Next Article in Journal
Generative Architectural Design from Textual Prompts: Enhancing High-Rise Building Concepts for Assisting Architects
Previous Article in Journal
Seepage Law of Coal Rock Body in Overburden Zones During Multiple Protection Mining of High-Gas Outburst Coal Seams
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/app15062998
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Study on the Effects of Environmentally Friendly Composite Dust Suppressant on Soil Properties

by
Yong Xu
1,
Min Liu
1,
Ben Ma
2,
Yingda Zhang
1,*,
Zhuhong Liu
1 and
Zihao Liu
3
1
School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China
2
China MCC5 Group Co., Ltd., Chengdu 610063, China
3
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, The University of Kitakyushu, 1-1 Hibikino Wakamatsu, Fukuoka 8080135, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(6), 2998; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15062998
Submission received: 14 January 2025 / Revised: 27 February 2025 / Accepted: 9 March 2025 / Published: 10 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Ecology Science and Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to investigate the impact of a self-developed environmentally friendly composite dust suppressant on soil properties, with the objective of addressing dust pollution at construction sites. A series of experiments were conducted to examine the effects of the composite dust suppressant on soil strength (including compressive strength, shear strength, and surface hardness) and wind erosion resistance. The results demonstrate that spraying the soil with the composite dust suppressant diluted 10 times not only significantly enhances the compressive strength and ductility of the soil but also reduces the usage cost. Furthermore, the soil treated with the diluted suppressant exhibited the highest ultimate compressive strength after drying for seven days, which was 118.1 kPa higher than that of the undiluted treatment. The shear strength test also revealed a substantial increase in the shear strength of the soil treated with the dust suppressant under different vertical loads. Hardness tests showed that the composite dust suppressant containing binder significantly improved soil hardness. Wind erosion resistance tests further confirmed that the soil sprayed with the composite dust suppressant had a mass loss rate of only 9.36% within twenty minutes under an eleven-grade natural wind force, demonstrating good wind erosion resistance. This study not only provides a scientific basis for assessing the environmental impact of environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants on soil but also offers standardized evaluation techniques and experimental protocols for practical applications of dust suppressants.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the accelerating pace of urban development across various countries has been accompanied by notable environmental pollution issues. Among these, construction dust generated from various construction activities during urbanization stands out as a significant source of environmental pollution [1]. To effectively address dust pollution, measures to prevent and control construction dust have evolved from covering techniques [2], greening methods [3,4], and water mist dust suppression [5,6] to the current state-of-the-art chemical dust suppressants [7,8]. These chemical dust suppressants are now advancing toward the environmentally friendly composite type, which not only must exhibit excellent dust suppression performance but also meet the criteria of being environmentally friendly and biodegradable. Specifically, when applied to soil surfaces, they must not contaminate the environment, embodying the essence of environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants [9,10].
Although environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants excel in dust suppression and environmental protection, their impact on soil environments necessitates further in-depth research [11,12]. Soil, as one of the most vital natural resources on Earth and the foundation for human survival, may be affected by dust suppressants through direct spraying, rainwater washout, infiltration, and other means during their application [13]. Consequently, conducting experimental studies on the effects of environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants on soil holds significant importance for assessing their environmental safety and guiding their scientific application.
In recent years, notable progress has been made in research on the impact of environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants on soil. Researchers have evaluated the effects of various dust suppressants on soil physicochemical properties [14], biological activity [15], and crop growth [16] through laboratory simulations and field trials. Some developed countries have also established corresponding standards and regulations to ensure that the use of dust suppressants does not negatively impact the soil environment [17].
Sieger et al. [18] conducted wind tunnel and pocket permeameter tests to investigate the effects of different biopolymer treatments on wind erosion resistance and soil permeability. The results showed that all treatments significantly improved wind erosion resistance. Wang et al. [19] explored the effects of adding molasses and microbial dust suppressant components on soil dust suppression performance and microbial communities, revealing a positive correlation between molasses concentration and soil surface hardness. Beighley et al. [20] simulated rainfall and runoff to assess the environmental impact of a dust suppressant on soil and water quality, finding minimal adverse effects but an increase in Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for two synthetic products in runoff experiments. Freer et al. [21] performed unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests on sand treated with biomaterials, demonstrating their strong dust suppression potential with minimal impact on soil strength.
However, there are still some deficiencies and challenges in the experimental research on the impact of environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants on soil:
  • Focus on suppressants alone: While dust suppressants play a crucial role in controlling dust emissions and improving air quality, most studies have primarily focused on the suppressants themselves, neglecting their impact on soil.
  • Insufficient research on soil wind erosion resistance in varied environments: There is a relative lack of research on the changes in soil wind erosion resistance under different environmental conditions when using environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants. This limitation restricts the assessment of the suppressants’ application effectiveness in complex environments. Since the impact of composite dust suppressants on soil strength and wind erosion resistance partially reflects their dust suppression efficacy, experimental research on these aspects is indispensable.
  • The discrepancy between laboratory-determined and actual concentrations: Dust suppressants developed in the laboratory, targeting dust suppression mechanisms and effects, theoretically exhibit excellent performance. However, in practical applications, the concentration’s impact on soil strength and other aspects must also be considered. As a result, there is often a difference between the actual spraying concentration and the laboratory-determined concentration.
In this context, the present study conducted experiments on a composite dust suppressant formulated with hydroxyethyl cellulose, glycerol, isotridecanol ethoxylate, and purified water, focusing on its impact on soil strength and wind erosion resistance. The experiments on the effects of the composite dust suppressant on soil strength included compressive performance tests, shear strength tests, and surface hardness tests. These tests were conducted to analyze the impact of the suppressant on soil compressive strength, shear strength, and surface hardness. Another set of experiments evaluated the suppressant’s effectiveness in enhancing soil resistance to wind erosion by assessing its ability to withstand varying wind intensities, thereby determining its practical applicability. Through a series of tests examining the suppressant’s influence on soil properties, this study aims to provide solutions to the aforementioned issues.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experiment on the Effect of Composite Dust Suppressant on Soil Strength

