硅酸盐通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 3202-3221.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0209
收稿日期:2026-03-09
修订日期:2026-04-23
出版日期:2026-09-15
发布日期:2026-10-09
通信作者:
程金科,博士,副教授。E-mail:jkcheng@gzu.edu.cn作者简介:彭 祝(1999—),女,硕士研究生。主要从事固体废弃物资源化利用的研究。E-mail:2511353024@qq.com
基金资助:
PENG Zhu(
), LI Ziling, DING You, CHENG Jinke(
), ZHANG Yu
Received:2026-03-09
Revised:2026-04-23
Published:2026-09-15
Online:2026-10-09
摘要:
磷石膏建材在温热潮湿地区易发生霉菌污染,其综合利用受到制约。针对该问题,本文构建了十四烷基三甲基氯化铵(TTAC)和聚六亚甲基双胍盐酸盐(PHMB)复配的有机抗霉体系,并与CaO-矿渣-铝酸盐水泥碱性激发体系耦合,以协同提升磷石膏的抗霉性能与力学性能;通过微观分析和理论计算建立抗霉模型,探讨霉菌抑制机理。结果表明,TTAC与PHMB通过“破膜-渗透”协同效应,使联合抑菌指数降至0.15~0.75,最低抑菌浓度显著降低。碱性激发体系通过引导钙矾石与水化硅酸钙(C-S-H)凝胶生成,将基体平均孔径细化至0.104 μm,并形成致密的物理屏障。抗霉剂通过“静电锚定-氢键交联”机制稳定固载于凝胶网络中,与孔隙屏障及碱性环境共同形成物理阻隔、化学缓释与代谢抑制三重协同抗霉机制。优化配比后,试块在28 d高湿环境中能保持0级防霉,抗压强度为11.7 MPa,软化系数达0.72,可提升磷石膏墙材品质,促进磷石膏规模化消纳。
中图分类号:
彭祝, 李子玲, 丁友, 程金科, 张煜. 复配抗霉剂与碱性激发材料制备抗霉型磷石膏及机理研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3202-3221.
PENG Zhu, LI Ziling, DING You, CHENG Jinke, ZHANG Yu. Preparation and Mechanism of Mold-Resistant Phosphogypsum Using Composite Antifungal Agents and Alkali-Activated Materials[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3202-3221.
| Modified system | Modified substance | Relationship between sample number and dosage of modified substances | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | W8 | W9 | W10 | W11 | W12 | |||
| Blank CPG(W0) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Modified system of organic antifungal agents | CPG-TTAC | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| CPG-PHMB | PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| CPG-TTAC-PHMB | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | ||
Modified system of alkali-activated cementitiou materials | CPG-CaO-GGBS-CA | CaO | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
Composite synergistic modification system | CPG-TTAC-PHMB-CaO-GGBS-CA | TTAC | 0.25 | 0. 5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | — | — | — | — |
| PHMB | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CaO | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | ||
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | — | — | — | — | ||
表1 不同改性体系及样品编号的物料配比
Table 1 Material ratios of different modification systems and sample numbers
| Modified system | Modified substance | Relationship between sample number and dosage of modified substances | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | W8 | W9 | W10 | W11 | W12 | |||
| Blank CPG(W0) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Modified system of organic antifungal agents | CPG-TTAC | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| CPG-PHMB | PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| CPG-TTAC-PHMB | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | ||
Modified system of alkali-activated cementitiou materials | CPG-CaO-GGBS-CA | CaO | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
Composite synergistic modification system | CPG-TTAC-PHMB-CaO-GGBS-CA | TTAC | 0.25 | 0. 5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | — | — | — | — |
| PHMB | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CaO | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | ||
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | — | — | — | — | ||
| Mold | MIC/(μg·mL-1) | FICI | Synergistic interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTAC | PHMB | TTAC+PHMB(TTAC) | TTAC+PHMB(PHMB) | |||
| Aspergills niger | 100 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0.78 | 0.156 2 | Synergism |
| Trichodema virid | 3.13 | 25 | 0.39 | 6.25 | 0.376 4 | Synergism |
| Penicillim citrinum | 12.5 | 25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 0.750 0 | Additivity |
表2 不同有机抗霉剂的MIC及FICI
Table 2 MIC and FICI of different organic antifungal agents
| Mold | MIC/(μg·mL-1) | FICI | Synergistic interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTAC | PHMB | TTAC+PHMB(TTAC) | TTAC+PHMB(PHMB) | |||
| Aspergills niger | 100 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0.78 | 0.156 2 | Synergism |
| Trichodema virid | 3.13 | 25 | 0.39 | 6.25 | 0.376 4 | Synergism |
| Penicillim citrinum | 12.5 | 25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 0.750 0 | Additivity |
| CPG | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
CPG-0.25%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 35.10 | 2 | 60.07 | 3 | 66.82 | 4 | 67.25 | 4 | |
