<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">GM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Geomaterials</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2161-7538</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/gm.2024.142002</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">GM-133648</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Comparative Analysis of Statistical Thickness Models for the Determination of the External Specific Surface and the Surface of the Micropores of Materials: The Case of a Clay Concrete Stabilized Using Sugar Cane Molasses
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nice</surname><given-names>Mfoutou Ngouallat</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Narcisse</surname><given-names>Malanda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Christ</surname><given-names>Ariel Ceti Malanda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kris</surname><given-names>Berjovie Maniongui</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Erman</surname><given-names>Eloge Nzaba Madila</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Paul</surname><given-names>Louzolo-Kimbembe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Higher Institute of Architecture, Building Planning and Public Works, Denis SASSOU N&amp;amp;#8217;GUESSO University, Kint&amp;amp;#233;l&amp;amp;#233;, Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Hydrogen Research Institute, University of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Quebec, Canada</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Mechanics, Energy and Engineering Laboratory, Higher National Polytechnic School, Marien Ngouabi University, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>31</day><month>05</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>13</fpage><lpage>28</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>27,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>27,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2024</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>30,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  In this work, four empirical models of statistical thickness, namely the models of Harkins and Jura, Hasley, Carbon Black and Jaroniec, were compared in order to determine the textural properties (external surface and surface of micropores) of a clay concrete without molasses and clay concretes stabilized with 8%, 12% and 16% molasses. The results obtained show that Hasley&amp;#8217;s model can be used to obtain the external surfaces. However, it does not allow the surface of the micropores to be obtained, and is not suitable for the case of simple clay concrete (without molasses) and for clay concretes stabilized with molasses. The Carbon Black, Jaroniec and Harkins and Jura models can be used for clay concrete and stabilized clay concrete. However, the Carbon Black model is the most relevant for clay concrete and the Harkins and Jura model is for molasses-stabilized clay concrete. These last two models augur well for future research.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Statistical Thickness Model</kwd><kwd> External Specific Surface</kwd><kwd> Microporous Surface</kwd><kwd> Clay Concrete</kwd><kwd> Molasses</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>When characterizing a porous material for use in industry, specific surface area is a key property. However, textural properties are crucial for the very wide range of applications for which the material is used [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] . This is the case for clay soils stabilized with cane molasses for use in road construction. These specific elements are required for the physical adsorption of nitrogen and provide information on textural properties, in particular the total accessible surface area and porosity distribution.</p><p>For the record, the results given in the form of curves relating the quantities of nitrogen adsorbed as a function of the ratio between partial pressure and saturation vapour pressure for nitrogen, are called isotherms. Adsorption isotherms can also be used to calculate the external surface area and the microporous surface area using the t-plot method.</p><p>The external specific surface (or external area) represents the extent of a non-porous material as well as the surface developed by pores large enough to allow the formation of a multimolecular layer whose thickness t increases regularly with (P/P<sub>0</sub>). Similarly, the BET method is generally used to characterize the specific surface area of porous materials. It can be used to obtain the external specific surface area σ<sub>ext</sub> by including the presence of micropores whose surface is not accessible.</p><p>The t-plot method can be used to determine the external specific surface σ<sub>ext</sub> by excluding the micropores, and gives a more representative surface in terms of accessibility, by considering the thickness of the multimolecular layer of adsorbed nitrogen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] .</p><p>Nevertheless, several statistical thickness models are given in the literature. Studies have already been carried out by NGOUALLAT et al. (2022), within the framework of microstructure analysis and the determination of isotherms and specific surfaces [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref2">2</xref>] . These studies show that the quantity of molasses in the materials does not modify the type IV nitrogen adsorption isotherm, which remains and a type H4 hysteresis loop in all the samples, which justifies the monolayer and multilayer absorption mechanism; these are therefore mesoporous materials [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>From a microstructural point of view, we have also observed the presence of inter-aggregate pores (mesopores) in the various samples analyzed, which suggests an evolution of the open soil structure towards a dense granular matrix [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref4">4</xref>] . However, the aim of this study is to compare four statistical thickness models: the Carbon Black model, the Harkins and Jura model, the Hasley model and the Jaroniec et al. model, in the case of clayey concrete stabilized with sugarcane molasses, in order to find the optimum model that best simulates the phenomenon.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>The t-plot statistical thickness models most commonly used to determine the textural properties of materials are: the Harkins and Jura model, the Carbon Black model, the Halsey model and the Jaroniec et al. model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref6">6</xref>] . Other models exist, and we present those used in this article.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Statistical Thickness: Harkins and Jura Model</title><p>The empirical value of the statistical thickness t is expressed in the form of the equation of Harkins et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref10">10</xref>] , valid for as long as (P/P<sub>0</sub>) &lt; 0.8:</p><p>† ( A ˙ ) = 13.99 0.034 − log ( P P 0 ) (1)</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Statistical Thickness: Carbon Black Model</title><p>The Magee proposes a calculation of the statistical thickness t for carbon black valid for 0.2 &lt; (P/P<sub>0</sub>) &lt; 0.5 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref11">11</xref>] :</p><p>t ( A ˙ ) = 0.88 ( P P 0 ) 2 + 6.45 ( P P 0 ) + 2.98 (2)</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Statistical Thickness: Halsey Model</title><p>Halsey’s statistical thickness is represented by the following equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref12">12</xref>] :</p><p>t ( A ˙ ) = 3.54 ( − 5 In P P 0 ) 1 3 (3)</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Statistical Thickness: Jaroniec et al. Model</title><p>Jaroniec’s statistical thickness is given by the following equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref8">8</xref>] :</p><p>t ( A ˙ ) = ( 60.65 0.03071 − log P P 0 ) 0.3968 (4)</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. External Specific Surface of the Material</title><p>The external specific surface σ e x t is obtained by determining the slope (standard linear regression) from the graph of the quantity of nitrogen adsorbed per gram of sample (Qa) as a function of the statistical thickness t. The value of σ e x t is calculated using equation Halsey statistical thickness is represented by the following equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref11">11</xref>] Halsey statistical thickness is represented by the following equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref13">13</xref>] :</p><p>σ e x t = P &#215; 15.47 (5)</p><p>With</p><p>P, the value of the slope of the curve va = f (t);</p><p>15.47: a constant related to the conversion of the volume of nitrogen and the units in m<sup>2</sup>/g.</p><p>If the statistical thickness is given in nm, a conversion factor is added, giving:</p><p>σ e x t = P &#215; 1.547 (6)</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Microporous Surface of the Material</title><p>The difference between the specific surface area value determined by the BET method and the external specific surface area obtained by the t method is used to determine the microporous surface area according to equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref13">13</xref>] :</p><p>σ B E T − σ e x t = σ m i c r o p o r e s (7)</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Model Selection Criteria</title><p>Four criteria are used to compare and select models: the adjusted R<sup>2</sup> criterion, the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and the Chi-square. The best model is the one with the lowest AIC, the lowest BIC, the highest R<sup>2</sup>adj and the lowest Chi-square [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref14">14</xref>] . The values of the criteria were obtained using Origin pro software.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Physical Adsorption of Nitrogen</title><p>Nitrogen adsorption experiments on clay concretes were carried out using a Micro Active for ASAP 2460 Version 2.01 apparatus.</p></sec><sec id="s2_9"><title>2.9. Geotechnical Characterization of Clay Soil</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> gives the geotechnical characteristics of the clay soil.</p></sec><sec id="s2_10"><title>2.10. Sugar Cane Molasses</title><p>The sugar cane molasses used comes from the “Soci&#233;t&#233; Agricole de Raffinage Industriel du Sucre (SARIS-Congo)”, a sugar industry organized in the town of Nkayi, Republic of Congo. The molasses used has the following characteristics: the Brix value is 82.85%, which represents a sugar content of 82.85%. The corresponding polarity is 29.07% and the purity 35.09% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref2">2</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_11"><title>2.11. Composition of Stabilized Clay Concretes</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the composition of stabilized and non-stabilized clay concretes.