 7(a), it can be seen that the particle micromorphology is relatively irregular and angular. Without dust suppressant treatment, the particles have an obvious spacing and a loose distribution. There is no aggregation between particles and there is a lack of cementation between them. Under the action of induced airflow, they are susceptible to wind. As shown in Figure 7(b), the particle expands another 30 times, becoming uneven and rough. Particles are uneven and rough, and the distance between particles is large, making the van der Waals gravity between them smaller.50 However, the particle has a large surface area and a large contact area with the dust suppressant, which facilitates penetration of the dust suppressant.

Figure 7 SEM microscopic morphology of samples with different dust suppressants: (a, b) absent, (b, c) dust suppressants A, B, and (e) composite dust suppressant.

Figures 7(c), (d) show samples sprayed with commercial dust suppressants A and B, respectively. The surface of the samples is rough, and they produce some adhesion to the scattered particles and can gather some of the particles compared to those in Figures 7(b). In particular, the sample sprayed with dust suppressant B showed obvious cracks and insufficient filling between the pores. Figure 7(e) shows the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant. Compared with Figures 7(c, d), the composite dust suppressant covered the sample uniformly and formed a mesh structure, which caused soil particles with different particle sizes to be tightly agglomerated together and formed a hard shell. Magnifying Figure 7(e) by 10 times, as shown in Figure 7(f), the consolidated layer on the soil surface was free of folds and cracks, and the consolidated layer was dense, solidified, and able to resist wind erosion.

The surface of the samples is rough, and although it can provide a certain degree of bonding, the bond is not strong. In particular, the sample sprayed with dust suppressant B has obvious cracks and insufficient filling between the pores. Figure 7(e) shows the sample sprayed with composite dust suppressant, it uniformly covers the sample, and the mesh structure formed by the dust suppressant makes the soil particles of different particle sizes tightly agglomerated to form a hard shell and able to resist wind erosion.

3.3.2 Antievaporation

The moisture content of the samples after spraying with composite dust suppressant (spray volume of 1.5 L/m2, 1.0 L/m2) dust suppressant A, B, and water at different times (The sample numbers in order are 1#, 1-1#, 2#, 3#, water) are showed in Figure 8. The moisture contents of 1# and 1-1# were significantly different from those of 2# and 3# and performed well at all times. Evaporation was high in the first 24 h, and the moisture content of all samples decreased rapidly. At 48 h, the moisture content of 2# and 3# samples were 4.09% and 3.57%, respectively, and the dust suppression effect was poor; while the composite dust suppressant had a better water retention effect, which was above 23.46%. After 72 h, the moisture contents of the 2# and 3# samples have been reduced to 1.32% and 1.28%, and the dust suppression effect has basically disappeared. At this time, the moisture contents of 1# and 1-1# samples were 9.04% and 6.71%, which were higher than those of 2# and 3# at 48 h. 1# has the best antievaporation ability, and the sample with high spraying amount has high antievaporation ability. It has similar water retention and water retention effect with the biporous road dust suppressant developed by Liu et al.33

Figure 8 Antievaporation of different dust suppressants.

The results of the experiments demonstrate that the composite dust suppressant exhibits a notable advantage in terms of antievaporation performance. Its addition improves the affinity of the particles for water and also reduces water emission due to hydrogen bonding with the particles. The sample sprayed with composite dust suppressant did not show an obvious cracking phenomenon and had similar antievaporation performance to the STW-type ecological soil stabilizers prepared by Huang et al.,51 which could maintain dust suppression for a longer period of time in harsh environments.

3.3.3 Wind Erosion Resistance

The mass loss rate of each sample at varying wind speeds following a 24 h period of exposure in a natural environment is shown in Figure 9. The capacity of the dust suppressant to prevent the suspension of soil particles has obvious advantages over water, and the mass loss rates of 1# and 1-1# are lower than those of 2# and 3#, with the advantage of 1# being the most obvious. When the wind speeds are less than 3 m/s, the mass loss rate of 1#–3# is less than 3%, while the sample sprayed with water reaches 12.8%. The lack of an adhesion mechanism in water prevents it from consolidating the soil particles. Over time, the water evaporated, and the soil particles lifted up under the wind flow. At a wind speed of 5 m/s, the mass loss rates of 1# and 1-1# were 0.46% and 0.31% after 24 h, while those of 2# and 3# were 2.64% and 5.29%. Upon increasing the wind speed to 7 m/s, the mass loss rates of 1# and 1-1# were 0.56% and 0.63%, while those of 2# and 3# were 6.72% and 11.67%. The composite dust suppressant can maintain the samples wet for a long time by increasing the cohesion between the soil particles. This improves the strength of the soil consolidation layer and enhances its resistance to wind erosion. The dust suppression effect is better than the two commercially available dust suppressants and polyacrylamide.52

