Introduction

With the acceleration of industrialization and urbanization in China, the area of exposed surfaces such as open-pit mines, port stockyards, and urban construction waste has rapidly expanded. Dust pollution has become the primary factor affecting regional air quality. The measured data show that the instantaneous concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 in these areas often reach several hundred to more than a thousand μg/m3, far exceeding the secondary limits of the Ambient Air Quality Standards (GB 3095–2012) (PM10 daily average of 150 μg/m3; PM2.5 daily average of 75 μg/m3)1. Traditional dust suppression methods involve water sprinkling, but the effective dust suppression time per ton of water is less than 0.5 h, and the annual water consumption for road sprinklers in northern mining areas exceeds 2 × 108 m32. Issues such as freezing in winter and rapid evaporation in summer further weaken the dust suppression effect, creating a prominent contradiction of “high water consumption and low efficiency”3.

To extend the duration of dust suppression and reduce water usage, domestic and international scholars have successively developed chemical dust suppressants, including inorganic salts (CaCl2, MgCl2), synthetic polymers (sodium polyacrylate, polyvinyl alcohol), and surfactants (SDBS, OP-10)4. Inorganic salts are cost effective but can corrode equipment and cause soil salinization through leaching; synthetic polymers such as sodium polyacrylate can form a solid crust on dust surfaces but pose risks of being nonbiodegradable and causing secondary pollution5; traditional surfactants have high biotoxicity and can lead to excessive COD (Chemical oxygen demand) emissions6. Therefore, the development of “green, efficient, and low-cost” environmentally friendly dust suppressants has become a current research hotspot7.

In recent years, researchers have attempted to replace traditional chemical components with biobased materials. Zhang et al.8 used 1.0% carboxymethyl cellulose combined with 0.5% polyacrylamide to extend the dust suppression duration to 12 h, but the residual polymer still required more than 90 days to fully degrade. Wang et al.9 reported that a combination of 3% lignosulfonate and 0.2% dodecylbenzene sulfonate sodium could reduce the surface tension to 32 mN/m, but this led to a 45% increase in the soil COD. Wei et al.10 developed a galactomannan-based dust suppressant using 0.3% xanthan gum and 2% glycerol, which achieved a moisture retention rate of 58% at 60 °C for 8 h but lacked surfactant components, resulting in an initial wetting time of more than 120 s. These studies indicate that single or binary systems struggle to balance wetting, film formation, moisture retention, and ecological safety. There is an urgent need to explore a ternary synergistic system of xanthan gum-glycerol-alkyl polyglucosites to further break through performance bottlenecks.

In recent years, the construction of a fully biodegradable dust suppression system using the plant polysaccharide xanthan gum (XG), the biobased moisturizer glycerol (GLY), and the green surfactant alkyl polyglucoside (APG) has become a new research direction7. XG is a microbial polysaccharide produced by fermentation of Xanthomonas campestris and is known for its excellent binding, film-forming, and erosion resistance properties11. GLY is a food-grade polyol that can significantly reduce the rate of water evaporation12. APG, which is made from glucose and plant fatty alcohols, has a biodegradation rate of > 90% and can significantly reduce the surface tension of solutions13. The synergistic action of these three components can complement each other in terms of wetting, film formation, moisture retention, and consolidation, balancing dust suppression efficiency and environmental friendliness. However, the synergistic patterns, optimal ratios, and long-term effectiveness of this system under complex working conditions such as mine roads have not been systematically studied. Therefore, this work selects XG as the binding-filming matrix, introduces GLY to build a moisture retention network, and uses APG to reduce surface tension, collaboratively developing a fully biodegradable water-based composite dust suppressant. After the optimal mass ratio was determined through single-factor experiments, the moisture retention performance and wind erosion resistance of the product were systematically evaluated. This study provides a theoretical basis and provides technical support for the construction of green mines and atmospheric governance under the “dual carbon” goals.

Materials and methods

Experimental materials and instruments

An experiment was conducted at a construction site, during which a sampling survey was implemented. The sampling process employed a serpentine sampling technique, with a total of 9 sampling points. During sampling, a broom was used to sweep the surface soil within a 5 square meter area around each sampling point and collect it into a soil collection cylinder. After the samples from the 9 sampling points were collected, they were transported to the laboratory for subsequent processing.