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Geotechnical characterization of the clay soil used [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref16">16</xref>] </title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Materials</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Particle size distribution</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Atterberg limits</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Compactibility</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Methyleneblue</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%fins (&lt;80 μm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clay &lt; 2 μm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Limon entre 2 μm and 63 μm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sable entre 63 μm and 2 mm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >W<sub>L </sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >W<sub>p</sub><sub> </sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >I<sub>p</sub><sub> </sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >d (g/cm<sup>3</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >W (%) (OPM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >VBS (g/100g)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soil taken at 1 metre deep</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Quantity of materials used [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref15">15</xref>] </title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Quantity of sugar cane molasses to be introduced into the mixer</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Weight of dry soil sample</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water weight (%Water = 1.5 W<sub>L</sub>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >88 g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54 g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42 g</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >21 g</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Experimental nitrogen adsorption ratio and statistical thicknesses for clay concrete without molasses</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Black Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Quantity Adsorbed (cm<sup>3</sup>/g STP)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05194145</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3262</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33173965</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4217</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4573</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.19016053</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08407268</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3551</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35284888</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4474</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4898</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >7.74184275</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11996141</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3827</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37664149</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4711</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5199</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >8.2490695</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15496155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4072</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.40006226</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4918</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5462</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >8.70265916</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18999487</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42372332</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5708</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >9.14388884</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22495869</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44755172</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5297</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5946</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >9.59146215</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25993486</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4754</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4716038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.548</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6179</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >10.0480287</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29498358</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4979</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49592175</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5663</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6413</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >10.5223821</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33000122</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5209</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52043466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5848</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6648</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >11.0162698</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36461934</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5443</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54487883</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6885</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >11.5216408</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3995725</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5688</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56977418</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6229</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7132</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >12.0428018</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4345296</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5944</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5948874</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6432</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7387</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >12.5757069</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46933312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6212</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62010394</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6643</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7653</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >13.1181841</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Samples without Cane Molasses</title><p>The experimental ratio of nitrogen absorption on clayey concrete, in particular the relative pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>) and the quantity of nitrogen adsorbed, is given in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. The statistical thickness values according to the models obtained using: formula 1 for the Harkins and Jura model, formula 2 for the Carbon Black model, formula 3 for the Halsey model, formula 4 for the Jaroniec et al. model, are also presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>.</p><p>The shape of the curves in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> reveals capillary condensation in the pores that begins as the slope starts to increase, which justifies the presence of condensed water molecules in the mesopores, between the particles and grains in the clay concrete, which is obvious because clay concrete is water-based with an initial water content of 63% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> shows the linear interpolation of the curves for the amount of nitrogen adsorbed per gram of sample.</p><p>Linear interpolation of the curves showing the quantities of nitrogen adsorbed as a function of statistical thickness (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>), enabled us to obtain linear regression lines of the form Q<sub>ads</sub> = Pt + Q<sub>0</sub> (y = Q<sub>ads</sub>, x = t (statistical thickness)). The slope P is used to calculate the external surface of the material (formula 6). The ordinate at the origin Q<sub>0</sub> is used to obtain the volume of the micropores. However, in this study we are only interested in the surface area of the micropores. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> gives the values of the model selection criteria clay concrete.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of models using the AIC, BIC, chi-square and adjusted coefficient of determination criteria for clay concrete</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon black model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins and Jura model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−69.619</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64.293</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−71.6053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64.3526</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−70.591</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65.265</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−72.5771</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65.3244</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00287</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00432</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00246</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00430</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99919</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99878</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99931</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99879</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Experimental ratio and statistical thicknesses for clay concrete stabilised at 8%</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Black Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Halsey model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Quantity Adsorbed (cm<sup>3</sup>/g