Introduction

Dust control holds a pivotal position in environmental protection, particularly within the realm of construction activities, where its significance is prominently emphasized. Dust not only poses potential threats to human health, leading to an increased incidence of respiratory diseases, but also has the capacity to inflict irreversible damage on ecosystems, encompassing vegetation destruction, soil erosion, and water pollution1.

Globally, dust pollution is a significant environmental concern. For instance, the severe environmental impacts of soil, construction, and natural dust pollution in the Middle East, the United States, and China emphasized the urgent need for dust control2,3,4.

Therefore, adopting effective measures to reduce the concentration of suspended particulate matter in the air is crucial for safeguarding public health and preserving ecological balance5. Through scientific research and practical application, environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants have emerged as an innovative approach, demonstrating remarkable effectiveness in mitigating dust emissions and enhancing air quality6. These dust suppressants are capable of effectively stabilizing soil particles, minimizing dust dispersion caused by wind erosion, while also adhering to environmental standards and exerting minimal impact on soil and vegetation growth7,8. Furthermore, complying with dust control measures assists enterprises in adhering to environmental regulations, fosters the dissemination of green construction concepts, and propels the construction industry towards a sustainable transformation9,10.

Compared to conventional soil stabilization methods such as mulches2,11, microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP)12, biopolymers13, and alkali-activated materials14 and traditional dust suppressants, which often rely on synthetic polymers or chemical additives, plant-straw-based suppressants stand out for their superior biodegradability and minimal ecological impact. For instance, Zhang et al.15 highlights that natural plant-derived materials can decompose fully within months, reducing soil and water contamination risks. In contrast, synthetic suppressants may persist in the environment, potentially harming soil microbial communities and plant growth. Moreover, plant-straw-based suppressants contribute to a circular economy by utilizing agricultural by-products, thus further reducing their environmental footprint.

Dust suppressants for wind erosion and fugitive dust utilize the adhesive properties of natural or synthetic chemicals to bind soil and airborne dust particles together, forming a stable layer on the surface of materials prone to dust generation, thereby inhibiting the emission of wind-eroded dust16,17. Liu et al.18 pointed out that dust suppressants can, to a certain extent, address the issues associated with dust suppression measures such as water spraying and dust nets. Nowadays, the majority of research teams attach great importance to environmentally friendly dust suppressants and conducted extensive researches on their performance. Among these, wind erosion resistance is one of the key indicators for evaluating dust suppressants. Jin et al.19 investigated the wind erosion resistance of plant-based dust suppressants through laboratory-simulated wind tunnel erosion tests, revealing that the suppressant adapts to temperature variations ranging from − 15 to 40 °C and exhibits excellent dust suppression performance. Kavouras et al.20 employed the portable in-situ wind erosion laboratory (PI-SWERL) to test the wind erosion resistance of different dust suppressants by examining their dust suppression efficiency, concluding that all dust suppressants performed well and significantly outperformed water. Qin et al.21 also assessed PM2.5 emissions at the test site using PI-SWERL test, studying its wind erosion resistance under wind forces up to Level 8 (international wind scale22). They found that within a wind speed range of 13.1–17.2 m s− 1, the dust suppression efficiency increases with wind speed, indicating good wind erosion resistance.

Secondly, the environmental friendliness of dust suppressants is another crucial aspect for their sustainable development. The impact of dust suppressant application on plants and soil is particularly significant. Tiwari et al.23 conducted a comparative study on the macroscopic and microscopic morphological characteristics of plant-based dust suppressants using hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) as the primary dust binder to investigate their effects on plant germination and growth. They concluded that plant-based dust suppressants have advantages such as low biotoxicity and good soil wettability. Xu et al.24 carried out extensive comparative experiments to study the impact of dust suppressants on soil and found that these suppressants exhibit notable advantages in terms of anti-evaporation, water resistance, wind erosion resistance, permeability, degradability, and ecological environmental protection. Jin et al.25 explored the environmental impact and environmental friendliness of dust suppressants from various aspects including biodegradability, biocompatibility, non-toxicity, and bacteriostasis, and discovered that they are excellent environmentally friendly dust suppressants. The dust suppression effectiveness of environmentally friendly composite dust suppressants is also of great importance. Gillies et al.26 used an atmospheric particulate sampler to draw a certain volume of air at a constant flow rate to detect the content of PM10 and PM2.5 for studying dust suppression effectiveness. Ali and Khan27 investigated the dust suppression effectiveness of soy-based dust suppressants after application by measuring the PM2.5 content in soil that had been sprayed with different amounts of suppressant for different durations. Both studies demonstrated the good environmental performance of plant-based dust suppressants.