To investigate the impact of applying dust suppressants on soil strength at construction sites, a series of tests will be conducted on soil treated with a composite dust suppressant. Due to the high viscosity of the composite dust suppressant, it needs to be diluted to a certain ratio before application. This not only reduces its viscosity but also lowers its usage cost. The soil samples were randomly collected from an area near the laboratory (GPS coordinates: longitude 103.947159, latitude 30.775640) and were classified as gray paddy soil. The pH ranged from 6.5 to 7.0, indicating neutral to slightly acidic conditions. The dust suppressant itself has a neutral pH (~7.0), ensuring no significant chemical reactions with the soil. The organic matter content is less than 2 g/kg, and the soil is generally neutral to slightly acidic, nutrient-rich, and highly porous, exhibiting good infiltration capacity. These soil characteristics may enhance the observable effects of the dust suppressant in the experiments, providing clearer insights into its impact at different concentrations and treatment durations. Such conditions contribute to the accuracy and reliability of the experimental data. Insufficient dilution fails to adequately decrease the viscosity, while excessive dilution adversely affects the soil’s compressive and shear resistance. Therefore, an optimal dilution ratio is crucial for enhancing the overall effectiveness of the composite dust suppressant.

2.2. Experiment on the Effect of Composite Dust Suppressant Concentration and Curing Time on the Bearing Capacity of Stabilized Soil

Following the Chinese Standard for unconfined compressive strength testing of soil [22], composite dust suppressant will be uniformly sprayed onto the surface of soil samples at three different concentrations: undiluted (the optimal concentration determined through laboratory testing), 10-times diluted, and 20-times diluted. After the solvent has fully penetrated, the soil samples will be shaped into uniform cylindrical molds. Each test was performed in triplicate (n = 3) to ensure result accuracy and reliability. To clarify, in the experiment evaluating the effect of composite dust suppressant concentration on the bearing capacity of solidified soil, the compressive strength was measured after a 7-day curing period under natural conditions. By this time, the suppressant had already formed a film, and all water had evaporated, ensuring that there was no difference in water application among treatments. A control group treated only with pure water was included to evaluate the effect of the dust suppressant. Since completely dry soil could not form a stable mold for testing, the pure water group served as a baseline, and after seven days of curing, the water had fully evaporated, effectively functioning as a non-suppressant control. The total spray volume was 250 mL, with an individual droplet size of 0.1 L/m2, ensuring even distribution across the sample surface. A cylindrical mold was created after evenly spraying the soil sample with the composite dust suppressant diluted tenfold, allowing full penetration of the solvent. The cylindrical molds were cured at room temperature for 7, 14, and 28 days, respectively. An unconfined compression test was performed on the cured samples using a fully automatic triaxial apparatus, with a loading plate speed of 2 mm/min, to determine their compressive strengths. Their compressive strength will be measured after curing for 7 days in a natural environment to determine the optimal dilution ratio for the composite dust suppressant. The specific experimental groups are outlined in Table 1.