| 2∶1 | 30.14 | 2 | 59.63 | 3 | 62.41 | 4 | 63.77 | 4 | ||
| 1∶1 | 27.61 | 2 | 57.15 | 3 | 65.20 | 4 | 65.83 | 4 | ||
| 1∶2 | 39.43 | 3 | 44.32 | 3 | 52.71 | 3 | 56.53 | 3 | ||
| 1∶4 | 9.31 | 1 | 20.97 | 2 | 25.34 | 2 | 26.02 | 2 | ||
CPG-0.5%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 42.03 | 3 | 45.61 | 3 | 34.51 | 3 | 58.34 | 3 | |
| 2∶1 | 26.91 | 2 | 41.43 | 3 | 41.62 | 3 | 45.82 | 3 | ||
| 1∶1 | 17.35 | 2 | 33.25 | 3 | 36.09 | 3 | 37.41 | 3 | ||
| 1∶2 | 11.52 | 2 | 13.24 | 2 | 15.21 | 2 | 17.33 | 2 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-1%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 2.41 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.74 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.82 | 1 | 0.91 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.42 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.26 | 1 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-2%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 1.52 | 1 | 1.76 | 1 | 2.43 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.72 | 1 | 0.76 | 1 | 0.84 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.46 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-4%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0.65 | 1 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.77 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.36 | 1 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.57 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
表3 有机抗霉剂复配体系的抗霉性能随培养时间的变化
Table 3 Changes in mold resistance of organic antifungal agent compound systems with cultivation time
| CPG | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
CPG-0.25%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 35.10 | 2 | 60.07 | 3 | 66.82 | 4 | 67.25 | 4 | |
| 2∶1 | 30.14 | 2 | 59.63 | 3 | 62.41 | 4 | 63.77 | 4 | ||
| 1∶1 | 27.61 | 2 | 57.15 | 3 | 65.20 | 4 | 65.83 | 4 | ||
| 1∶2 | 39.43 | 3 | 44.32 | 3 | 52.71 | 3 | 56.53 | 3 | ||
| 1∶4 | 9.31 | 1 | 20.97 | 2 | 25.34 | 2 | 26.02 | 2 | ||
CPG-0.5%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 42.03 | 3 | 45.61 | 3 | 34.51 | 3 | 58.34 | 3 | |
| 2∶1 | 26.91 | 2 | 41.43 | 3 | 41.62 | 3 | 45.82 | 3 | ||
| 1∶1 | 17.35 | 2 | 33.25 | 3 | 36.09 | 3 | 37.41 | 3 | ||
| 1∶2 | 11.52 | 2 | 13.24 | 2 | 15.21 | 2 | 17.33 | 2 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-1%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 2.41 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.74 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.82 | 1 | 0.91 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.42 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.26 | 1 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-2%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 1.52 | 1 | 1.76 | 1 | 2.43 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.72 | 1 | 0.76 | 1 | 0.84 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.46 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-4%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0.65 | 1 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.77 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.36 | 1 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.57 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Modified system | Modified substance | Modified substance dosage/% | pH value | 7 d | 14 d | 21 d | 28 d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | ||||
| CPG-0 | — | — | 4.71 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| CPG-CaO | CaO | 1 | 11.52 | 95.36 | 4 | 98.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 3 | 11.87 | 90.00 | 4 | 93.11 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | 99.23 | 4 | ||
| 6 | 11.96 | 21.89 | 2 | 37.49 | 3 | 58.39 | 4 | 76.99 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 12.00 | 15.23 | 2 | 25.67 | 2 | 47.38 | 3 | 68.72 | 4 | ||
| CPG-CA | CA | 3 | 11.60 | 99.16 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.88 | 98.75 | 4 | 99.55 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 11.90 | 97.36 | 4 | 98.67 | 4 | 99.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 12 | 11.91 | 92.83 | 4 | 94.72 | 4 | 96.96 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | ||
| CPG-GGBS | GGBS | 5 | 11.56 | 93.21 | 4 | 95.86 | 4 | 97.23 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 10 | 11.77 | 92.47 | 4 | 93.89 | 4 | 96.47 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 15 | 11.84 | 91.51 | 4 | 92.30 | 4 | 94.78 | 4 | 98.61 | 4 | ||