Figure 9 Mass loss of each sample under different wind speeds

To further verify the wind erosion resistance of the formulations, extended experiments based on wind erosion were conducted. Samples of both the 1 # and the sprayed samples were placed in the natural environment for 24 h, and the PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations were measured at a wind speed of 7 m/s. The concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 were measured at 127 μg/m3 and 175 μg/m3, respectively, behind the water spray samples, which exceeded the values of the “Class II Standard” of “Ambient air quality standards” (GB 3095-2012, PM2.5 75 μg/m3 and PM10 150 μg/m3). The concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 were measured at 32 μg/m3 and 43 μg/m3, respectively, behind the 1#, the dust suppression effect is obvious. The extended experiments are consistent with the results of wind erosion experiments, and the composite dust suppressant demonstrated good wind erosion resistance and was found to effectively improve dust pollution.

3.3.4 Consolidation Layer Strength

The hardness of the consolidation layer formed after spraying dust suppressants A and B was low, with average hardness values of 15 and 9 HA, respectively. This indicates that the consolidation effect was insignificant and that the consolidation layer exhibited a relatively poor resistance to external damage. The solid layer formed after the spraying of composite dust suppressant had greater strength, and the average hardness value of the solidified layer reached 42 HA. It is 2.8 and 4.6 times higher than dust suppressants A and B, and 1.3 times higher than a nanofluid type dust suppressant.53 It demonstrated notable advantages in compressive strength and exhibited good resistance to external damage.

3.3.5 Degradability of Dust Suppressor

The components of the composite dust suppressant are less toxic to plants. XG and GG are both plant gums that are easily decomposed by microorganisms. PAA is nontoxic and nonpolluting and is widely used in printing, papermaking, and biodegradation.40a It reacts with substances in the soil to form a small-molecule polymer, which is then decomposed by microorganisms into CO2 and H2O. SDBS is basically nontoxic, and occupational poisoning has not been reported. Several small plant seedlings appeared after the spraying experiment, which verified the environmental friendliness of the composite dust suppressant on the side.

Figure 10 shows the degradation rate of the solidified layer formed by the composite dust suppressant over time. The degradation rate of the consolidated layer was higher in the 1–4 cycles, and the degradation rate was 54.59% in the fourth cycle, with nearly half of the consolidation layer being degraded. The degradation magnitude started to slow down in the 5–6 cycles, but the degradation was still continuing. The degradation rate was 57.84% in the sixth cycle, and the degradation effect was superior to the hydrogel dust suppressant developed by Wei et al.41a The composite dust suppressant ensures degradability and biocompatibility, while ensuring that the laterite has moisture-retaining properties and a high-strength cover film. It is a relatively efficient dust suppressant.

Figure 10 Periodic degradation rate of the consolidated layer.

4 Summary

Taking Yunnan laterite as the research object and adhering to the concept of ecological and environmental protection, we developed a composite dust suppressant suitable for use in construction sites such as buildings and roads. Compared with the dust suppressants purchased on the market, they have obvious advantages in terms of evaporation resistance, wind erosion resistance, permeability, degradation, and environmental applicability.(1) The water-retaining agent, composite binder, and surfactant of the composite dust suppressant were selected by one- and two-factor experimental methods. The water retention effect of PAA was superior to sucrose and EG at all times, and the moisture content of the sample was maintained above 43% for 8 h after spraying, with a continuous water retention effect. XG can synergize with GG in a high degree of synergism and can improve the shortcomings of poor thermal stability of GG. The viscosity and solubility values of the solution were more favorable when the ratios of GG to XG were (0.04, 0.08), (0.06, 0.08), and (0.08, 0.08). The results of the capillary reverse osmosis experiment show that SDBS as a surfactant has good permeability to laterite.