The aforementioned research status indicates that the development of dust suppressants has undergone a transition from being toxic to soil to low toxicity and eventually non-toxicity, signifying a continuous improvement in the environmental friendliness of dust suppressants. If a biological dust suppressant can be developed that is not only non-toxic to soil but also capable of improving soil conditions, while possessing multifaceted “composite” properties, the advancement of dust suppressants will take a further step forward. In this paper, a biological dust suppressant developed based on plant straw is introduced, whose mechanism of action involves adsorbing and fixing dust particles through the cellulose in the straw to achieve dust suppression. Comparative experiments were conducted to comprehensively investigate the performance of the environmentally friendly composite dust suppressant in terms of wind erosion resistance, impact on plants, impact on soil, and actual dust suppression effectiveness upon application.

Experimental program

Environmentally friendly composite base dust suppressants (first generation from previous study of the authors24 and second generation described in this study), designated as H1 and H2 respectively, purchased dust suppressants (two brands) sourced from YGHBKJ Co., Ltd. (Hebei, China) and PYHG Co., Ltd. (Hebei, China), designated as H3 and H4 respectively, as well as water and dust-proof netting, designated as H5 and H6, as shown in Table 1. Glass plates were used as the substrate in this study to eliminate the potential influence of surface roughness, which can vary significantly in field conditions. The low adsorption capacity of glass ensures minimal interference, making it easier to detect subtle differences in the performance of various suppressants. The experiment aims to compare the wind erosion resistance of soil, the impact on plant growth, the influence on soil composition, and the dust suppression effectiveness when these materials are sprayed, as shown in Table 2. It should be noted that the suppressants H1 and H2 have been certified by accredited testing agencies, with harmful substance levels conforming to national safety standards for soil applications. For the two external suppressants, manufacturer-provided documentation states that they are minimally toxic, making them suitable for the plant growth experiments conducted in this study.

Table 1 Details of the trial.
Full size table
Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of each dust suppressant.
Full size table

Wind erosion resistance test

The wind erosion resistance test is conducted in two stages. Firstly, the wind erosion resistance of H2 test solutions at different concentrations is studied to determine the optimal concentration. Subsequently, the wind erosion resistance of several dust suppression methods is compared, with H2 at the optimal concentration being one of the methods evaluated28. The wind erosion resistance of the plant-straw-based suppressant was evaluated by measuring the remaining soil mass after exposure to wind erosion. The test was conducted using a blower calibrated to simulate Level 7 wind over a fixed time interval of 100 min. The mass loss was recorded every 20 min using a precision scale. The mass retention rate was calculated as the primary performance indicator, providing a quantitative measure of the suppressant effectiveness in preventing soil loss under simulated high-wind conditions.

Firstly, the optimal concentration of H2 solution for wind erosion resistance is investigated to facilitate subsequent experiments. The experimental procedures are as follows:

  1. (1)

    Preparation of H2 solutions with different concentrations: Four sets of H2 solutions with different concentrations are prepared in an arithmetic sequence as shown in Table 3.

  2. (2)

    Laying of natural soil: 500 g of dried soil samples are evenly spread on a 40 cm×40 cm square glass plate to create four natural soil samples. The soil samples used in this study were collected from representative locations in Chengdu and classified as loess-like soils. These soils are yellow to yellow-brown in color, with a fine texture containing a high proportion of silt and clay particles.

  3. (3)

    Application of H2 solutions: The four sets of H2 solutions are uniformly sprayed onto the corresponding four soil samples.

  4. (4)

    Conducting wind erosion resistance tests: A Keyue 2801 blower with a speed of 16000r/min and a flow rate of 2.8 m3/min is used to simulate a wind erosion environment corresponding to a wind speed of level 7. Before the experiment, an anemometer was used to measure and test the distance, position, and wind direction of blower to ensure that the wind speed reaching the sample surfaces met the standard for Level 7 wind. During the experiment, the position of blower was fixed to ensure consistent wind exposure for all samples. The four natural soil samples are subjected to wind erosion, and the weight of each sample is measured every 20 min to calculate the mass loss value, up to a total of 100 min. Mass loss was measured at 20-minute intervals based on findings from preliminary tests. Shorter intervals (e.g., less than 20 min) showed minimal changes in mass, reducing measurement significance, while longer intervals diminished the ability to observe progressive soil loss accurately. The 20-minute interval provides a practical and reliable measurement frequency for this study. It is worth noting that Ref24. highlights the distinct dust emissions observed in untreated soil. Therefore, no control tests without dust suppressants were included in this study.