| 20 | 11.86 | 87.53 | 4 | 89.49 | 4 | 90.52 | 4 | 93.32 | 4 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 11.91 | 10.39 | 2 | 68.31 | 4 | 69.87 | 4 | 74.58 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.93 | 7.62 | 1 | 9.37 | 1 | 27.82 | 2 | 55.49 | 3 | ||
| 9 | 11.95 | 5.47 | 1 | 8.37 | 1 | 22.30 | 2 | 50.37 | 3 | ||
| CPG-6%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.16 | 1.41 | 1 | 12.90 | 2 | 3.04 | 3 | 4.92 | 3 |
| 6 | 12.23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.85 | 1 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-9%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 12.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-CA | CA | 6 | 11.92 | 2.06 | 1 | 5.48 | 1 | 18.33 | 2 | 22.64 | 2 |
| 9 | 11.97 | 2.07 | 1 | 5.35 | 1 | 18.21 | 2 | 21.37 | 2 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-6%CA (TTAC-PHMB) | (TTAC-PHMB) | 0.25-0.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA (TTAC-PHMB) | (TTAC-PHMB) | 0.25-0.5 | 11.60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
表4 碱性激发胶凝体系的抗霉性能随培养时间的变化
Table 4 Changes in mold resistance of alkali-activated cementitious systems with cultivation time
Modified system | Modified substance | Modified substance dosage/% | pH value | 7 d | 14 d | 21 d | 28 d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | ||||
| CPG-0 | — | — | 4.71 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| CPG-CaO | CaO | 1 | 11.52 | 95.36 | 4 | 98.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 3 | 11.87 | 90.00 | 4 | 93.11 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | 99.23 | 4 | ||
| 6 | 11.96 | 21.89 | 2 | 37.49 | 3 | 58.39 | 4 | 76.99 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 12.00 | 15.23 | 2 | 25.67 | 2 | 47.38 | 3 | 68.72 | 4 | ||
| CPG-CA | CA | 3 | 11.60 | 99.16 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.88 | 98.75 | 4 | 99.55 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 11.90 | 97.36 | 4 | 98.67 | 4 | 99.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 12 | 11.91 | 92.83 | 4 | 94.72 | 4 | 96.96 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | ||
| CPG-GGBS | GGBS | 5 | 11.56 | 93.21 | 4 | 95.86 | 4 | 97.23 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 10 | 11.77 | 92.47 | 4 | 93.89 | 4 | 96.47 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 15 | 11.84 | 91.51 | 4 | 92.30 | 4 | 94.78 | 4 | 98.61 | 4 | ||
| 20 | 11.86 | 87.53 | 4 | 89.49 | 4 | 90.52 | 4 | 93.32 | 4 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 11.91 | 10.39 | 2 | 68.31 | 4 | 69.87 | 4 | 74.58 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.93 | 7.62 | 1 | 9.37 | 1 | 27.82 | 2 | 55.49 | 3 | ||
| 9 | 11.95 | 5.47 | 1 | 8.37 | 1 | 22.30 | 2 | 50.37 | 3 | ||
| CPG-6%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.16 | 1.41 | 1 | 12.90 | 2 | 3.04 | 3 | 4.92 | 3 |
| 6 | 12.23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.85 | 1 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-9%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 12.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-CA | CA | 6 | 11.92 | 2.06 | 1 | 5.48 | 1 | 18.33 | 2 | 22.64 | 2 |
| 9 | 11.97 | 2.07 | 1 | 5.35 | 1 | 18.21 | 2 | 21.37 | 2 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-6%CA (TTAC-PHMB) | (TTAC-PHMB) | 0.25-0.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA (TTAC-PHMB) | (TTAC-PHMB) | 0.25-0.5 | 11.60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Sample | Total porosity/ | Average pore diameter/μm | Pore volume fraction/% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micropores | Mesopores | Macropores | |||
| <0.1 μm | 0.1~10 μm | >10 μm | |||
| CPG hydration product | 47.93 | 0.581 | 1.61 | 75.16 | 23.23 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 50.70 | 0.878 | 1.16 | 76.59 | 22.25 |
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 48.47 | 0.108 | 4.01 | 70.11 | 25.88 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 50.43 | 0.104 | 3.95 | 69.05 | 27.00 |
表5 不同改性体系样品的孔隙分布
Table 5 Pore distribution of samples with different modified systems
| Sample | Total porosity/ | Average pore diameter/μm | Pore volume fraction/% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micropores | Mesopores | Macropores | |||
| <0.1 μm | 0.1~10 μm | >10 μm | |||
| CPG hydration product | 47.93 | 0.581 | 1.61 | 75.16 | 23.23 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 50.70 | 0.878 | 1.16 | 76.59 | 22.25 |
