The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The two‐phase flow IPTT method for measurement of nonwetting‐wetting liquid interfacial areas at higher nonwetting saturations in natural porous media
Abstract
Interfacial areas between nonwetting‐wetting (NW‐W) liquids in natural porous media were measured using a modified version of the interfacial partitioning tracer test (IPTT) method that employed simultaneous two‐phase flow conditions, which allowed measurement at NW saturations higher than trapped residual saturation. Measurements were conducted over a range of saturations for a well‐sorted quartz sand under three wetting scenarios of primary drainage (PD), secondary imbibition (SI), and secondary drainage (SD). Limited sets of experiments were also conducted for a model glass‐bead medium and for a soil. The measured interfacial areas were compared to interfacial areas measured using the standard IPTT method for liquid‐liquid systems, which employs residual NW saturations. In addition, the theoretical maximum interfacial areas estimated from the measured data are compared to specific solid surface areas measured with the N 2/BET method and estimated based on geometrical calculations for smooth spheres. Interfacial areas increase linearly with decreasing W‐phase (water) saturation over the range of saturations employed. The maximum interfacial areas determined for the glass beads, which have no surface roughness, are 32 ± 4 and 36 ± 5 cm−1 for PD and SI cycles, respectively. The values are similar to the geometric specific solid surface area (31 ± 2 cm−1) and the N 2/BET solid surface area (28 ± 2 cm−1). The maximum interfacial areas are 274 ± 38, 235 ± 27, and 581 ± 160 cm−1 for the sand for PD, SI, and SD cycles, respectively, and ∼7625 cm−1 for the soil for PD and SI. The maximum interfacial areas for the sand and soil are significantly larger than the estimated smooth‐sphere specific solid surface areas (107 ± 8 cm−1 and 152 ± 8 cm−1, respectively), but much smaller than the N 2/BET solid surface area (1387 ± 92 cm−1 and 55224 cm−1, respectively). The NW‐W interfacial areas measured with the two‐phase flow method compare well to values measured using the standard IPTT method.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
NAPL-water interfacial area increases as water saturation decreases.
“Previous studies have established that the NAPL-water interfacial area increases as water saturation decreases.42–45”
From Contribution of Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids to the Retention and Transport of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Porous Media (2021) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kim, H., Rao, P. S. C., & Annable, M. D. (1997) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/97wr02227 · Cited by 177
A method for determining air–water interfacial area in variably saturated porous media
Faisal Anwar, A. H. M., Bettahar, M., & Matsubayashi, U. (2000) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0169-7722(99)00103-5 · Cited by 93
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 10.1029/2005WR004058 · DOI
- 10.1021/es061474m · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1029/2006WR005517 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/es8020827 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/es101312n · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.01.029 · DOI
- 10.1021/la053521e · DOI
- 10.1029/2001WR000738 · DOI
- 10.1021/es303003v · DOI
- 10.1029/2004WR003278 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.03.021 · DOI
- 10.1021/es050037p · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/es020550s · DOI
- 10.2136/sssaj1999.6361554x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1468-8123.2011.00333.x · DOI
- 10.1029/2009WR008375 · DOI
- 10.1029/1999WR900262 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1029/2004WR003233 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1029/2009WR007786 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.11.053 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.060 · DOI
- 10.1021/es960652g · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-7722(97)00052-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jcis.1999.6604 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1029/2000WR900007 · DOI
- 10.1002/cjce.5450630401 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brusseau, M. L. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 · Cited by 306
Self-citationAdsorption of PFOA at the air-water interface during transport in unsaturated porous media
Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M. L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., & Lin, X. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b02348 · Cited by 259
Self-citationThe influence of surfactant and solution composition on PFAS adsorption at fluid-fluid interfaces
Brusseau, M. L., & Van Glubt, S. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.095 · Cited by 180
Brusseau, M. L. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057 · Cited by 157
Self-citationBrusseau, M. L. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102 · Cited by 93
Self-citationVan Glubt, S., & Brusseau, M. L. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c07355 · Cited by 55
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, H., El Ouni, A., Lin, D., Wang, B., & Brusseau, M. L.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 5506-5515
- ISSN
- 0043-1397
- 1944-7973
- PMC
- PMC5614450
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Funders
- the NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program ((P42 E504940))
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review