  5. (5)

    Selection of optimal concentration: Based on the data, the mass loss rate of the soil samples is calculated, and a comprehensive analysis is conducted to determine the optimal concentration of the H2 solution.

Table 3 Different volumes of plant straw-based dust suppressants are formulated into ingredients(unit: L/m2).
Full size table

To ensure consistency across samples, the soil used in this study was uniformly processed to control key parameters. For instance, The soil was passed through a 2 mm sieve to remove large particles and ensure uniformity. The soil was air-dried and its moisture content measured using the gravimetric method, maintaining a consistent range of 0.3–0.5%. The soil was loosely spread to avoid compaction, simulating conditions of loose, highly erodible soil that pose the greatest risk for dust emission.

Next, a comparison of the wind erosion resistance among several dust suppression methods will be conducted. The experimental procedures are outlined below:

  1. (1)

    Dust suppression preparation: Prepare 2 L of each test solution (H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5). The concentration for H2 was determined as the optimal application level based on preliminary tests, providing the highest dust suppression efficiency. Additionally, prepare dust-proof netting.

  2. (2)

    Application of stone powder: Evenly distribute 800 g of stone powder onto a 40 cm × 40 cm square glass plate. Moisten the surface with a 2% concentration of water-retaining agent and ensure it remains level. A total of six stone powder samples are to be prepared. Stone powder was used in this study instead of natural soil because its particle size and physical properties can be precisely controlled. This ensures a single-variable experiment, minimizing external influences and enhancing the reliability of the results. Furthermore, the fine nature of stone powder makes it more prone to wind erosion, creating a worst-case scenario to rigorously evaluate the performance of the suppressants.

  3. (3)

    Execute dust suppression procedures. Apply the dust suppression solution at a concentration of 2 L/m2, equivalent to 40.6 g/m2 of dry suppressant evenly to each of the six stone powder samples.

  4. (4)

    Perform wind erosion resistance tests and determine the most effective method. The specific steps for this process are identical to those described in the initial step.

To ensure uniform testing conditions, the study was conducted under controlled environmental parameters. Humidity, temperature, and soil composition were maintained consistent across all samples, as the primary focus was on the comparative performance of the suppressants under standardized conditions. The potential influence of these environmental factors on cellulose adsorption will be investigated in future studies. To further illustrate the physical properties of soil and stone powder, the sieve curves depicting the particle size distribution is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Sieve curve of soil and stone powder..

Full size image

Plant growth test

The experiment compares the germination rate and growth speed of Chinese cabbage seeds using test solutions H1-H5 to assess the impact of several dust suppressants on plant growth, aiming to determine their respective advantages and disadvantages in this aspect29. All seeds used in the plant growth tests were sourced from the same batch to ensure uniform quality. Seeds were randomly assigned to different treatment groups (H1–H5) to eliminate variability in seed health. Germination rates and growth rates were recorded as key performance indicators. The number of seeds germinated was counted daily at 48-, 72-, and 96-hours post-sowing. Germination was defined as the emergence of the radicle above the soil surface. Stem height measurements were taken daily using a digital caliper during the first week and a ruler for later stages. Average, maximum, and minimum growth rates were calculated to assess the impact of suppressant on plant development. Dust control nets, due to their distinct impact on plant growth, are not considered comparable and therefore excluded from this part of the experiment. The experimental procedures are as follows:

  1. (1)

    Seed preparation and soil sample collection: Select 100 Chinese cabbage seeds with similar health conditions and divide them equally into 5 groups; collect soil samples from undisturbed areas, remove visible impurities, and place them in 5 identical flowerpots, ensuring consistent soil weight in each pot. To minimize experimental errors and ensure consistency, the soil samples were manually screened to remove large impurities, including gravel and artificial debris such as plastic or metal fragments. The soil was then sieved to eliminate additional impurities and standardize particle size for the tests.

  2. (2)

    Planting and numbering: Number the flowerpots as shown in Fig. 2 and spray the corresponding test solution into each pot. It should be noted that to ensure uniform spray application, preliminary tests were conducted to optimize the spraying technique. A calibrated sprayer was used, maintaining a consistent pressure and height above the soil surface.

  3. (3)

    Observation and recording: Observe and record the germination rate and growth speed of the seeds at 10 am daily, starting two days after planting, for a continuous period of 7 days. Data comparison is conducted after summarizing the observations.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Layout of the test site and flower pots.