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 48.47 | 0.108 | 4.01 | 70.11 | 25.88 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 50.43 | 0.104 | 3.95 | 69.05 | 27.00 |
图12 不同改性体系样品的XPS谱(①:CPG空白样,②:CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB,③:CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA)
Fig.12 XPS spectra of samples with different modified systems(①: CPG blank sample,②: CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB,③:CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA)
图13 不同改性样品培养28 d后表面的霉变部位SEM照片和宏观霉变照片
Fig.13 SEM images of moldy areas and macroscopic moldy photographs of different modified samples after 28 d of cultivation
| Modified system | Diameter of antibacterial circle/mm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 d | 3 d | 5 d | 7 d | 9 d | 11 d | 14 d | |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC | 11.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 5.0 |
| CPG-0.25%PHMB | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 20.0 | 19.8 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 18.8 | 18.6 |
表6 有机抗霉剂改性体系抑菌圈直径随时间变化值
Table 6 Variation of antibacterial circle diameter with time for organic antifungal agent modified systems
| Modified system | Diameter of antibacterial circle/mm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 d | 3 d | 5 d | 7 d | 9 d | 11 d | 14 d | |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC | 11.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 5.0 |
| CPG-0.25%PHMB | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 20.0 | 19.8 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 18.8 | 18.6 |
| [1] |
QU F L, ZHANG Y Y, LI M D, et al. Resource recycling of industrial waste phosphogypsum in cementitious materials: pretreatment, properties, and applications[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2025, 376: 124291.
DOI URL |
| [2] | LIU W S, LI L J, ZHOU X T. Molecular simulation study of the adhesion characteristics of β-phosphogypsum product surface to mold biomolecules[J]. Materials Research Express, 2023, 10(3): 035504. |
| [3] |
DHALIWAL S S, DUBEY S K, KUMAR D, et al. Enhanced organic carbon triggers transformations of macronutrients, micronutrients, and secondary plant nutrients and their dynamics in the soil under different cropping systems: a review[J]. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2024, 24(3): 5272-5292.
DOI |
| [4] |
WANG Q, ZHENG H Y, WANG Y, et al. Influence of phosphorus impurities on the structure and performance of cellulose-ether-modified gypsum[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 345: 128230.
DOI URL |
| [5] |
LI X, LV X F, XIANG L. Review of the state of impurity occurrences and impurity removal technology in phosphogypsum[J]. Materials, 2023, 16(16): 5630.
DOI URL |
| [6] |
WANG S T, QIU B W, SHI J G, et al. Quaternary ammonium antimicrobial agents and their application in antifouling coatings: a review[J]. Journal of Coatings Technology and Research, 2024, 21(1): 87-103.
DOI |
| [7] | CUI J C, BAO Y Y, SUN Y H, et al. Critical factors on corrosion protective waterborne coatings containing functionalized graphene oxide: a review[J]. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2023, 174: 107729. |
| [8] |
VENKATESAN U, MUNIYAN R. Review on the extension of shelf life for fruits and vegetables using natural preservatives[J]. Food Science and Biotechnology, 2024, 33(11): 2477-2496.
DOI PMID |
| [9] |
NAVYA P N, DAIMA H K. Rational engineering of physicochemical properties of nanomaterials for biomedical applications with nanotoxicological perspectives[J]. Nano Convergence, 2016, 3(1): 1.
DOI PMID |
| [10] |
DENER M, KARATAS M, SHI J Y, et al. Mechanical properties and microstructure of hybrid alkali-activated cement component[J]. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 2024, 25(1): 45.
DOI |
| [11] |
LIU W S, LI L J, KONG T T. Mechanisms of mold colonization on β-phosphogypsum hydration products: effects of environmental and material factors[J]. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2025, 13(5): 119159.
DOI URL |
| [12] |
REN P, LUO M, LIN S, et al. Multilaboratory testing of antifungal drug combinations against Candida species and Aspergillus fumigatus: utility of 100 percent inhibition as the endpoint[J]. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2015, 59(3): 1759-1766.