(2) The composition of components was proportioned by the orthogonal experimental method, in which PAA 2.5 g; composite binder (GG 0.04 g, XG 0.08 g); and SDBS 1.0 g had the best performances. The moisture contents of the samples remained above 4% after 72 h. The superiority of the formulation was also verified by polar analysis.

(3) To prevent the cracking of laterite in harsh environments after spraying dust suppressants, cellulose is added to enhance the protective “membrane” effect of the consolidation layer. HPMC increased the moisture content and hardness value of the consolidation layer more than CMC. At the addition of 0.2 g, the hardness value of the consolidated layer increased 3 times to 43 HA.

(4) The composite dust suppressant displays a robust cohesive effect, with the moisture content of the sample remains at 9.02% even after 72 h. Furthermore, the solidified layer remains intact under high-temperature conditions, and there is no cracking phenomenon. In the wind erosion resistance experiment, when the wind speed was 7 m/s, there was only a 0.69% mass loss rate, and the concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 were 32 μg/m3 and 43 μg/m3, respectively, which is in line with the requirements of “The Ambient Air Quality Standard”. The composite dust suppressant has good degradability. In the sixth cycle, the degradation rate reached 57.84%, and small plant seedlings appeared during the experiment, which verified the environmental friendliness of the composite dust suppressant from the side.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects (Grant No. 202401CF070138) and Scientific Research Project of Yunnan Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. 2023J0157).
==== Refs
References