Full size image

Soil test

The experiment involves spraying H1-H5 test solutions into the soil to conduct a horizontal comparison of the effects of various test solutions on soil pH, organic matter content, and heavy metal content30. The effects of suppressants on soil were evaluated through the indicators including pH measurement, organic matter content and heavy metal content. Soil pH was measured both before and after suppressant application using a calibrated pH meter. Measurements were taken in situ and under laboratory conditions to ensure accuracy. Heavy metal analysis (e.g., arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium) was conducted using atomic absorption spectrometry. The experimental steps are as follows:

  1. (1)

    Soil sample collection: After removing visible impurities from the collected soil, the soil samples were uniformly prepared and randomly distributed into five pots to ensure consistent conditions, each weighing 1 kg. The weight of the soil was standardized across all groups, and the soil surfaces were leveled for uniform application of the dust suppressants. No additional compaction was applied to the soil. These portions are then placed in the experimental site.

  2. (2)

    Application of test solutions: Equal amounts of the corresponding test solutions are sprayed onto each of the 5 soil samples.

  3. (3)

    Data measurement and comparison: Observations are made and recorded 10 min later, summarizing the findings into a table for data comparison. A 10-minute wait time was observed to allow the solutions to fully infiltrate the soil and begin their intended effect. This step ensured consistent interaction between the suppressants and the soil, preventing irregular mass loss rates that could compromise the reliability of the results.

Plant growth was measured using a combination of tools: during the early germination stages, vernier calipers were employed for precise measurements of shoot height, while a ruler was used for taller plants to facilitate convenient measurements. Germination rate was determined visually, based on the percentage of seeds that emerged above the soil surface and were visible to the naked eye. Moreover, the same soil was used throughout all experiments in this study to maintain consistent physical and chemical properties. This ensured that the results from different tests could be reliably compared and potential errors arising from soil variability were minimized.

Test results and discussions

Wind erosion resistance of different dust suppressants

The apparent conditions of the H2 test solutions at various concentrations are shown in Fig. 3, and the mass loss rates under wind erosion conditions are presented in Fig. 4. Based on the experimental results depicted in Figs. 3 and 4. It can be observed that the pattern of soil sample erosion is characterized by the initial loss of edge soil samples and large particle size soil samples. A comparison between Fig. 3a and b reveals that edge soil samples are lost first. This occurs because edge soil samples receive less test solution relative to central soil samples, resulting in poorer film formation. Moreover, the weaker consolidation observed at the edges is attributed to the structural limitation of edge soil samples, which have fewer neighboring particles to bond with compared to the central samples. A comparison between Fig. 3c and d indicates that large particle size soil samples are lost subsequently. This is attributed to the ability of small particle soil samples to form films and adhere together more effectively under the spraying of the test solution, while large particle size soil samples have a larger surface area exposed to the wind. Moreover, the mass loss of the sample can be divided into three stages: water evaporation, solution retention, and soil sample erosion by wind. It should be noted that the initial water content of the soil was 0.3–0.5 g/L, typical of Chengdu region soils. Due to this low moisture level, the evaporation stage during the experiment primarily reflects the evaporation of water introduced by the dust suppressant solutions, with minimal contribution from the soil inherent water content. Upon the start of the experiment, the water in the sample is immediately and progressively blown away, so the initial mass loss is primarily attributed to water loss. By the 40th minute, the rate of mass loss begins to decrease, indicating that the samples are almost completely dry at this point. During the period from 40 to 80 min, the test solution forms a film and exerts a consolidating effect, so the rate of mass loss during this stage is notably lower than that during the 0–40 min stage. After 80 min, due to excessive wind speed, the test solution cannot provide sufficient consolidating force, and the soil sample is blown away, causing the mass loss rate to rise again.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of soil samples treated with different suppressant concentrations before and after wind erosion: (a) and (b) spraying 1 L/m2; (c) and (d) spraying 1.5 L/m2; (e) and (f) spraying 2 L/m2; (g) and (h) spraying 2.5 L/m2.