2.3. Shear Strength Test

According to the Chinese Standard, four soil samples with a diameter of 39.1 mm and a height of 80 mm were prepared using the composite dust suppressant [22,23]. A ZJ-type strain-controlled direct shear apparatus was utilized to test the prepared soil samples, applying vertical loads of 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 300 kPa, and 400 kPa at a constant strain rate of 0.8 mm/min until failure occurred. The shear stress at failure was recorded, and the specific test groups are presented in Table 2.

2.4. Effect of Dust Suppressant on Soil Surface Hardness

The binder in the composite dust suppressant enhances the structural cohesion between soil particles, transitioning them from a state of mere contact to bonding [24]. This bonding significantly increases soil hardness. To compare the impact of the composite dust suppressant with and without a binder on soil surface hardness, an LA-1 Shore Durometer (unit: HA) was employed. After treating soil samples with composite dust suppressant solutions containing a minimal amount of binder and without a binder, evaporation followed by hardness testing was performed. As shown in Figure 1, the left side depicts an aluminum box without a binder, and the right side with a binder, both receiving the same application volume. After drying, the surface hardness was measured, and the specific test groups are outlined in Table 3.

2.5. Effect of Dust Suppressant on Soil Wind Erosion Resistance

First, 500 g of dried soil was evenly spread on a glass plate to form a 40 cm × 40 cm square. The composite dust suppressant was uniformly sprayed onto the soil sample at a rate of 2 L/m2 (0.32 L in total). After slight drying, the soil’s weight was recorded as W. Two parallel control groups were also set up for comparison: one group was sprayed with an equal amount of water while the other was covered with a dustproof net.
During the experiment, a portable wind speed meter (model DLY-1602C from Delixi) was used to measure the wind speeds generated by three different devices simulating natural wind conditions: an electric fan, a hair dryer, and an air blower. The ambient air temperature during the experiment ranged from 23 °C to 15 °C. Air was applied at a 45° angle to simulate natural wind erosion, ensuring a more realistic representation of wind-induced soil loss. The same air application method was used for all test groups to maintain consistency in airflow across treatments. Initial soil moisture levels were standardized across all groups before applying the suppressant, and the angled airflow facilitated natural evaporation while preventing excessive moisture retention, which could have occurred with direct airflow [25]. The soil samples treated as described were then exposed to continuous wind erosion for 20 min using the electric fan and hair dryer, after which their weights were recorded as w. Additionally, the changes in the soil samples on the glass plate were observed after 100 min of continuous wind erosion using the air blower, which simulated higher wind speeds. Due to the extreme conditions produced by the air blower, testing was limited to 20 min. The mass loss rate was calculated using the appropriate formula to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatments in resisting wind erosion [26]. The specific test groups are detailed in Table 4.
The wind speeds of the three different devices simulating natural winds—electric fans, hair dryers, and blower fans—were measured using a portable wind speed meter. The specific wind speed measurements are presented in Table 5.
According to the portable wind speed meter test results, the wind speed decreases by approximately 8% when it reaches the soil sample surface due to distance and environmental factors. Therefore, the high-speed setting of the electric fan was directly utilized to simulate a natural wind force of level 3, providing a precise simulation of mild wind conditions. For the other two devices, the wind speed reduction due to distance was negligible.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Composite Dust Suppressant Concentration on the Bearing Capacity of Solidified Soil