STP)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05320009</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33256312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.327</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42285</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.45875</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.59337222</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08428969</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35299207</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3553</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44759</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.49003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.03139846</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12008606</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37672456</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3828</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47124</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.52005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.39794175</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15508688</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.40014761</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4073</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49188</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.54631</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.69964509</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1901536</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42383101</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4305</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51124</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.57099</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.96632946</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22523051</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44773781</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4531</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52991</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.59480</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.22516461</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26021708</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47179875</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4755</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54821</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.61815</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.47345195</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2951889</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49606485</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4981</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56648</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.64144</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.71312166</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32999108</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52042693</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5209</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58486</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.66484</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.96127649</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3647712</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54498653</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5444</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.60362</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.68868</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.21626715</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39973281</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56988886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5689</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62307</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.71333</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.47654771</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43471059</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59501798</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5945</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.64332</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.73890</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.75092887</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46963921</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62032666</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.66454</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.76558</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.04449433</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The Hasley model has the highest R a d j 2 value, the lowest χ 2 value, the lowest BIC value and the lowest AIC value (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), indicating that it is the best performing of the four models, followed by the carbon black model, then the Jaroniec model and finally the Harkins and Jura model.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Samples Stabilized with 8% Cane Molasses</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> gives the ratio of nitrogen absorption on clay concrete stabilized at 8%, i.e. the relative pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>) and the corresponding quantity of adsorbed nitrogen. It also gives the statistical thickness values calculated according to the Carbon Black model, the Harkins and Jura model, the Halsey model and the Jaroniec model.</p><p>The shape of the curves (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) reveals multilayer adsorption on a surface with low porosity, which can be explained by the occupation of the pores by sugarcane molasses. We observe a straightening of the curves (linearization) compared with the curves obtained for non-stabilized clay concrete. This corresponds to the absence of capillary condensation in the mesopores between the particles and the grains. In fact, the presence of molasses, mainly made up of sucrose, glucose and fructose [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref2">2</xref>] , which are molecules rich in hydroxyl groups (OH) in the mesopores of the material, favours the establishment of hydrogen bonds with the water molecules. The latter are then integrated into the molasses macromolecules in the material’s mesopores. The linearization of these curves will become clearer as the molasses content of the clay concrete increases.</p><p>The linear interpolation of the curves for the quantity of nitrogen adsorbed per gram of sample (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) is given in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of the models using the AIC, BIC, chi-square and adjusted coefficient of determination criteria for clay concrete stabilized at 8%</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon black model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins and Jura model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−57.6751</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.2636</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−70.3224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−74.7588</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58.647</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−76.2354</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−71.2942</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.7306</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00718</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00186</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00271</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00193</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99367</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99836</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99761</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99830</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Experimental ratio and statistical thicknesses for 12% stabilized clay concrete</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Black Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Quantity Adsorbed (cm<sup>3</sup>/g STP)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05308813</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33248986</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3269</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4227</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4586</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.85650881</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08420541</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35293646</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3552</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4475</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4899</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.26261562</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12003265</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37668895</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3828</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4712</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.61493035</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15507332</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.40013849</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4073</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4918</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5463</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.903023</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19012508</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42381166</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4305</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5112</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5709</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.16448421</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2251296</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44766872</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4531</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5298</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5947</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.41336961</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26024665</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47181918</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4755</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5482</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6181</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.65290921</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29515384</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49604042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4981</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5664</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6414</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.89922444</