Zhao Q. G. ; Huang Q. G. ; Ma Y. Q. The problems in red soil ecosystem in southern of China and its countermeasures. Acta. Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33 (24 ), 615–622. 10.5846/stxb201312172973.
Zhang Y. B. Experimental of Consolidation Performance of Laterite in Plateau Based on RSM. Materials Rep. 2023, 37 , 259–264.
National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook on Construction 2022; China Statistics Press: 2022; pp 16–17.
Yan H. ; Ding G. ; Feng K. ; Zhang L. ; Li H. ; Wang Y. ; Wu T. Systematic evaluation framework and empirical study of the impacts of building construction dust on the surrounding environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275 , 122767 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122767.
Zou Q. ; Chen Z. ; Zhan J. ; Chen C. ; Gao S. ; Kong F. ; Xia X. Morphological evolution of fracture channels and flow conduction law after sandstone failure under cyclic loading with different stress levels. Int. J. Min. Sci. Techno. 2023, 33 (12 ), 1527–1540. 10.1016/j.ijmst.2023.11.003.
Chen J. ; Cheng B. ; Xie W. ; Su M. Occupational morphological evolution of fracture channels migrant interior construction workers in two Chinese cities. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 2022, 19 , 10113 10.3390/ijerph191610113.
Luo Q. ; Huang L. ; Xue X. ; Chen Z. ; Zhou F. ; Wei L. ; Hua J. Occupational health risk assessment based on dust exposure during earthwork construction. J. Bui. Eng. 2021, 44 , 103186 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103186.
Xu L. ; Pei Z. Preparation and Optimization of a Novel Dust Suppressant for Construction Sites. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 2017, 29 , 04017051 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001902.
Li M. ; Tang J. ; Song X. ; Qiu L. ; Yang H. ; Li Z. Study on Multi-Factor Optimization and Application for Water Mist of a Wetting Dust Suppressant. ACS omega. 2022, 7 (51 ), 47861–47868. 10.1021/acsomega.2c05691.36591130
Goodrich B. A. ; Koski R. D. ; Jacobi W. R. Roadside Vegetation Health Condition and Magnesium Chloride (MgCl2) Dust Suppressant Use in Two Colorado, US Counties. Arb. Urb. For. 2008, 34 (4 ), 252–259. 10.48044/jauf.2008.034.
Han F. ; Peng Y. ; Zhao Y. ; Yang P. ; Hu F. Comparative investigation of methods for evaluating the wettability of dust suppression reagents on coal dust. J. Mol. Lio. 2024, 399 , 124380 10.1016/j.molliq.2024.124380.
Jiang B. ; Liu Z. ; Zhao Y. ; Zhang X. ; Wang X.-H. ; Ji B. ; Zhang Y. ; Huang J. Development of an eco-friendly dust suppressant based on modified pectin: experimental and theoretical investigations. Energy. 2024, 289 , 130018 10.1016/j.energy.2023.130018.
Wang Q. ; Zhao Y. ; Hu X. ; Feng Y. ; Cheng W. ; Geng Z. Exploration of the microbial dust suppressant application in open-pit coal mines: Dust source conditions and application processes. Powder Technol. 2024, 436 , 119514 10.1016/j.powtec.2024.119514.
Hu X. ; Yang Z. ; Zhao Y. ; Dong Y. ; Wang C. ; Zhang L. ; Yu Y. ; Wu K. ; Ren L. Medium optimization and dust suppression performance analysis of microbial-based dust suppressant compound by response surface curve method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2024, 31 , 24525 10.1007/s11356-024-32748-6.
Ren B. ; Yuan L. ; Zhou G. ; Li S. ; Meng Q. ; Wang K. ; Jiang B. ; Yu G. Effectiveness of coal mine dust control: A new technique for preparation and efficacy of self-adaptive microcapsule suppressant. Int. J. Min. Sci. Techno. 2022, 32 (6 ), 1181–1196. 10.1016/j.ijmst.2022.09.006.
Kondrasheva N. K. ; Zyrianova O. V. ; Kireeva E. V. ; Ivkin A. S. Refinery by products in dust suppression and the prevention of rock adhesion and freezing at mines. Coke. Chem. 2016, 59 (9 ), 338–344. 10.3103/S1068364X16090040.
Medeiros M. A. ; Leite C. M.M. ; Lago R. M. Use of glycerol by-product of biodiesel to produce an efficient dust sup-pressant. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 180 , 364–369. 10.1016/j.cej.2011.11.056.
Parvej S. ; Naik D. L. ; Sajid H. U. ; Kiran R. ; Huang Y. ; Thanki N. Fugitive Dust Suppression in Unpaved Roads: State of the Art Research Review. Sustainability. 2021, 13 (4 ), 2399 10.3390/su13042399.
Ren X. F. ; Hu X. M. ; Xue D. ; Li Y. S. ; Shao Z. ; Dong H. ; Cheng W. M. ; Zhao Y. Y. ; Xin L. ; Lu W. Novel sodium silicate/polymer composite gels for the prevention of spontaneous combustion of coal. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 371 , 643–654. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.03.041.30889461