The compressive strength of the three molded specimens cured naturally for seven days under different dust suppressant dilutions was measured, yielding the stress–strain curves depicted in Figure 2. Based on the data presented in Figure 2, the effects of the composite dust suppressant on the compressive strength of the soil after consolidation vary according to its dilution.
The ultimate compressive strength of the consolidated soil treated with a 10-fold diluted dust suppressant was slightly higher than that of the undiluted suppressant. Specifically, the ultimate compressive strength of the 10-fold diluted sample (A2) was 118.1 kPa higher than that of the undiluted sample (A1). This enhancement can be attributed to the increased water content in the diluted solution, which allowed for more uniform coverage of soil particles and penetration into the interstices between them. The lubricating effect of this water aided in the rearrangement and close contact of soil particles, resulting in a smoother and flatter soil surface [27]. This smoother surface reduced friction and resistance between soil particles, facilitating the formation of a more uniform and dense consolidation layer that was better able to resist external pressure.
The ultimate compressive strength of the consolidated soil treated with the undiluted dust suppressant was much higher than that of the 20-fold diluted sample. Specifically, the strength of the undiluted sample (A1) was 664.23 kPa greater than that of the 20-fold diluted sample (A3). This is because the higher binder concentration in the undiluted suppressant allowed for more binder molecules to interact with the soil particles, forming stronger bonds and facilitating the consolidation of larger soil particle structures, thereby enhancing the soil’s ultimate compressive strength.
The consolidated soil treated with the 10-fold and 20-fold diluted dust suppressants exhibited plastic failure, whereas the undiluted sample showed brittle failure. The stress–strain curves of the 10-fold (A2) and 20-fold diluted samples (A3) indicated that as the strain increased, stress did not decrease abruptly, indicating plastic failure. In contrast, the stress–strain curve of the undiluted sample (A1) showed a rapid failure at a stress of 816.8 kPa, with a sharp stress drop and no necking phenomenon, indicative of brittle failure. This brittle failure can be attributed to the high concentration of binder in the undiluted suppressant, which creates a strong bonding force on the soil surface but may not penetrate deeply into the soil, leading to internal defects and cracks that weaken the soil’s overall strength.
The optimal dilution ratio for the composite dust suppressant was determined to be 10 times. This dilution not only reduces the usage cost but also ensures effective soil consolidation. A comparative analysis revealed that the ultimate compressive strength of the consolidated soil treated with the 10-fold diluted suppressant (A2) was the highest among the three groups, while that of the 20-fold diluted sample (A3) was significantly lower at 152.57 kPa. Excessive dilution of the dust suppressant can impair soil consolidation performance and reduce its dust suppression effectiveness due to the dilution of active ingredients, highlighting the importance of maintaining an appropriate dilution ratio.
In summary, diluting the composite dust suppressant 10 times before application not only significantly enhances soil compressive strength and toughness but also reduces costs, representing a more economical and efficient method for dust suppression and soil consolidation.

3.2. Effect of Curing Time on the Bearing Capacity of Solidified Soil

To investigate the impact of curing time on the bearing capacity of consolidated soil treated with the composite dust suppressant, specimens were subjected to natural curing for varying durations (3, 7, 14, and 28 days) and subsequently tested for compressive strength. The resulting stress–strain curves are illustrated in Figure 3. Based on the data presented in Figure 3, the following observations were made regarding the effect of curing time on the compressive strength of consolidated soil:
The compressive strength of the consolidated soil was found to increase with extended curing time. Specifically, the ultimate compressive strength of the soil specimens cured for 28 days was significantly higher than those cured for shorter periods (3, 7, and 14 days). This increment can be attributed to the ongoing hydration and chemical reactions within the soil–binder mixture, which strengthen the soil structure over time [28].
The strength development of the consolidated soil exhibited distinct stages. Initially, during the early stages of curing (3 and 7 days), the strength increased rapidly as the binder began to react with the soil particles and form a cohesive matrix. However, as curing progressed (14 and 28 days), the rate of strength increase slowed down, indicating a gradual stabilization of the soil structure.
An optimal curing time was identified for achieving maximum compressive strength. In this study, the soil specimens cured for 28 days exhibited the highest ultimate compressive strength, suggesting that this duration allowed for sufficient hydration and bonding of the soil particles, thereby maximizing the soil’s load-bearing capacity.
The variability in compressive strength among the specimens decreased with increasing curing time. This reduction in variability indicates a more uniform and stable soil structure as the curing process progresses, enhancing the reliability and predictability of the soil’s performance under load [29].
The ultimate compressive strength of the soil specimens cured for 28 days was compared to those cured for shorter durations. The results showed a significant increase in strength for the 28-day cured specimens, highlighting the importance of adequate curing time in achieving optimal soil consolidation.
In summary, the curing time of consolidated soil treated with the composite dust suppressant has a profound impact on its bearing capacity. Extended curing times lead to increased compressive strength, with an optimal curing duration identified for maximizing soil performance. These findings underscore the importance of considering curing time in the design and implementation of dust suppression and soil consolidation measures.