Full size image

Additionally, it can be found from Fig. 4 that the rate of mass loss follows the order of soil sample erosion by wind > water evaporation > solution retention. The use of optimal concentrations for all suppressants ensures that the comparisons accurately reflect their best possible performance under field-like conditions. This approach highlights the effectiveness of the improved H2 formulation relative to both the first-generation suppressant (H1) and other commercially available suppressants. As such, taking 2 L/m2 H2 as an example, the soil mass loss rate is 1.82% between 40 and 80 min; it is 2.04% between 0 and 40 min, with a mass loss rate 1.12 times that of the 40–80 min stage; and it reaches 3.64% between 80 and 100 min, with a mass loss rate 1.78 times that of the 40–80 min stage. Similar trends are observed for other concentrations. As the concentration increases, the mass loss rate exhibits a V-shaped trend, with the minimum mass loss rate observed at 2 L/m2. When the concentration is between 1 and 2 L/m2, the mass loss rate continuously decreases. At 40 min, the mass loss rate at 2 L/m2 is reduced by 2.68% and 3.73% compared to 1.5 L/m2 and 1 L/m2 respectively, indicating that the dust suppression effect improves with increasing concentration. This is because as the concentration increases, the viscosity of the test solution increases, enabling it to better bind the soil sample together, thereby reducing mass loss. However, when the concentration is between 2 and 2.5 L/m2, the mass loss rate begins to increase. At 40 min, the mass loss rate at 2.5 L/m2 is 1.94% higher than that at 2 L/m2, suggesting that the dust suppression effect gradually decreases as the concentration further increases. This is due to the fact that as the concentration continues to rise, the film formed by the test solution becomes thicker, leading to poor adhesion between the film and the soil sample, resulting in the film itself being blown away by the wind. The observed V-shaped trend in mass loss rate with increasing H2 concentrations can be attributed to physical and chemical interactions. At lower concentrations, the suppressant lacks sufficient viscosity to effectively bind soil particles, resulting in higher mass loss. However, at higher concentrations (e.g., 2.5 L/m2), the formation of a thicker suppressant film increases internal stress within the film. This stress, combined with reduced contact between the film and soil surface, weakens the adhesive bond, making the film prone to detachment under wind erosion. Additionally, clumping of soil particles reduces the uniformity of the protective layer, further contributing to increased mass loss.

The aforementioned analysis indicates that the optimal concentration of the H2 testing solution is 2L/m2. The reason lies in the fact that at this concentration, a more stable protective layer forms on the surface of the soil sample, effectively mitigating mass loss. Moreover, the superior performance of the H2 solution compared to H1 and other commercial suppressants reflects its optimized formulation, which was specifically designed to enhance both dust suppression efficiency and environmental sustainability. These results validate the iterative improvement process and establish H2 as the most effective suppressant in this study.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Mass loss rate of each concentration under wind erosion.

Full size image

H1-H5 were all sprayed onto the soil samples at a concentration of 2L/m2, while H6 was applied as a covering over the soil surface, with any excess pressed down using a glass plate. The test results of the wind erosion resistance for the six dust suppressant methods are shown in Fig. 5. As can be seen from Fig. 5, H6 performed extremely poorly. It can be attributed to its inability to form a stable bond with the soil surface. Under high wind conditions, the dust-proof net was easily detached from the soil, as it lacked sufficient weight or anchoring mechanisms to resist displacement. Additionally, the material rigid structure and low flexibility prevented it from conforming to the uneven soil surface, leading to gaps where wind could penetrate and erode the underlying soil. Under the erosion of a strong wind at force level 7 (international wind scale22), the dust-proof net began to detach from the soil sample within the first 5 min, and was completely blown away by the 6th minute. Consequently, all soil samples were lost by the 6th minute. This was because the dust-proof net could not form a good fixation with the soil sample, so it was blown away due to its inability to stay fixed in strong winds, leaving the soil sample directly exposed to the wind. This indicates that if the dust-proof net cannot be well integrated with the dust-suppressed object, it has almost no dust suppression effect. Therefore, no further tests related to H6 were conducted in subsequent experiments. Moreover, H5 showed some effectiveness initially but performed poorly in the later stages. When water was used for dust suppression, the moisture could bind the soil sample together in the early stages. Therefore, in Fig. 5, the difference in dust suppression effect between water and dust suppressants was relatively small during the 0–5 min period. After 5 min, the moisture began to evaporate and dry out under wind erosion, at which point it no longer had a binding effect, resulting in notable loss of soil sample. It can also be observed that the dust suppression effects were as follows: H2 > H3 > H1 > H4 > H5 > H6. After 20 min of erosion by the blower, the mass loss rates of the three natural soil samples treated with H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, and H6 were 9.36%, 8.00%, 14.96%, 12.01%, 22.82%, and 100%, respectively. Among them, H2 showed the lowest mass loss rate of 8.00%. The above analysis indicates that H2 had the lowest soil mass loss rate and a slow growth rate, meaning that H2 had the best dust suppression effect. However, it should be noted that under wind speeds exceeding Level 7, the adhesive force of the suppressant film may diminish, leading to partial detachment and reduced dust suppression efficiency. Future studies will aim to investigate the suppressant performance under wind speeds corresponding to Levels 8 and 9 to further assess its applicability in extreme environments. Moreover, in arid climates, the effectiveness of suppressant is enhanced by its independence from water requirements during application. However, highly loose and dry soils, common in desert-like environments, may present challenges for initial film adhesion. To address this, pre-treatment methods such as light soil compaction or soil surface roughening could be explored to improve adhesion. While the current study targets macroscopic mass loss, the impact of suppressants on fine particulate matter such as PM10 and PM2.5 warrants further investigation. Previous studies by Tong et al.31 suggest that suppressants can effectively reduce the carcinogenic risks associated with fine particles. Incorporating these considerations into future research will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the suppressant environmental benefits.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Mass loss rate of different types of dust suppressants.