The processing procedure for the dust samples was as follows: First, large particulate matter in the samples, such as sand, gravel, dry branches, and plastic waste, was removed. The dust samples were then ground. After grinding, the dust samples were sieved through a 100-mesh standard sieve. The sieved dust samples were placed in a constant-temperature hot air drying box at 105 °C and dried for 8 h. After drying, the samples were moved to a desiccator to cool to room temperature, after which they were weighed, packaged, and stored properly for subsequent use.

The experimental materials included XG (food grade), GLY (AR, ≥ 99.0%), and APG (industrial grade), and the experimental water was deionized water.

The experimental instruments used included an electronic analytical balance (A6-001), an electrically heated drum-type drying box (XGQ-2000), a BZY200 ring method surface tension analyzer, an NDJ-1S rotational viscometer, an 85–2 digital constant-temperature magnetic stirrer, and a CZT centrifugal AC blower.

Experimental scheme

Single-factor experiments were conducted to determine the usage ranges of various materials, followed by response surface methodology (RSM) experiments to derive the optimal ratios and analyze the performance of the dust suppressant under these ratios.

Single-factor experiments were used to study the effects of the amounts of binder, moisturizer, and surfactant on the viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension of the dust suppressant. Subsequently, orthogonal optimization experiments were carried out on the basis of response surface methodology. The viscosity agent, moisturizing agent and surfactant screened by single factor experiments were used as independent variables, and the viscosity, moisturizing rate and surface tension were used as response values. A Box–Behnken design was used to construct the model and optimize the formula. Through variance analysis, interaction effect tests, and model and experimental verification, it is confirmed that the predicted value is consistent with the measured value, and the reliability of the optimal ratio recommended by the model is established.

Single-factor experimental design

XG with a concentration range of 0.05% to 0.25% was selected as the binder, and SA (sodium alginate), a water-soluble polysaccharide thickening binder which can significantly improve viscosity and adhesiveness, was selected as the control group. BG (butanediol) with a concentration range of 1% to 5% was selected as the humectant, and GLY, a small molecular polyol humectant with the commonness of absorbing moisture, reducing evaporation and improving water retention, was selected as the control group. MEGA (N-methylglucamide) with a concentration range of 0.08% to 0.24% was selected as the surfactant, and APG, which is a nonionic and mild surfactant system, can reduce the surface tension and promote the wetting penetration, but its molecular structure and interface mechanism are different, was selected as the control group.

The detailed experimental methods for the single-factor experiments are as follows:

Viscosity measurement: The viscosity of various solutions was measured via an NDJ-1S digital viscometer. Each solution was measured three times, and the average value was taken.

Moisture retention rate test: The prepared dust suppressant was evenly sprayed onto a 90 mm diameter Petri dish containing 50 g of dust and placed in a constant temperature and humidity chamber at 25 °C and 43% RH. After 14 h, the mass loss was measured and calculated as the moisture retention rate. The formula for calculating the moisture retention rate14,15 is as follows:

$$E = \frac{{m_{{\text{t}}} }}{{m_{0} }} \times 100\%$$
(1)

where E is the moisture retention rate (%), m0 is the initial mass of the dust suppressant (g), and mt is the mass of the remaining dust suppressant after time t (g).

Surface tension measurement: The surface tension of various formulated solutions was measured via a BZY200 ring method surface tension analyzer16, with each solution measured three times and the average value taken.

Response surface methodology (RSM) experimental design

On the basis of the results of the single-factor experiments, this study used the Box–Behnken response surface methodology (RSM) in Design Expert 13 software to optimize the formula of the composite dust suppressant. The binder, moisturizer, and surfactant were used as independent variables, with the viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension of the dust suppressant as the response values. A three-factor, three-level experimental design model was established, as shown in Table 1. The experimental design included 17 experimental points, ensuring that the experimental scheme could effectively cover the design space and accurately reflect the influence patterns of the factors on the response values.

Table 1 RSM experimental design.
Full size table

The experimental data were fitted and analyzed via a second-order regression model. Variance analysis (ANOVA) was used to assess the significance of the model and to examine the effects of the factors and their interactions on the response values. The synergistic mechanisms between the three key components (binder, moisturizer, and surfactant) were systematically investigated via response surface analysis, ultimately determining the optimal ratio scheme for the composite dust suppressant. Detailed records of the response values for each experimental group were kept during the experiment to provide a reliable basis for model validation and parameter optimization17.

Viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension tests were conducted as described in Section "Single-factor experimental design".

Performance tests

Anti-evaporation test

The anti-evaporation rate of dust suppressant solution at 30 °C, 35 °C and 40 °C for 14 h was measured to simulate the high temperature environment of construction site in summer. Steps are the same as Moisture retention test.

Wind erosion resistance test

Three hundred grams of simulated dust with a particle size of ≤ 0.25 mm were evenly spread in a metal wind erosion box measuring 32 cm × 22 cm × 2 cm. The dust suppressant was subsequently sprayed evenly onto the dust and allowed to air dry until surface dryness was achieved. The wind erosion box was then placed in the horizontal section of a wind tunnel, with the wind speed adjusted to 5 m/s, 7 m/s, and 9 m/s for continuous blowing for 20 min. After blowing, the remaining dust in the box was immediately collected, dried to a constant weight at 105 °C, and weighed. The wind erosion rate was calculated on the basis of the mass difference before and after blowing relative to the initial mass, which was used to evaluate the wind erosion resistance of the dust suppressant film. The formula for calculating the wind erosion rate η18,19 is as follows:

$$\eta = \frac{{M_{0} - M_{1} }}{{M_{0} }} \times 100\%$$
(2)

where η is the wind erosion rate (%), M0 is the mass of the dust sample before blowing (g), and M1 is the mass of the dust sample after blowing (g).

Experimental results and analysis

Results of single-factor experiments

Viscosity test

The viscosity values of different concentrations of XG and SA solutions are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Full size image

Viscosity of two different concentrations of binders.

As shown in Fig. 1, within the low concentration range (0.05%-0.25%), the viscosity of XG was significantly greater than that of SA, especially when the concentration was greater than 0.1%. The increase in viscosity with concentration for SA is relatively flat, and it is more affected by its own molecular weight (products with lower molecular weights have lower viscosities, whereas those with higher molecular weights have slightly higher viscosities), with a weaker viscosity overall at low concentrations. XG is a rigid double helix polysaccharide with side chains, which has a long lasting length and can form a three-dimensional network 20 through molecular entanglement and weak crosslinking at low concentration20; SA is a linear block copolymer polysaccharide, and its chain is more supple. At low concentration, coil swelling and limited entanglement are the main reasons, and a significant network increase of 21 appears only at higher concentration21. XG is easier to form a continuous viscoelastic network with low addition, which improves the cohesion between particles and the ability to resist wind erosion and peeling. However, SA in Ca2⁺-containing system may be more inclined to "fast cross-linking gel block" than uniform film formation, which affects the spraying uniformity.

The moisture retention of the composite dust suppressant increases with increasing amounts of binder added. The greater the viscosity of the binder is, the better the moisture retention. In the case of dust suppressants used in limestone mines, if the viscosity is too low, the dust moisture retention effect will be poor, and it will not be able to effectively prevent the wind from stripping the dust. If the viscosity is too high, the flowability of the dust suppressant will be poor, which can not only easily clog nozzles but also lead to uneven spraying11. To achieve strong binding power while reducing usage and cost, XG is preferred, as it can balance viscosity and sprayability. Therefore, in the response surface experiments, XG concentrations of 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.15% were selected as binders.

Moisture retention rate test

For the antievaporation experiments, the moisture retention rates of different concentrations of GLY and BG solutions at different times are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Full size image

Moisture retention rates of the GLY and BG solutions.

As shown in Fig. 2, within the tested concentration range of 1%-5%, GLY has a relatively high moisture retention rate, i.e., a relatively high water retention rate, especially at low concentrations, due to its relatively high number of hydroxyl groups, which have a relatively strong ability to combine with water22. The moisture retention rate of GLY was always greater than that of BG, especially when the concentration was > 3%, with a greater difference. This is because the number of hydroxyl groups of GLY is more than that of BG, which makes GLY form a higher density hydrogen bond network with water, and more water exists in the form of "bound water/bound water", thus effectively reducing water activity and inhibiting evaporation and migration. At the same time, GLY has stronger polarity, higher hydrophilicity and greater driving force of moisture absorption; BG has longer carbon chain, stronger hydrophobicity and fewer strong binding sites to water at the same concentration. The polyhydroxyglycoside head group of APG brings stronger hydration and higher interface arrangement efficiency, which makes it easier to occupy the gas–liquid interface quickly and fully and reduce the surface tension at the same concentration. However, the amide-related self-association and interfacial rearrangement of MEGA make its tensile and wetting efficiency slightly lower. Therefore, based on the engineering scene and economic benefit of long-term dust suppression, 3%-5% GLY was selected as the humectant level of response surface test.

