Retardation coefficients of nonionic organic compounds determined by batch and column techniques
Abstract
Abstract Batch and column techniques were utilized to determine retardation coefficients of two nonionic organic compounds: benzene and dimethylphthalate. Three sandy soil materials with medium to high organic C content were used as sorbents. Batch data consistently overestimated retardation coefficients of the two compounds. Several previously reported factors that may cause discrepancy between the two techniques were experimentally investigated. Sorption nonsingularity, sorption nonequilibrium, presence of immobile water regions in the column, and reduction in particle spacing in the column were eliminated as the cause of this discrepancy. Loss of sorbent from the column is unlikely to be the cause of the discrepancy. Although rapidly mixed batch tubes are subjected to soil abrasion, it causes no apparent impact on the value of sorption distribution coefficients. Batch isotherms at two solids concentrations were identical, indicating that differences in solids concentration between batch and column setup is not a significant factor. This was also confirmed by a column study. Sorption nonlinearity was found to have a minor impact. Column residence time had a major impact on one of the cases studied, but no effect on the other cases. When column residence time was accounted for, some differences in sorption distribution coefficients, which seemed to be independent of the organic C content, were noticed. In this study, all previously suggested causes for the discrepancy between batch‐ and column‐determined retardation coefficients were investigated and rejected. It remains unclear why the values determined by the two techniques were different.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Other studies reported disparities between column and batch methods.
“However, other investigations have reported disparities between the two methods”
From Column versus batch methods for measuring PFOS and PFOA sorption to geomedia (2021) · cites this paper as Maraqa et al., 1998
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Column versus batch methods for measuring PFOS and PFOA sorption to geomedia
Van Glubt, S., Brusseau, M. L., Yan, N., Huang, D., Khan, N., & Carroll, K. C. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115917 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
- Authors
- Maraqa, M. A., Zhao, X., Wallace, R. B., & Voice, T. C.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Voice, T. C.
- Venue
- Soil Science Society of America Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 142-152
- ISSN
- 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0661
- OpenAlex
- W2014010117
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- U.S. Public Health Service
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
- Keywords
- retardation coefficient, benzene, dimethyl phthalate, sorption coefficient, sandy soil, soil organic carbon, soil abrasion, particle separation
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