Full size image

Influence on plant growth

Influence on germination rate

Starting from the sowing of Chinese cabbage seeds, the germination status was observed and recorded at 48 h, 72 h, and 96 h, as shown in Fig. 6. Detailed data on seed germination rates during the recording period are presented in Table 4. Based on the analysis of Table 4, it can be observed that at 48 h, a thin film formed on the surface of the soil in the H2 flowerpot. This film is a gel formed by the dust suppressant after water evaporation, primarily serving to solidify soil particles and reduce soil moisture evaporation. This indicates that the second-generation dust suppressant not only suppresses dust but also has a water-retaining function, making it a composite dust suppressant. The bolded maximum values in Table 4 emphasize that H2 performs closest to water in its impact on plants, indicating its superior environmental compatibility among the suppressants tested. The film in the H2 flowerpot is shown in Fig. 6. It can also been seen that the number of germinated seeds increased steadily. At 48 h, the germination rates were all above 70%, with H2 and H5 reaching 90%; at 72 h, the germination rates of H2 and H5 flowerpots reached 100%, while others were still increasing; at 96 h, the germination rates of H1-H5 reached over 95%.

The germination of H1 was relatively poor. Data from continuous observations and recordings over three days revealed that the germination rate in the H1 flowerpot was consistently the lowest, indicating that the first-generation dust suppressant has a certain inhibitory effect on seed germination and is not suitable for use in on-site spraying. The results show that H1 performs comparably to certain suppressants at specific time points, such as 96 h. However, its overall performance is surpassed by H2, which represents an optimized formulation addressing areas for improvement identified in H1. The germination in H3 and H4 flowerpots was only slightly better than that in H1, suggesting that these two dust suppressants also have a certain inhibitory effect on seeds. The dense film formed by the H1 solution likely impedes air exchange, resulting in reduced oxygen availability in the soil. This, combined with the difficulty seedlings face in breaking through the dense film, contributes to its inhibitory effect on plant growth. In contrast, the film formed by H2 contains micro-pores, allowing for improved air circulation and facilitating normal seedling emergence and development.

The germination rates in H2 and H5 flowerpots were the best. The bolded data in Table 4 represent the maximum number of germinated seeds in the same time period. It can be seen that the germination rates of H2 and H5 flowerpots were consistent and the highest, and at least 15%, 10%, and 5% higher than those of other flowerpots, respectively. As discussed in previous section, each treatment was tested with 20 seeds in this experiment. While this number was sufficient to identify trends, it also means that a single seed contributes to a 5% variation in germination rate. This indicates that the second-generation dust suppressant has the same effect as tap water on germination rate, i.e., it has no impact on germination rate. The tap water used in this study complies with the Chinese national standard for drinking water quality (GB5749-2006)32. It contains small amounts of chloride, calcium, potassium, and sulfate ions, with a total hardness not exceeding 450 mg/L. The microbial content is minimal, with fewer than 100 microorganisms per 100 mL. The water is colorless, transparent, and free of sediment.

The above analysis shows that the plant seed germination rates follow the order: H5 = H2 > H3 > H4 > H1. The impact of the second-generation dust suppressant on plant seed germination rate is not only distinctly smaller than that of other dust suppressants but also comparable to that of water, indicating that the second-generation dust suppressant has no effect on seed germination rate.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Experimental diagram of germination rate effect: (a) Test situation at 96 h; (b) H2 soil sample shows the film-forming situation.

Full size image
Table 4 Germination of Chinese cabbage seeds (bold is the maximum value).
Full size table

Influence on growth rate

Starting from the sowing of Chinese cabbage seeds, the stem heights of cabbage sprouts were observed and recorded at 72 h, 96 h, 120 h, and 144 h. The maximum and minimum stem heights were recorded, and the average of 20 samples height was calculated. A comparison of the five test solutions over four days is shown in Fig. 7. It is clear that the second-generation dust suppressant outperforms the first-generation dust suppressant. Throughout the entire growth process, the data for H2 comprehensively outperformed H1 in all aspects and time periods. For example, at 144 h, the maximum, minimum, and average values for H2 were 1.97, 2.69, and 2.38 times those of H1, respectively, indicating a marked improvement in the environmentally friendly performance of the second-generation dust suppressant compared to the first-generation dust suppressant. The suppressive effect of H1 on seed germination and plant growth may be attributed to certain chemical components within its formulation. Specifically, the higher concentration of hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) in H1, at 0.2%, compared to H2 (0.1%), could increase soil viscosity, potentially hindering oxygen diffusion and water absorption by seeds.