Li S. L. ; Zhou G. ; Wang Y. Y. ; Jing B. ; Qu Y. L. Synthesis and characteristics of fire extinguishing gel with high water absorption for coal mines. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 125 , 207–218. 10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.022.
Wang Y. ; Jin J. B. ; Zhou H. T. Preparation and application of the new type dust suppressant used in coal transportation. Guangzhou Chem. Ind. 2012, 40 , 90.
Zhang X. ; Yu Y. B. ; Cheng W. M. ; Yang X. H. ; Cui W. M. ; Wang C. J. Research on performance of composite dust suppressant for mining based on modified soybean protein isolate. Powder Technol. 2023, 415 , 118166 10.1016/j.powtec.2022.118166.
Zhao Z. D. ; Chang P. ; Xu G. ; Ghosh A. ; Morla R. Experimental study of surfactants’ performance for suppressing coal dust with respirable size. Fuel. 2023, 352 , 129035 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129035.
Zou Q. ; Chen Z. ; Cheng Z. ; Liang Y. ; Xu W. ; Wen P. ; Zhang B. ; Liu H. ; Kong F. Evaluation and intelligent deployment of coal and coalbed methane coupling coordinated exploitation based on Bayesian network and cuckoo search. International J. Min. Sci. Techno. 2022, 32 (6 ), 1315–1328. 10.1016/j.ijmst.2022.11.002.
Zhang M. ; Zhao Y.-Y. ; Hu X.-M. ; Feng Y. ; Cheng W.-M. ; Liu W.-H. ; Geng Z. ; Wang Q.-S. ; Dong Y. Study on the adsorption and dust suppression mechanism of urease-producing bacteria on coal dust. Powder Technol. 2022, 409 , 117801 10.1016/j.powtec.2022.117801.
Kim D. ; Quinlan M. ; Yen T. F. Encapsulation of lead from hazardous CRT glass wastes using biopolymer cross-linked concrete systems. Waste Manag. 2009, 29 (1 ), 321–328. 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.01.022.18406595
Ding H. ; Huang Z. ; Peng S. ; Wang H. ; Li J. ; Wang R. ; Zhang Y. ; Wang P. Preparation and Characteristics of Building Dust Suppressants with Strong Resistance to Harsh Environments. ACS Omega. 2024, 9 , 3746–3757. 10.1021/acsomega.3c07734.38284029
Li M. ; Zhao Y. ; Bian S. ; Qiao J. ; Hu X. ; Yu S. A green environment-friendly, high-consolidation-strength composite dust suppressant derived from xanthan gum. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2022, 29 (5 ), 7489–7502. 10.1007/s11356-021-16258-3.
Lin G. Y. ; Xiao J. ; Wu Y. X. ; Huang X. D. ; Yang S. D. ; Qu D. C. Effects of straw mulching on soil biological properties and bacterial community structure in mulberry plantation. J. South. Agr. 2020, 51 (10 ), 2339–2347.
Ma S. Y. ; Hou Y. S. ; Liu J. J. Preparation and optimization of biological dust suppressant using.straw based on response surface methodology. Chem. Eng. 2023, 51 (01 ), 6.
Xiao J. ; Gao H. ; Zhong Z. M. ; Song Y. G. ; Li K. Investigation on oxidation of corn starch and its grafting for the preparation of loess dust suppressants. J. Lanzhou Univ. Techon. 2023, 49 (06 ), 22–27.
Zhang S. ; Cao X. ; Xue W. ; Liu W. ; Guo Y. ; Li T. ; Cui X. ; Duan H. ; Shan S. ; Pan R. ; Liu J. ; Cui Z. Preparation, characterization, and synergistic soil moisture retention effects of a by-product-based dust suppressant for fugitive dust suppression. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2024, 15 , 102004 10.1016/j.apr.2023.102004.
Liu J. ; Wang J. ; Liu Y. ; Wang L. ; Long L. ; He J. ; Huang C. ; Shen F. ; Zhang Y. ; et al. A hygroscopic dual-porous road dust suppressant with good dust suppression prepared by the freeze-thawing method. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 448 , 141677 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141677.
Chen Z. J. ; Wang L. J. ; Wei J. F. Study on performance of environment-friendly double network hydrogel dust suppressant. Saf. Coal Min. 2023, 54 (10 ), 43–49.
Liu S. Y. ; Su L. H. ; Guo J. Y. ; Li X. H. Study on low temperature solubility and application of coal bulk dust inhibitor. J. Chin. Un. Min. Techno. 2012, 3 (42 ), 432–438.
Meng J. ; Wang L. ; Zhang S. ; Lyu Y. ; Xia J. Effect of anionic/nonionic surfactants on the wettability of coal surface. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2021, 785 , 139130 10.1016/j.cplett.2021.139130.
Yuan M. ; Nie W. ; Zhou W. ; Yan J. ; Bao Q. ; Guo C. ; Tong P. ; Zhang H. ; Guo L. Determining the effect of the non-ionic surfactant AEO9 on lignite adsorption and wetting via molecular dynamics (MD) simulation and experiment comparisons. Fuel 2020, 278 , 118339 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118339.