3.3. Results of Shear Resistance Tests

To assess the shear performance of the consolidated soil treated with the composite dust suppressant, a series of direct shear tests were conducted on soil specimens that had undergone natural curing for 28 days. The tests were performed using a standard direct shear apparatus, and the results were analyzed to determine the shear strength parameters of the soil, including the cohesion (c) and the angle of internal friction (φ).
The shear stress at failure was measured three times for each soil sample, and the average value was taken. The measurement error remained within 5%. The shear stress–displacement curves obtained from the direct shear tests are presented in Figure 4a. These curves illustrate the relationship between the applied shear stress and the corresponding shear displacement for the consolidated soil specimens.
Based on the analysis of the shear stress–displacement curves and the subsequent calculation of shear strength parameters, the following observations were made regarding the shear performance of the consolidated soil:
The consolidated soil exhibited significantly higher shear strength compared to untreated soil. This enhancement in shear strength can be attributed to the binding effect of the composite dust suppressant, which strengthens the soil particles’ interconnections and improves their resistance to shear forces.
The cohesion (c) and the angle of internal friction (φ) of the consolidated soil were found to be notably higher than those of untreated soil. The increased cohesion indicates a stronger bonding between soil particles, while the higher angle of internal friction reflects an improved ability of the soil to resist shear deformation through frictional forces between the particles [30].
A shear strength envelope was constructed based on the results of the direct shear tests, as shown in Figure 4b. The determination coefficient for the solidified soil is 0.86, while it is 0.91 for the control group. This envelope represents the maximum shear stress that the consolidated soil can withstand at different normal stress levels. The slope of the envelope corresponds to the angle of internal friction, and the intercept with the y-axis represents the cohesion.
A comparison of the shear strength parameters of the consolidated soil with those of untreated soil revealed a significant improvement in both cohesion and the angle of internal friction. This improvement demonstrates the effectiveness of the composite dust suppressant in enhancing the shear performance of the soil.
The enhanced shear performance of the consolidated soil has important implications for soil stability and engineering applications. The increased shear strength and improved resistance to shear deformation contribute to the overall stability of soil structures, such as embankments, road bases, and landfills, making them more resilient to external loads and environmental factors.
In summary, the direct shear tests conducted on consolidated soil treated with the composite dust suppressant have shown a significant improvement in shear performance. The increased shear strength, cohesion, and angle of internal friction demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment in enhancing soil stability and resistance to shear forces. These findings provide valuable insights for the design and construction of soil structures in various engineering applications.

3.4. Experimental Investigation on the Effect of Dust Suppressant on Soil Surface Hardness

The surface hardness of soil samples contained within aluminum boxes, with and without the addition of a binder, was tested, and the results are presented in Table 6. The hardness test revealed that the Shore A hardness of the soil without a binder was 25.0 HA, indicating a relatively low soil hardness. This is due to the weak bonding forces between soil particles, leading to a loose soil structure that is susceptible to deformation under external forces such as plant growth or mechanical operations [31]. Consequently, this type of soil is prone to compaction and deformation, affecting its air and water permeability, which is detrimental to plant growth.
In contrast, the soil treated with a binder exhibited a Shore A hardness of 57.3 HA, which was higher than that of other environmentally friendly dust suppressants and conventional dust suppressants. This indicates that the binder in the composite dust suppressant acts as a chemical agent to improve soil structure by enhancing the cohesive forces between soil particles. This modification results in a change in soil hardness, proving to be more effective than other dust suppressants.
In summary, the application of the composite dust suppressant containing a binder significantly enhances the hardness of the soil, making it more resilient to external forces.

3.5. Experimental Results on the Effect of Dust Suppressant on Soil Wind Erosion Resistance

The wind erosion resistance test procedure is illustrated in Figure 5, and the test results are presented in Figure 5.
Based on the test results shown in Figure 5, under the three different dust suppression methods—covering with dustproof netting, spraying water, and spraying the composite dust suppressant—the mass loss rate of soil samples increased with the intensity of the simulated natural wind. The resistance to wind erosion was ranked from lowest to highest as follows: covering with dustproof netting < spraying water < spraying composite dust suppressant.
As shown in Figure 5a, after continuous erosion by the electric fan for 100 min, the mass loss rates were 23.2% for the sample covered with dustproof netting (F1), 12.94% for the sample sprayed with water (F2), and 10.26% for the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant (F3). The mass loss was minimal for all samples, indicating comparable wind erosion resistance performance. This is because the wind speed simulated by the high-speed setting of the electric fan corresponds to a natural wind force of level 3, which represents mild perturbation.
As the wind intensity increased, as seen in Figure 5b, after 100 min of erosion by the hair dryer, the mass loss rate surged to 70.97% for the sample covered with dustproof netting (G1), demonstrating significantly weaker wind erosion resistance. In contrast, the mass loss rates for the samples sprayed with water (G2) and the composite dust suppressant (G3) were controlled at 32.31% and 16.54%, respectively, both exhibiting markedly better wind erosion resistance than the sample covered with dustproof netting.
Figure 5c includes additional test groups where two different dust suppressants were sprayed for comparison. Under the powerful erosion of the blower fan, the mass loss rate of the sample covered with dustproof netting (H1) dropped sharply, reaching 100% within approximately 6 min. For the samples sprayed with water (H2) and the other two dust suppressants, the mass loss rates after 20 min of erosion under wind force level 11 were 22.82%, 14.96%, and 12.01%, respectively, which were significantly lower than that of the sample covered with dustproof netting. Notably, the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant (H5) had the lowest mass loss rate of only 9.36% after 20 min of erosion.
As seen in Figure 6, which compares the soil samples before and after the wind erosion resistance test using a hair dryer, most of the soil on the glass plate covered with dustproof netting was lost after erosion, with only a few soil particles remaining trapped by the netting at the edges. The sample sprayed with water lost more soil, exhibiting cracks on the surface and chips along the edges. In contrast, the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant remained largely intact with minimal mass loss.
In summary, soil sprayed with the composite dust suppressant demonstrated excellent wind erosion resistance, thereby effectively inhibiting soil dust.