The effects of H3 and H4 are moderate. When comparing the growth rates of cabbage seedlings in H2 and H3 using Fig. 7, it was found that throughout the entire observation period, the maximum, minimum, and average values for H2 were all greater than those for H3, indicating that the growth rate of cabbage in H2 was faster than that in H3. When comparing H2 with H4, before 96 h, the maximum, minimum, and average values for H2 were all greater than those for H4. However, from 96 h to 144 h, although the minimum value for H4 was slightly higher than that for H2, the average value for H2 was notably higher than that for H4, with differences exceeding 0.4. This indicates that the overall growth rate of cabbage in H2 was comprehensively better than that in H4.

Moreover, the effects of H2 and H5 are almost identical. The growth rates of cabbage in the H2 and H5 flowerpots were similar. A comparison of their maximum, minimum, and average values revealed that the largest difference between them was only 0.4 cm, indicating that their growth rates were the same. In the early stages, the growth rate of H5 was slightly better, while in the later stages, the growth rate of H2 was slightly better. At 72 h, the maximum, minimum, and average values for the H5 flowerpot were 0.3 cm, 0.3 cm, and 0.05 cm higher than those for the H2 flowerpot, respectively, indicating better growth. However, from 96 h onwards, the growth rate of H2 slightly surpassed that of H5. This may be due to water evaporation in H5 after a certain period, leading to a certain degree of water shortage in the later stages, further highlighting the advantages of the second-generation dust suppressant in water retention performance. Moreover, it was distinctly better than the other three flowerpots.

The analysis of the plant growth rate test results shows that the plant growth rates follow the order: H5 ≈ H2 > H3 ≈ H4 > H1. This indicates that the impact of H2 on plant growth rate is not only less than that of other dust suppressants but also, due to its water-retaining function, its later effects are even better than those of H5.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Growth rate at 72 h, 96 h, 120 h and 144 h.

Full size image

Influence on soil

Consolidation of soil

After uniformly applying an equal amount of dust suppressant to each of the five soil samples, a 10-minute waiting period was observed. Subsequently, the soil characteristics were examined and recorded as depicted in Fig. 8. Figure 8 illustrates the soil resistance test, where the fluidity of soil samples was measured under controlled conditions. Figure 9 shows the image of the suppressant solutions, demonstrating their physical properties and application consistency. Moreover, this study primarily focuses on the visible characteristics of soil, specifically targeting the binding of fine particles prone to dust emission. The observations from Fig. 8 indicate:

The soil sample treated with H2 appears firm and well-formed, displaying superior consolidation. The soil surface of the sample treated with H1 exhibits a minor amount of moisture, indicating moderate consolidation; the surface of the sample treated with H4 shows a greater amount of moisture, resulting in poor consolidation; the sample treated with H3 demonstrates only slight consolidation effects; and the sample treated with H5 is notably soft and formless, indicating the weakest consolidation. Thus, the order of consolidation effectiveness is: H2 > H1 > H4 > H3 > H5.

Fig. 8
figure 8

After spraying: (a) H1, (b) H2, (c) H3, (d) H4, (e) H5..

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Solutions of dust suppressant.

Full size image

pH value measurement

Figure 10 depicts the field-measured pH values of the original soil samples, whereas Fig. 11 illustrates the pH values of the test solutions and the pH values subsequent to spraying these solutions onto the soil samples. By contrasting the initial soil pH values with those after spraying, utilizing the data presented in Figs. 10 and 11, an analysis can be conducted regarding the acid-base properties inherent to the dust suppressants and their implications for the soil. It can be observed that the original soil samples exhibit alkalinity. As evidenced by the original soil sample tests shown in Fig. 10, all soil samples used in the experiments had an initial pH value of 8.7 to ensure consistency and eliminate variability in soil properties that could influence the results, indicating a notably alkaline nature. Secondly, the H2 test solution is nearest to neutrality. As demonstrated in Fig. 11, the pH values of the H1-H5 test solutions all hover around 7.0, with absolute deviations from neutrality being 0.50, 0.11, 0.42, 0.21, and 0.17, respectively. H2 deviates by merely 0.11, positioning it closest to neutrality and consequently causing the least disruption and damage to the soil. Moreover, the soil neutralization capacity of the H2 test solution is comparable to that of H5. Moreover, as mentioned in Ref33. , soil pH below 6.6 or above 8.0 adversely affects plant growth and microbial activity. H2, with its near-neutral pH, minimizes long-term ecological disruption and preserves soil balance.