Surface tension test

Surface tension can reflect the wettability of a solution on a macroscopic level, and it is one of the indirect parameters for evaluating dust suppression effects23,24. The lower the surface tension is, the stronger the penetration ability of the solution, and the faster the wetting speed of the dust25. The surface tension of two different concentrations of surfactants was tested to determine the ability of the solution to wet dust, and the results are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Full size image

Surface tension of APG and MEGA.

As shown in Fig. 3, the surface tension of both surfactants decreases with increasing concentration and is within 0. In the concentration range of 8–0.24%, the surface tension of APG aqueous solutions is always lower than that of MEGA aqueous solutions at the same concentration. The sugar glycoside head group of APG is more hydrophilic and can more efficiently adsorb onto the gas‒liquid interface26. Although the amide bond in MEGA enhances the hydrophobic interaction, its head group polarity is slightly weaker, resulting in slightly lower interfacial arrangement efficiency27. In the concentration range of 0.08–0.24%, the lower surface tension of APG corresponds to smaller contact angle and stronger capillary penetration, which can form a stable liquid bridge between particles faster, promote agglomeration and inhibit resuspension; At the same time, APG, as a nonionic glycosyl surfactant, usually has good environmental compatibility and biodegradability. Since the surface tension values are the same at 0.2–0.24%, concentrations of 0.12%, 0.16%, and 0.20% APG were selected as the formulated surfactants.

Results and analysis of response surface methodology

BBD experimental results

Table 2 shows the viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension of 17 different mixed-concentration dust suppressant solutions.

Table 2 BBD experimental scheme and results.
Full size table

Fitting model

On the basis of the experimental results in Table 2, second-order polynomial regression models were established between the concentrations of the three raw materials and the viscosity (Y1), moisture retention rate (Y2), and surface tension (Y3), as shown in Eqs. 3, 4 and 5.

$$Y_{1} = 109.86 + 58.53A - 0.33B - 2.61C + 4.75AB - 2.07AC + 1.59BC + 23.20A^{2} + 4.42B^{2} + 11.16C^{2}$$
(3)
$$Y_{2} = 73.35 + 0.39A + 6.31B + 0.252C + 0.74AB - 0.34AC + 1.05BC + 0.50A^{2} + 3.34B^{2} + 0.19C^{2}$$
(4)
$$Y_{3} = 27.34 + 0.075A + 0.000B - 0.60C + 0.025AB + 0.075AC + 0.23BC - 0.083A^{2} - 0.033B^{2} - 0.28C^{2}$$
(5)

where A, B, and C are the coded values of the concentrations of XG, GLY, and APG, respectively.

Variance analysis

Tables 3, 4, and 5 present the variance analysis results for the fitted models of viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension, respectively.

Table 3 Variance analysis of the viscosity model.
Full size table
Table 4 Variance analysis of the moisture retention rate model.
Full size table
Table 5 Variance analysis of the surface tension model.
Full size table

The table shows that the model items with P < 0.05 reached a significant level, and the confidence level exceeded 95%28,29. The R2 and Adj- R2 of each fitting equation are close to 1, indicating that the model has both high precision and good universality; the difference between Adj- R2 and Pred-R2 is far less than 0.2, indicating consistency between Adj- R2 and Pred-R2,30. The signal‒to-noise ratio (AP) of each model is much greater than 4, indicating that the accidental error interference is very small; the coefficient of variation (CV) is < 10%, indicating that the model variability is small and that the fitting results are credible and accurate.

Figure 4 shows the relationships between the predicted values and residuals of the three fitted models.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Full size image

Relationships between the predicted values and residuals of the viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension models.

As shown in Fig. 4, the range of residual changes is small, within 3%, which is less than the requirement for the range of standardized residuals at the 95% confidence level, further confirming the standardness of the models.

Figure 5 shows the comparison between the experimental values and predicted values of the three fitted models at the same mixed concentrations.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Full size image

Comparison of actual and predicted viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension.

