Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T20:42:52.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Characterization of Philippine natural bentonite

Subject: Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2021

Eleanor M. Olegario
Affiliation:
Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Mon Bryan Z. Gili*
Affiliation:
Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, Quezon City, Philippines
*
*Corresponding author. Email: gilimonbryan@yahoo.com

Abstract

Philippine natural bentonite is characterized using X-ray diffractometer (XRD), scanning electron microscope (SEM), chemical analysis, thermogravimetric-differential scanning calorimetry (TG-DSC), and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) was also measured. XRD shows that the mineral is composed primarily of mordenite, hectorite, and montmorillonite. SEM shows the flaky and porous structure of the bentonite powder. Chemical analyses show that SiO2 (47.90 wt%) and Al2O3 (14.02 wt%) are the major components of the clay. TG-DSC shows that the mineral contains 15.55% moisture. IR transmittance spectrum shows the common vibration bands present in the sample which include O–H stretching of inter-porous water, symmetric and asymmetric stretching of hydroxyl functional groups, asymmetrical stretching of internal tetrahedra (O–Si–O and O–Al–O), symmetrical stretching of external linkages, and so on. The measured CEC were found to be 91.37 and 43.01 meq/100 g according to the ammonium acetate method and barium acetate method, respectively.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Replication, Supplementary result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. X-ray diffractogram of the raw Philippine natural bentonite.

Figure 1

Table 1. Chemical components of the Philippine bentonite based on chemical tests

Figure 2

Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the Philippine natural bentonite at different magnifications: (a) 270× and (b) 1,000×.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Thermogravimetric-differential scanning calorimetry curve of the Philippine bentonite.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Infrared (IR) transmittance spectrum of raw Philippine natural bentonite.

Reviewing editor:  Mert Celikin University College Dublin, Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Dublin, Ireland, 4
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Characterization of Philippine natural bentonite

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer has no competing financial interests to declare.

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper describes the characterization of Philippine natural bentonite.

The topic is important in clay researcher. Other physical properties such as colour, density, hardness (Moh’s scale), calcination temperature should be added.

Regarding references: there are 2 references for 2018, 3 references for 2019 and one for 2020. These references will have merit to be presented.

Presentation

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Characterization of Philippine natural bentonite

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: Dear Authors,

Kindly address the following, and incorporate your responses into the manuscript:

1. Highlight the difference in the findings reported in the manuscript as opposed to the present similar work on Philippine bentonite. What is the research gap? How comprehensive is the present work? Cite related/relevant literature.

2. ‘Spectra’ is plural.

3. What are the advantages of having silica and alumina in bentonite? What are the possible direct applications related to this composition? Please discuss.

4. Discuss the dehydroxylation at 485C. Which structure involved and why?

5. Why and how the magnitudes of CEC by the two methods are different? What are the advantages of having such CEC values and what do they infer? What are the possible direct applications related to this values? Cite relevant literature and discuss.

Presentation

Overall score 3.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5