4. Conclusions

This study evaluated the effects of a composite dust suppressant (formulated with hydroxyethyl cellulose, glycerol, isotridecanol ethoxylate, and purified water) on soil strength and wind erosion resistance. The key findings are as follows:
  • A 10-times dilution significantly enhances compressive strength, soil stability, and smoothness while reducing friction and application costs, making it an economical and effective dust suppression solution.
  • The binding effect strengthens over time, with ultimate compressive strength increasing by 570 kPa and 844.6 kPa after 14 and 28 days, respectively. At 28 days, soil strength reaches its peak as the binder–soil interaction is optimized.
  • Shear strength increases with vertical load, rising from 35 kPa to 203 kPa as load increases from 100 kPa to 400 kPa. Compared to water-treated soil, suppressant-treated samples exhibit greater cohesion and internal friction, improving stability.
  • The binder significantly strengthens the soil, increasing hardness from 25.0 HA (without binder) to 57.3 HA, optimizing soil structure, and reducing deformation.
  • The suppressant outperforms water and dustproof nets in wind erosion tests. Under level 11 wind, suppressant-treated soil showed the lowest mass loss (9.36%) within 20 min, while the dustproof net failed entirely within 6 min.
  • Future research will focus on optimizing the formulation of the composite dust suppressant to enhance its performance across different soil types. Additionally, long-term environmental impact assessments will be conducted to evaluate its biodegradability and ecological safety. Further large-scale field trials will also be carried out to validate laboratory findings and assess real-world applicability under various climatic and environmental conditions.