DOI URL |
| [13] |
KHALED J M, ALHARBI N S, KADAIKUNNAN S, et al. Distribution of Candida infections in patients and evaluation of the synergic interactions of some drugs against emerging fluconazole- and caspofungin-resistant C. auris[J]. Journal of King Saud University Science, 2023, 35(4): 102617.
DOI URL |
| [14] |
GOLDONI M, JOHANSSON C. A mathematical approach to study combined effects of toxicants in vitro: evaluation of the Bliss independence criterion and the Loewe additivity model[J]. Toxicology in Vitro, 2007, 21(5): 759-769.
DOI URL |
| [15] |
CHOI H, KIM K J, LEE D G. Antifungal activity of the cationic antimicrobial polymer-polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride and its mode of action[J]. Fungal Biology, 2017, 121(1): 53-60.
DOI PMID |
| [16] |
LIETARD J, DAMHA M J, SOMOZA M M. Large-scale photolithographic synthesis of chimeric DNA/RNA hairpin microarrays to explore sequence specificity landscapes of RNase HII cleavage[J]. Biochemistry, 2019, 58(44): 4389-4397.
DOI PMID |
| [17] |
SHA D, YANG X, WANG B L, et al. Surface grafting of a quaternary ammonium salt on macroporous polyvinyl alcohol-formaldehyde sponges and their highly efficient antibacterial performance[J]. ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 2020, 2(11): 4936-4942.
DOI URL |
| [18] | ZHOU Y, JIANG Y Z, ZHANG Y, et al. Improvement of antibacterial and antifouling properties of a cellulose acetate membrane by surface grafting quaternary ammonium salt[J]. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2022, 14(33): 38358-38369. |
| [19] |
GAO S T, SUN Y J, LU Z, et al. Synergistic antibacterial and biofilm eradication activity of quaternary-ammonium compound with copper ion[J]. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 2023, 243: 112190.
DOI URL |
| [20] |
WANG D L, NA Q, LIU Y K, et al. Hydration process and fluoride solidification mechanism of multi-source solid waste-based phosphogypsum cemented paste backfill under CaO modification[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2024, 154: 105804.
DOI URL |
| [21] |
JIANG W T, PAN F B, CHEN R, et al. Earthworm fermentation products enhance the apple replant soil environment and increase the yield and quality of apple fruit[J]. Horticultural Plant Journal, 2025, 11(2): 564-577.
DOI URL |
| [22] |
NIKITINA E V, ZELDI M I, PUGACHEV M V, et al. Antibacterial effects of quaternary bis-phosphonium and ammonium salts of pyridoxine on Staphylococcus aureus cells: a single base hitting two distinct targets [J]. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2015, 32(1): 5.
DOI URL |
| [23] |
JIANG H, XIANG G Y, KHOSO S A, et al. Comparative studies of quaternary ammonium salts on the aggregation and dispersion behavior of kaolinite and quartz[J]. Minerals, 2019, 9(8): 473.
DOI URL |
| [24] |
WANG Y Q, CAO H, WANG X Y, et al. Experimental and theoretical investigation on the mechanism of cationic surfactants-assisted phosphogypsum crystal transformation[J]. Surfaces and Interfaces, 2024, 47: 104211.
DOI URL |
| [25] |
BARNETT S J, SOUTSOS M N, MILLARD S G, et al. Strength development of mortars containing ground granulated blast-furnace slag: effect of curing temperature and determination of apparent activation energies[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2006, 36(3): 434-440.
DOI URL |
| [26] |
MAO Z T, CAMPBELL C T. Apparent activation energies in complex reaction mechanisms: a simple relationship via degrees of rate control[J]. ACS Catalysis, 2019, 9(10): 9465-9473.
DOI URL |
| [27] |
SNELLINGS R, MACHNER A, BOLTE G, et al. Hydration kinetics of ternary slag-limestone cements: impact of water to binder ratio and curing temperature[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2022, 151: 106647.
DOI URL |
| [28] |
SCHUMMER U, SCHIEFER H G. Transmembrane proton-motive potential of Spiroplasma foricola[J]. FEBS Letters, 1987, 224(1): 79-82.
DOI URL |
| [29] |
HESSE S J A, RUIJTER G J G, DIJKEMA C, et al. Intracellular pH homeostasis in the filamentous fungus Aspergillus niger [J]. European Journal of Biochemistry, 2002, 269(14): 3485-3494.