As shown in Fig. 5, the predicted values of each response are approximately distributed along the same straight line as the experimental values, indicating the high precision of all the fitted models.

Interaction effect analysis

Response surface plots were used to analyze the effects of the factors on the response values and the interactions between the factors intuitively.

Figure 6 shows the response surface of the dust suppressant viscosity model.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Full size image

Response surface plot of Y1 model.

It can be seen from Fig. 6 that with the increase of XG concentration, the solution viscosity gradually increases. XG is a polymer thickener, and the higher the concentration, the stronger the entanglement of molecular chains and the more stable network structure will be formed, which will significantly improve the viscosity of the solution and play a role in bonding and dust suppression. GLY and APG decrease first and then increase the viscosity, which can be understood as that at low concentration, they have certain solubility and dispersion effects, weaken the interaction between XG chains, reduce the degree of entanglement, make the system easier to flow, and show resistance to viscosity; When GLY or APG continues to increase, on the one hand, GLY enhances the binding water of the system through hydrogen bonds, on the other hand, APG forms micelles and has a weak interaction with XG, which makes the microstructure denser, the flow resistance increases and the viscosity begins to rise.

The response surface of the dust suppressant moisture retention rate model is shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Full size image

Response surface plot of Y2 model.

GLY contains multiple hydroxyl groups, which are easy to form hydrogen bonds with water molecules and absorb environmental moisture. Therefore, it can be seen from Fig. 7 that with the increase of GLY concentration, the moisture retention rate of the solution continues to increase. XG is a hydrophilic thickener: at a low concentration, the thickening effect is not obvious, and it will change the system structure and affect the water distribution, making part of the water easier to migrate or evaporate, which is unfavorable to moisturizing, and moisturizing will drop first; When the concentration of XG is further increased, the viscosity of the solution increases and forms a certain network structure, which plays a role of “locking water”, the diffusion and volatilization of water slow down, and the moisture retention rate increases in turn. When they are combined, there may be slight confrontation in the low XG stage, but it is easier to cooperate in the high XG stage: GLY absorbs moisture and binds water, and XG slows down water loss by thickening and forming a film, thus improving the overall moisture retention.

The response surface of the dust suppressant surface tension model is shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Full size image

Response surface plot of Y3 model.

It can be seen from Fig. 8 that with the increase of APG and GLY concentration, the surface tension gradually decreases. APG is a nonionic surfactant. With the increase of its concentration, it can be adsorbed on the gas–liquid interface more quickly and form a dense monolayer, which reduces the interfacial free energy and the surface tension. GLY, as a moisturizing component, can change the structure of water through hydrogen bonds, reduce the critical micelle concentration of APG and promote the rearrangement of molecules at the interface, so GLY-APG shows a significant synergistic tension-reducing effect, but does not change the influence law of various factors on surface tension. XG is a polymer thickener. At low concentration, it mainly improves the viscosity of the solution, restricts the migration of APG to the interface and entangles with it. When there is some confrontation, the surface tension increases first. When XG continues to increase, the system structure tends to be stable, APG is enriched and micellized at the interface, synergistic wetting becomes dominant again, and the surface tension decreases31.

RSM optimization

According to the analysis results of the Design Expert software, the best mixed concentrations of the dust suppressants that met all the indicators are shown in Table 6: 0.15% XG, 5.00% GLY, and 0.13% APG. To verify the reliability of the response surface model, the measured values (averages of three repeated experiments) and predicted values of the three responses under the optimal mixed concentration were compared, and the results are shown in Table 7.

Table 6 Optimal mixed concentration of dust suppressant.
Full size table
Table 7 Comparison of the measured and predicted values under the optimal mixed concentration.
Full size table

As shown in Table 7, the maximum relative error between the measured and predicted values is only 0.35%, indicating that the fitted model’s predictions are quite accurate. The measured viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension of the dust suppressant are all good, indicating good binding, moisturizing, and wetting effects. The optimized results are reasonable and reliable, indicating that the surfactant in the composite dust suppressant accelerates dust wetting, the binder enhances dust viscosity, and the humectant provides long-lasting moisture retention to effectively suppress dust dispersion. The surface tension is obviously less than the dust suppressant developed by Wang et al.9. At the same time, compared with the dust suppressant developed by Wei et al. 10, it has both moisturizing and wetting effects10.