Author Contributions

Y.X.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, resources, writing—original draft. M.L.: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, software, validation. B.M.: data curation, validation, software. Y.Z.: project administration, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing. Z.L. (Zhuhong Liu): data curation, investigation, validation. Z.L. (Zihao Liu): methodology, validation, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded supported by the Xihua University under projects RH2300001131 and Z231001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data shall be provided upon receiving reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Ben Ma was employed by the company China MCC5 Group Corp. Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Viitanen, J.; Kingston, R. Smart cities and green growth: Outsourcing democratic and environmental resilience to the global technology sector. Environ. Plan. A 2014, 46, 803–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zuo, J.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hagger, M.; Zhou, Z.; Ding, Z. Dust pollution control on construction sites: Awareness and self-responsibility of managers. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perini, K.; Castellari, P.; Calbi, M.; Prandi, S.; Roccotiello, E. Fine dust collection capacity of a moss greening system for the building envelope: An experimental approach. Build. Environ. 2025, 267, 112203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jung, S.; Yoon, S. Effects of Creating Street Greenery in Urban Pedestrian Roads on Microclimates and Particulate Matter Concentrations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lee, Y.; Yuan, C.; Yen, P.; Mutuku, J.; Huang, C.; Wu, C.; Huang, P. Suppression Efficiency for Dust from an Iron Ore Pile Using a Conventional Sprinkler and a Water Mist Generator. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2022, 22, 210320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kokkonen, A.; Väänänen, M.; Säämänen, A.; Pasanen, P. The evaluation of short-term water misting of room air in reducing airborne dust after renovation work. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2019, 63, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liao, Q.; Feng, G.; Fan, Y.; Hu, S.; Shao, H.; Huang, Y. Experimental investigations and field applications of chemical suppressants for dust control in coal mines. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 6487459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Huang, Z.; Zhao, W.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Gao, Y.; Shao, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wen, S. Preparation and characterization of an environmentally friendly compound chemical agent for road dust suppression in a copper mine. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2021, 40, e13532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jiang, B.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, M.; Hu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Lu, W.; Zhao, Y.; He, Z. Study on preparation and properties of environmentally-friendly dust suppressant with semi-interpenetrating network structure. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120870. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhu, Y.; Cui, Y.; Shan, Z.; Dai, R.; Shi, L.; Chen, H. Fabrication and characterization of a multi-functional and environmentally-friendly starch/organo-bentonite composite liquid dust suppressant. Powder Technol. 2021, 391, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Niu, W.; Nie, W.; Bao, Q.; Tian, Q.; Li, R.; Zhang, X.; Yan, X.; Lian, J. Development and characterization of a high efficiency bio-based rhamnolipid compound dust suppressant for coal dust pollution control. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 330, 121792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, Z.; Huang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Shao, Z.; Zhang, L. Study on the physicochemical characteristics and dust suppression performance of new type chemical dust suppressant for copper mine pavement. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 59640–59651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hu, X.; Liu, J.; Feng, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, W.; Zhang, M.; Liu, Y. Application of urease-producing microbial community in seawater to dust suppression in desert. Environ. Res. 2023, 219, 115121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kuttner, B.; Thomas, S. Interactive effects of biochar and an organic dust suppressant for revegetation and erosion control with herbaceous seed mixtures and willow cuttings. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Singapore, 2006.
  18. Sieger, J.; Lottermoser, B.; Freer, J. Effectiveness of protein and polysaccharide biopolymers as dust suppressants on mine soils: Results from wind tunnel and penetrometer testing. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, J.; Hu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Zhao, P.; Guo, Y. Effects of molasses-based microbial dust suppressant on soil dust and microbial community. Powder Technol. 2024, 441, 119831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Beighley, R.; He, Y.; Valdes, J. Characterizing potential water quality impacts from soils treated with dust suppressants. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 502–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Freer, J.; Bucher, P.; Braun, M.; Lottermoser, B. Food processing by-products and wastes as potential dust suppressants at mine sites: Results from unconfined compressive strength testing. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2022, 72, 1012–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. GB/T50123-2019; Standard for Geotechnical Testing Method. China Planning Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
