2 results
Adhered Zeolite Preparation on and Within a Muscovite Mica by Hydrothermal Growth
- Christopher D. Johnson, Anthony J. Mallon, Fred Worrall
-
- Journal:
- Clays and Clay Minerals / Volume 54 / Issue 6 / December 2006
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2024, pp. 678-688
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Zeolites and other open framework materials provide a powerful tool for remediation and solidification of a range of cationic wastes (e.g.${\rm{NH}}_4^ + $, Pb2+) due to the combined properties of large surface area and cation exchange capacity. However, practical barriers exist to the continued expansion of their use, including handling issues related to the fine particle size, and continued ion exchange following waste adsorption. This study examines the synthesis and characterization of zeolites adhered to a muscovite mica wafer, in order to assess if practical benefit can be derived from the preparation of layered composite materials. The paper demonstrates that increased metal adsorption, as demonstrated by surface chemical composition, can be induced in regions by growth of zeolite on and within the lamellar structure of the matrix. X-ray diffraction studies suggest that a site-specific crystallization mechanism controls the zeolite type and extent of growth, thereby reducing control over the zeolites prepared. However, although increased adsorption has been introduced to the mica, the amount of zeolite added is small (<50 mg per gram of muscovite), and thus any adsorption is very limited.
18 - Peatland conservation at the science–practice interface
- from Part III - Socio-economic and political solutions to managing natural capital and peatland ecosystem services
-
- By Joseph Holden, University of Leeds, UK, Aletta Bonn, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Mark Reed, Newcastle University, UK, Sarah Buckmaster, University of Aberdeen, UK, Jonathan Walker, Moors for the Future Partnership, Peak District National Park Authority, UK, Martin Evans, University of Manchester, Fred Worrall, Durham University, UK
- Edited by Aletta Bonn, Tim Allott, University of Manchester, Martin Evans, University of Manchester, Hans Joosten, Rob Stoneman
-
- Book:
- Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services
- Published online:
- 05 June 2016
- Print publication:
- 23 June 2016, pp 358-374
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The conservation and management of peatlands by practitioners is often assumed to work best when guided by science (e.g. Maltby 1997). However, there are also many excellent peatland management and restoration projects, which have built upon years of practical experience (sometimes through trial and error), undertaken by organisations involved in hands-on peatland conservation. Parry, Holden and Chapman (2014) provide many examples of techniques developed through common sense and ingenuity on the part of practitioners, often with little input from the science community. Often restoration projects have to make progress well before the science is fully understood. Significant investment is being poured into peatland management projects across the world (Parish et al. 2008), and it is important for those investing resources in peatland environments that there is some evaluation of the impacts of such investment. Evaluating the success of peatland management projects may involve the scientific community (e.g. taking measurements of carbon fluxes). In many instances, however, practitioners may involve less stringent measures with success measured by recording some simple visible changes to the landscape. The evaluation of success may indeed be an economic one (Kent 2000) based on cost–benefit analyses (Christie et al. 2011) of, for example, money spent on restoration that has been or will be saved elsewhere through, for instance, improved water quality entering water company treatment works. The observations for measuring peatland conservation success may depend on spatial and temporal scale, geographic settings and project targets, as well as available expertise and funding. There are therefore questions about how we measure success and how scientists, practitioners and policy makers can work closely together to deliver the best outcomes for peatland ecosystem services. Careful attention should be given to the mechanisms for science knowledge exchange between science and practical application so that practical experience and knowledge by those managing peatlands is transferred into the scientific understanding of peatlands. Scientists value the opinions and ideas of the restoration community and there have been recent attempts to move towards improved co-design of research and co-production of knowledge of science and practitioner communities in peatland restoration environments (Reed 2008; Reed et al. 2009).
Taking an ecosystem services approach to peatland conservation means that scientists, practitioners and policy makers have to understand the wider interconnectedness of peatland processes that lead to the provision of goods and services to society.