Wang C. ; Cao X.-L. ; Guo L.-L. ; Xu Z.-C. ; Zhang L. ; Gong Q.-T. ; Zhang L. ; Zhao S. Effect of adsorption of catanionic surfactant mixtures on wettability of quartz surface. Colloid. Surface. A 2016, 509 , 564–573. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.09.057.
Xu Y. ; Feng X. Development of High Strength Instantly Membrane-Cover Dust Suppressor for Construction Sites. Ind. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 45 (4 ), 88–91.
Nie W. ; Cha X. P. ; Bao Q. ; Peng H. T. ; Xu C. W. ; et al. Study on dust pollution suppression of mine wind-assisted spray device based on orthogonal test and CFD simulation. Energy. 2023, 263 , 125590 10.1016/j.energy.2022.125590.
Sun J. ; Zhou G. ; Gao D. ; Wei Z. ; Wang N. Preparation and performance characterization of a composite dust suppressant for preventing secondary dust in underground mine roadways. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2020, 156 , 195–208. 10.1016/j.cherd.2020.01.030.
Zhang F. ; Lu Y. ; Wang Y. P. ; Jiang Z. G. ; Liu J. G. ; Chen J. H. Study on dust pollution law and chemical dust suppression technology of non hard pavement in urban construction sites. Build. Environ. 2023, 229 , 109938 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109938.
Fan T. ; Zhou G. ; Wang J. Preparation and characterization of a wetting agglomeration-based hybrid coal dust suppressant. Process Saf. Environ. 2018, 113 (PartB ), 282–291. 10.1016/j.psep.2017.10.023.
Zhang X. ; Yu Y. B. ; Cheng W. M. ; Yang X. H. ; Cui W. T. ; Wang C. J. Research on performance of composite dust suppressant for mining based on modified soybean protein isolate. Powder Techno. 2023, 415 , 118166 10.1016/j.powtec.2022.118166.
Zhao Z. ; Zhao Y. ; Hu X. ; Cheng W. ; Hou J. ; Song C. Preparation and performance analysis of enteromorpha-based environmentally friendly dust suppressant. Powder Technol. 2021, 393 , 323–332. 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.07.071.
Zhang B. L. ; Jiao J. ; Zhao X. Y. Study on preparation and properties of eco-friendly dust suppressant. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agr. Eng. 2013, 29 (5 ), 218–225. 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2013.18.026.
Yu X. ; Zhao Y. ; Feng Y. ; Hu X. ; Liu J. ; Wang X. ; Wu M. ; Dong H. ; Liang Y. ; Wang W. ; Tian F. Synthesis and performance characterization of a road coal dust suppressant with excellent consolidation, adhesion, and weather resistance. Colloid Surface A 2022, 639 , 128334 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.128334.
Meng J. Q. ; Wang C. ; Chen T. Effect of Sodium Dodecylbenzene Sulfonate on the Wetting Mechanism of Tunliu Coal. J. f Surfactants Deterg. 2022, 25 (1 ), 113–123. 10.1002/jsde.12540.
Copeland C. R. ; Eisele T. C. ; Chesney D. J. ; Kawatra K. Factors influencing dust suppressant effectiveness. Mining Metall. Explor. 2008, 25 (4 ), 215–222. 10.1007/BF03403411.
Yang L. ; Hu J. H. ; Qin J. The van der Waals force between arbitrary-shaped particulate matter and a plane surface connected by a liquid bridge in humidity environment. Granul. Matter. 2014, 16 (6 ), 903–909. 10.1007/s10035-014-0535-z.
Huang H. ; Liu B. ; Liu J. ; Jiang H. T. Experimental study on application of STW ecotypic soil stabilizer in windbreak and sand fixation. Chin. J. Geot. Eng. 2008, 30 (12 ), 1900–1904.
Li M. ; Wang R. ; Li G. ; Song X. ; Yang H. ; Lai H. Comprehensive Chemical Dust Suppressant Performance Evaluation and Optimization Method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022, 19 , 5617 10.3390/ijerph19095617.35565025
Li M. ; Song X. ; Li G. ; Tang J. ; Li Z. Experimental Study on Dust Suppression Effect and Performance of New Nano-Composite Dust Suppressant. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022, 19 (6288 ), 6288 10.3390/ijerph19106288.35627825
Zhang C. M. ; Guo L. Z. ; Hao Z. Preparation and comprehensive performance of a composite dust suppressant using greening wastes as raw material. Chin. J. Environ. Eng. 2021, 15 (5 ), 1688–1696.
Wei J. F. ; Zhao Y. Y. ; Yu S. J. ; Du J. H. ; Hu X. M. ; Bai G. X. ; Wang Z. X. Environment-friendly dual-network hydrogel dust suppressant based on xanthan gum, polyvinyl alcohol and acrylic acid. J. Environ. Manage. 2021, 295 , 113139 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113139.34174684