As indicated in Fig. 11, the pH values of the dust suppressants themselves all reside near 7.0, with H2 differing by only 0.11, rendering it the least disruptive and damaging to the soil. This is advantageous compared to H1 and even more so compared to H5, which has a difference of 0.17. Considering that the soil samples gathered for this experiment, as depicted in Fig. 10, have a pH value of 8.7 after the application of the reagents, which is slightly alkaline, and the native plants in the soil are thriving, the fact that the pH value after applying H2 is only 0.1 apart from that after applying H5, which is half the difference between H1 and H5, indicates that the application of H2 has a minimal impact on the soil pH value. It is capable of maintaining the original soil pH value and preserving the growth conditions for the indigenous soil plants, making it suitable for a broader array of soil environments.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Initial pH value of soil and oil plant growth.

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

The pH value of the dust suppressant itself and the pH value after spraying the soil.

Full size image

Organic matter measurement

Figure 12 presents a horizontal comparison of soil organic matter content after the application of dust suppressants. It should be noted that the soil samples were randomly collected from areas near the laboratory and are classified as greyish paddy soils and the organic matter content is less than 2 g/kg. As indicated in Fig. 12, the organic matter content in the soil samples after spraying follows the order: H1 > H2 > H4 > H3 > H5. This suggests that H2 exhibits higher levels compared to H3, H4, and H5, indicating that H2 has an enhancing effect on soil organic matter, and the effect is relatively pronounced. The enhancing effect of H2 is less than that of H1. This can be attributed to the fact that both H1 and H2 utilize hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) as a binder. The HEC content in H1 is 0.2%, which is twice that of H2, and HEC itself serves as a good soil organic matter, hence the notably higher level in H1. Following the application of suppressants, all treatments resulted in an increase in organic content, with H1 and H2 showing the highest improvements at 19.3 g/kg and 14.6 g/kg, respectively. These results highlight the potential of H1 and H2 not only for dust suppression but also for enhancing soil organic matter, which is beneficial for long-term soil health.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Soil organic matter content.

Full size image

Heavy mental ion measurement

Heavy metal tests were conducted on soil samples from the same group, and the results are presented in Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5: in terms of environmental friendliness, the order is H2 > H1 > H3 > H4 > H5. Among the measurements of eight major heavy metals, H2 samples had the lowest content in six of them, and were ranked third lowest in both total arsenic and total mercury, indicating that the H2 samples exhibit the best environmental friendliness. Moreover, the total heavy metal toxicity of H2 is lower than that of H1, reflecting its improved formulation. This reduction in toxicity, combined with its superior dust suppression performance, highlights H2 as a more environmentally friendly and effective solution compared to both H1 and other suppressants. The slightly higher levels of arsenic and mercury in H2 compared to other suppressants (e.g., H1 and H5) may originate from chemical additives, such as surfactants or binders, might introduce trace heavy metals as impurities during the manufacturing process. To reduce the levels of arsenic and mercury in H2, synthetic surfactants and binders can be replaced with plant-based or biodegradable alternatives34.

Table 5 The content of the eight major heavy metals (unit: mg/kg, bold is the minimum value).
Full size table

Conclusions

To investigate the comprehensive performance of the second-generation environmentally friendly composite dust suppressant, this paper presents a series of experiments that comprehensively assess its wind erosion resistance, influence on seed germination rate, impact on plant growth rate, fixation capability, soil pH value, soil organic matter content, and soil heavy metal content. The following conclusions can be drawn from these experiments:

  1. (1)

    The second-generation environmentally friendly composite dust suppressant at a concentration of 2 L/m2 exhibits the best overall performance.

  2. (2)

    The impact of the second-generation environmentally friendly composite dust suppressant on seed germination rate and plant growth rate is almost consistent with that of tap water.

  3. (3)

    The second-generation environmentally friendly composite dust suppressant has minimal impact on soil and can provide a certain amount of organic matter to enhance soil fertility.

  4. (4)

    It can be inferred that the second-generation dust suppressant outperforms the first-generation dust suppressant, commercially available dust suppressants, and water in terms of wind erosion resistance, impact on plants, and influence on soil. This demonstrates the compositeness of the second-generation dust suppressant, indicating its potential for application in dust control measures.

  5. (5)

    Future research will aim to enhance performance under extreme conditions, optimize application methods, improve cost efficiency, reduce heavy metal content, and assess long-term environmental impacts, ensuring broader applicability and sustainability of plant-straw-based dust suppressants.