  23. Gao, J.; Yang, Y.; Bian, X.; Zhu, G. Study on dynamic shear properties of sulfate saline soil-geotextile interface with different salt content. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 183, 108807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mirmehrabi, H.; Ghafoori, M.; Lashkaripour, G. Impact of some geological parameters on soil abrasiveness. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2016, 75, 1717–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qu, J.; Li, G.; Ma, B.; Liu, J.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y. Experimental study on the wind erosion resistance of Aeolian sand solidified by microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP). Materials 2024, 17, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wang, Q.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Geng, Z.; Hu, X.; Cheng, W.; Dong, Y. Performance optimization and mechanism analysis of applied Enteromorpha-based composite dust suppressant. Environ. Geochem. Health 2023, 45, 4897–4913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Morsali, M.; Shekaari, H.; Golmohammadi, B. Hydration behavior of L-proline in the presence of mono, bis, tris-(2-hydroxyethyl) ammonium acetate protic ionic liquids: Thermophysical properties. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 27229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, X.; Huang, F.; Sun, Q.; Ling, H.; Liu, J.; An, Y.; Liu, L. Analysis of limestone mine dust curing based on microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation and its mechanism. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 114041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Feng, Y.; Hu, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, X.; Wu, M.; Dong, H.; Liang, Y.; Wang, W.; et al. Synthesis and performance characterization of a road coal dust suppressant with excellent consolidation, adhesion, and weather resistance. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2022, 639, 128334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, G.; Cai, T.; Lu, D.; Ma, C.; Meng, F.; Du, X. Experimental study on cohesion-friction mechanical properties for concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 449, 138421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. To, H.; Torres, S.G.; Scheuermann, A. Primary fabric fraction analysis of granular soils. Acta Geotech. 2015, 10, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, G.; Xu, C.; Yang, Y.; Liang, X. Research on Optimized Design, Synthesis Mechanism, and Performance of Composite Dust Suppressant for Laterite in a Plateau. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 38710–38721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 02998 g001
Figure 1. Before and after spraying dust suppressant drying.
Figure 1. Before and after spraying dust suppressant drying.
Applsci 15 02998 g001
Applsci 15 02998 g002
Figure 2. Axial stress of A1, A2, and A3 after 7 days of curing.
Figure 2. Axial stress of A1, A2, and A3 after 7 days of curing.
Applsci 15 02998 g002
Applsci 15 02998 g003
Figure 3. Stress–strain diagram for B1, B2, and B3.
Figure 3. Stress–strain diagram for B1, B2, and B3.
Applsci 15 02998 g003
Applsci 15 02998 g004
Figure 4. Shear performance test results. The red and black dots are the vertical pressure relationships between the solidified soil and the control group, respectively. (a) Stress-displacement curve of dust suppression agent treatment group of C1, C2, C3 and C4. (b) Relation between shear strength and vertical pressure.
Figure 4. Shear performance test results. The red and black dots are the vertical pressure relationships between the solidified soil and the control group, respectively. (a) Stress-displacement curve of dust suppression agent treatment group of C1, C2, C3 and C4. (b) Relation between shear strength and vertical pressure.
Applsci 15 02998 g004
Applsci 15 02998 g005
Figure 5. The relationship between mass loss rate and time under electric fan, hair dryer, and blower erosion.
Figure 5. The relationship between mass loss rate and time under electric fan, hair dryer, and blower erosion.
Applsci 15 02998 g005
Applsci 15 02998 g006
Figure 6. Comparison diagram of soil sample status before and after wind erosion resistance test (hair dryer).
Figure 6. Comparison diagram of soil sample status before and after wind erosion resistance test (hair dryer).
Applsci 15 02998 g006
Table 1. Effect of different concentrations and curing time on the bearing capacity of consolidated soil test.
Table 1. Effect of different concentrations and curing time on the bearing capacity of consolidated soil test.
IDTest ObjectDilution RatioConcentration (L/m2)Curing Time (day)Test Plan
A1Cylindrical soil sample treated with dust suppressantN/A27Unconfined compressive strength test to measure compressive strength after curing
A2 (B1)100.27
A3200.17
B2100.214
B3100.228
Table 2. Shear performance test.
Table 2. Shear performance test.
IDTest ObjectVertical LoadConstant Strain RateTest Plan
C1Cylindrical soil sample treated with a composite dust suppressant100 kPa0.8 mm/minDirect shear apparatus test to measure the shear stress at soil sample failure
C2200 kPa
C3300 kPa
C4400 kPa
Table 3. Effect of soil surface hardness test.
Table 3. Effect of soil surface hardness test.
IDTest ObjectComposite Dust SuppressantTest Plan
D1Soil contained in an aluminum tray sprayed with dust suppressantwithout binder
with binder		Measure surface hardness after drying
D2
Table 4. Wind erosion resistance test group No.
Table 4. Wind erosion resistance test group No.
IDTest ObjectDust Suppression MethodErosion Method by Blowing
E1 Dust netErosion by electric fan (simulating a Level 3 wind)
E240 cm × 40 cm square soil sampleWater
E3 Composite dust suppressant
F1 Dust netErosion by hair dryer (simulating a Level 5 wind)
F240 cm × 40 cm square soil sampleWater
F3 Composite dust suppressant
G140 cm × 40 cm square soil sampleDust netErosion by blower (simulating an Level 11 wind)
G2Water
G3Commercial dust suppressant 1
G4Commercial dust suppressant 2
G5Composite dust suppressant
Table 5. Correspondence table of wind speed and wind force grade.
Table 5. Correspondence table of wind speed and wind force grade.
DeviceLevelDistance (m)Wind Speed (m/s)Wind LevelWorking Height (cm)
Electrical fanLow0.33.3~3.4Level 310 cm
Middle4.2~4.3
High5.4~5.5
Hair dryer/0.18.4~8.5Level 5
Air blower/0.128.0~30.0Level 11
Table 6. Surface hardness of soil samples after drying.
Table 6. Surface hardness of soil samples after drying.
Aluminum BoxesUnit123Average
D1HA25272325.0
D2HA58605457.3
dust suppressant [32]HA///43
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, Y.; Liu, M.; Ma, B.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Z. Experimental Study on the Effects of Environmentally Friendly Composite Dust Suppressant on Soil Properties. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15062998

AMA Style

Xu Y, Liu M, Ma B, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Liu Z. Experimental Study on the Effects of Environmentally Friendly Composite Dust Suppressant on Soil Properties. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(6):2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15062998

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Yong, Min Liu, Ben Ma, Yingda Zhang, Zhuhong Liu, and Zihao Liu. 2025. "Experimental Study on the Effects of Environmentally Friendly Composite Dust Suppressant on Soil Properties" Applied Sciences 15, no. 6: 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15062998

APA Style

Xu, Y., Liu, M., Ma, B., Zhang, Y., Liu, Z., & Liu, Z. (2025). Experimental Study on the Effects of Environmentally Friendly Composite Dust Suppressant on Soil Properties. Applied Sciences, 15(6), 2998. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15062998

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop