Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> les were allowed to stand <br />The sam <br />1:4 <br />and 1:5 <br />1:2 <br />1:3 <br />d t <br />i <br />1 p <br />, <br />, <br />, <br />. <br />ncrease <br />o <br />2 overnight between additions. <br />3 The particle size distribution for both materials was determined <br />4 by both dry and wet sieving. The dry sieving vas done by screening <br />$ through the series of screen sizes noted earlier. The wet technique <br />g involved placing previously screened dry material for each size <br />7 fraction on a 0.5 mm screen and moving the screen gently up and down in <br />g a container of distilled water for 2 minutes. The sediment that washed <br />g through the screen vas oven dried and weighed to determine that part of <br />0 each dry sieved size fraction that was washed free by the wetting. <br />11 <br />lg Beaulta and Discussion <br />13 When eater ie leached through the sample material the salts <br />14 dissolve ae related to their relative solubilities with higher • <br />15 coacentrationa of readily soluble Salta coming first. Thus the curves <br />16 of electrical conductivity versus eater leached at art with high <br />17 electrical conductivities then shoe a rapid drop with each additional <br />18 increment of eater leached ae the highly soluble salts are depleted. <br />19 It is quite impractical to predict what the concentration of the <br />20 highly soluble salts might be.in the leach eater because of the <br />21 6eterogeaeity of the material. As the salts are removed. those <br />22 remaining are leas and less soluble, thus the concentration of salts in <br />23 the leachwater decreases more slowly with time and the time over which <br />24 each kind of ion remains in the eyatem increases. <br />25 The data for the first experiment relating EC to water leached for <br />26 the range of particle sizes for the Williams Fork and Glenrock <br />27 materials are plotted in Figs. 1 and 2. These data show that for the <br />4 <br />