Performance characterization results analysis

Anti-evaporation analysis

The anti-evaporation rate of the dust suppressant solution was measured at 30 °C, 35 °C, and 40 °C to simulate the high-temperature environment of a construction site in summer, as an indicator of high-temperature moisture retention, and the results are shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Full size image

Evaporation of dust suppressant and water at three different temperatures.

As shown in Fig. 9, as the temperature increases, the evaporation of the solution gradually increases, and the water content evaporates faster, resulting in a higher concentration of the solution. At 30 °C, 35 °C, and 40 °C, the moisture retention rates of the dust suppressant solutions after 14 h were 81.2%, 76.8%, and 63.2%, respectively, whereas those of the water were 41.2%, 30.5%, and 14.3%, respectively. This finding indicates that the dust suppressant solution has approximately twice the anti-evaporation capacity of water under high-temperature conditions, demonstrating better anti-evaporation performance and meeting the requirements for high-moisture composite dust suppressants. When sprayed onto the surface of dust, the dust suppressant solution can increase the moisture content of the dust and effectively suppress dust. The moisturizing effect is obviously better than the dust suppressant developed by Liang et al.32.

Wind erosion resistance analysis

Figure 10 shows the wind erosion resistance of dust treated with the dust suppressant and water.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Full size image

Wind erosion resistance of dust treated with a dust suppressant and water.

As shown in Fig. 10, after continuous blowing at three wind speeds for 60 min, the wind erosion rate of dust treated with water gradually increased, and the mass continuously decreased. In contrast, the mass of dust treated with the dust suppressant increased over time, as the hygroscopic components in the dust suppressant absorbed moisture from the air. Under strong wind conditions (9 m/s), the wind erosion rate of dust samples treated with the dust suppressant was relatively low (33.5%), which can be attributed to the moisture retention and binding effects of the dust suppressant. In contrast, dust treated with water had higher wind erosion rates of 45.2% and 66.8% under weak wind conditions (5 m/s and 7 m/s), respectively. Under strong wind conditions, most of the dust is blown away, resulting in a wind erosion rate as high as 80.2%. This is mainly because the adhesion between water and dust is insufficient, leading to a weak binding force. In summary, dust suppressants exhibit stronger resistance to wind erosion. Compared with the dust suppressant developed by Nie33, the effect of wind erosion resistance is obviously enhanced.

Conclusions

This study developed a biobased environmental composite dust suppressant using XG, GLY, and APG. The dust suppressant demonstrated excellent moisture retention, wind erosion resistance, and antievaporation properties. The specific conclusions are as follows:

  1. (1)

    Through BBD experiments, RSM models for viscosity, moisture retention rate, and surface tension were established, and the optimal ratios were determined to be 0.15% XG, 5.00% GLY, and 0.13% APG. The models showed good significance, precision, and reliability. At this ratio, the dust suppressant achieved a viscosity of 207.82 mPa·s and a surface tension of 27.40 mN/m. At a constant temperature and humidity of 25 °C and 43% RH, the moisture retention rate of the solution reached 84.27% after 14 h, indicating high binding, moisturizing, and wetting effects.

  2. (2)

    The performance analysis of the composite dust suppressant at the optimal ratio revealed that when it was heated at high temperatures of 30 °C, 35 °C, or 40 °C for 14 h to simulate the high-temperature environment of a construction site in summer, the dust suppressant’s anti-evaporation capacity was approximately twice that of water. After continuous blowing at wind speeds of 5–9 m/s for 60 min, the wind erosion rate reached 80.2%, indicating better moisture retention, anti-evaporation resistance, and wind erosion resistance.

  3. (3)

    Based on XG-GLY-APG ternary synergistic system, the dust suppressant in this study has achieved synchronous improvement in three key indicators, namely, "firm adhesion, good durability and quick moistening", which reflects the innovation of collaborative optimization of formula design and performance. At the same time, the dust suppressant is made of renewable and biodegradable raw materials, does not contain heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, and can meet the environmental protection requirements of green mines and green construction.

This study can effectively reduce the whole life cycle cost, improve the spraying efficiency and durability, and promote the large-scale application under complex working conditions; Guided by the goal of “double carbon”, this technology can achieve more efficient particulate matter emission reduction at lower cost of resources and energy consumption, and provide an economical, feasible and reproducible green path for air pollution control.