DOI URL |
| [30] |
FEDOROVA I V, SAFONOVA L P. Influence of the dielectric constant on ion pair formation in sulfonic acid-ammonia and alkylamine systems: a CPCM-based quantum chemical study[J]. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 2025, 437: 128288.
DOI URL |
| [31] |
DARWISH K A, MRESTANI Y, NEUBERT R H H. Optimization of ion-pair formation between glycopyrronium bromide and different ion-pair agents using ACE[J]. Electrophoresis, 2015, 36(21/22): 2805-2810.
DOI URL |
| [32] |
CHEN X L, TANG H L, PUTZEYS T, et al. Guanidinium nonaflate as a solid-state proton conductor[J]. Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2016, 4(31): 12241-12252.
DOI URL |
| [33] |
VASHCHENKO A V, AFONIN A V. Comparative estimation of the energies of intramolecular C-H…O, N-H…O, and O-H…O hydrogen bonds according to the QTAIM analysis and NMR spectroscopy data[J]. Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2014, 55(4): 636-643.
DOI URL |
| [34] | 段铜川, 闫韶健, 赵 妍, 等. 水的氢键网络动力学与其太赫兹频谱的关系[J]. 物理学报, 2021, 70(24): 248702. |
|
DUAN T C, YAN S J, ZHAO Y, et al. Relationship between hydrogen bond network dynamics of water and its terahertz spectrum[J]. Acta Physica Sinica, 2021, 70(24): 248702 (in Chinese).
DOI URL |
| [1] | 陈熠恒, 房可能, 陈前林. 利用磷石膏制备的CaSO4合成高性能胶凝材料[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3187-3201. |
| [2] | 陈明胜, 杨宁, 刘天乐, 郑少军, 刘鹏. 碳化养护对磷石膏基复合胶凝材料力学性能与耐水性的影响及机理研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(9): 3222-3232. |
| [3] | 唐佩, 刘佳心, 曲波, 肜鹏杰, 陈伟. 热活化煤矸石及其在磷石膏矿渣水泥中的应用研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2829-2838. |
| [4] | 宗炜, 刘成, 郑武西, 张启鑫, 董贤政. 磷石膏替代粗/细集料的基层路用性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2956-2966. |
| [5] | 唐佩, 朱美怡, 肜鹏杰, 陈伟. 电化学活化赤泥对过硫磷石膏矿渣水泥性能的提升研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2806-2816. |
| [6] | 程晓, 武发德, 王宏霞, 宋晓光, 高春勇, 郭君华, 李帆. 外加剂对磷石膏霉变的影响机制研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(8): 2839-2849. |
| [7] | 刘鑫, 李明阳, 张细和, 蓝少丁, 高旭. 赤泥与再生微粉协同调控磷石膏-矿渣基全固废胶凝材料的耐久性能与微观结构研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2478-2490. |
| [8] | 张雪梅, 靳晴晴, 常硕, 王露, 李照祺, 张兴照, 刘数华. 超硫酸盐水泥的化学收缩特性研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(7): 2215-2225. |
| [9] | 任骏, 晏云潇, 李苗源, 田镇赫, 赵立兴, 王大富. 微生物改性磷石膏对石膏矿渣水泥性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(5): 1671-1681. |
| [10] | 陈子涵, 郭煜东, 吕钦飞, 梁咏宁, 季韬. 碱当量对磷石膏-碱矿渣泡沫混凝土性能的影响[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(4): 1315-1323. |
| [11] | 何兆益, 邹萌, 姚启文, 曹东伟, 秦猛. 高掺量磷石膏-水泥-固化剂稳定碎石基层材料的性能及强度形成机理[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2026, 45(1): 346-358. |
| [12] | 李义胜, 吕伟, 吴赤球, 余正康, 何静, 水中和. 高掺量磷石膏胶凝材料硬化体制备及其性能调节[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(8): 2944-2954. |
| [13] | 邓兴辉, 徐桂弘, 包立新, 徐韦洪, 陈孜伟, 杨步雷. 磷石膏基挤压异形砖(PG-ESB)力学性能及孔隙三参数分布特性[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(6): 2240-2249. |
| [14] | 苏瑛, 龚伟, 刘川北, 张俊. 基于机器学习的磷石膏轻骨料混凝土配合比设计与力学性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(5): 1656-1665. |
| [15] | 任骏, 余永昆, 毛雯婷, 张毓, 王大富. 基于磷石膏基细轻骨料的砂浆性能研究[J]. 硅酸盐通报, 2025, 44(4): 1420-1427. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||