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3301429</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52053367</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5849</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6649</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.14393856</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36470392</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54493882</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5444</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.38946297</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3998042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56993992</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5689</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6231</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7133</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.64502022</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43476824</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59505958</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5945</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6433</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7389</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.90238246</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46970311</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62037315</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6645</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7656</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.18295549</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref> gives the values of the model selection criteria for clay concrete stabilized with 8% molasses.</p><p>The Harkins and Jura model has the highest R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub> value, the lowest χ<sup>2</sup> value, the lowest BIC value and the lowest AIC value (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>), indicating that it is the best performing of the four models, followed by the Jaroniec model, then the Halsey model and finally the Carbon black model.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Samples Stabilized with 12% Cane Molasses</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref> gives the experimental ratio of nitrogen absorption on clay concrete stabilized at 12%: the relative pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>) and the quantity of nitrogen adsorbed. The statistical thickness values according to the models are calculated using formulae 1, 2, 3 and 4 (page 3).</p><p>The shape of the curves (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>) shows a linearization with respect to the curve at 0% and 8%, which corresponds to multilayer adsorption on a surface with low porosity, which can be justified by the occupation of the pores by sugarcane molasses.</p><p>The linear interpolation of the curves for the quantity of nitrogen adsorbed per gram of sample (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>) is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref> gives the values of the model selection criteria for 12% stabilized concrete.</p><p>The Harkins and Jura model has the highest R<sup>2</sup>adj value, the lowest χ<sup>2</sup> value, the lowest BIC value and the lowest AIC value (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>), indicating that it is the best performing of the four models, followed by the Jaroniec model, then the Halsey model and finally the Carbon black model.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Samples Stabilized with 16% Cane Molasses</title><p>The experimental ratio of nitrogen absorption on clay concrete stabilized at 16% and the statistical thickness values calculated using the model formulae (page 3) are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>.</p><p>The curves in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref> are more linear than at 8% and 12% and at 0%, which corresponds to multilayer adsorption on a surface with low porosity, which may be justified by the prior occupation of the pores by sugarcane molasses. The adjusted correlation coefficients obtained for the Harkins and Jura model: 0.99836 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>) for clay concrete stabilized at 8%, 0.99825 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>) for clay concrete stabilized at 12%, 0.99936 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0) for clay concrete stabilized at 16%, show an increase in linearization (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>) with molasses content, which can be explained by the absence of condensation in the pores, as the molasses molecules occupy these pores.</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of the models using the AIC, BIC, chi-square criteria and the adjusted coefficient of determination for clay concrete stabilized at 12%</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon black model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins and Jura model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58.8134</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.1589</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−69.8529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−74.5081</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−59.7852</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−76.1307</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−70.8247</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.4799</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00658</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00187</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00281</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00197</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99384</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99825</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99736</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99816</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Experimental ratio and statistical thicknesses for clay concrete stabilized at 16%</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relative Pressure (P/P<sub>0</sub>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Black Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Halsey model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model Thickness (nm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Quantity Adsorbed (cm<sup>3</sup>/g STP)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08358735</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35252868</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3826</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4471</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.4894</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5790847</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11981833</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37654619</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4071</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4711</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.5198</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.97101725</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15476076</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39992837</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4303</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4916</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.5461</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.33384039</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18983993</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4236182</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5111</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.5707</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.67888037</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22495839</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44755151</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4754</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5297</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.5946</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.01800274</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26008118</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.471705</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4981</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5481</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.6181</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.36323975</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29522146</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49608755</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5212</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5665</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.6414</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.70545417</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33038712</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52070539</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5444</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5851</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.6649</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.05151052</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36470714</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5449411</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5689</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6035</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.6886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.41160545</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39977152</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56991655</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5945</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6231</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.7133</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.77957005</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43469854</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59500928</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6433</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.7388</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.16679767</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46969561</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62036769</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6501</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6645</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0.7656</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.56917314</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The linear interpolation of the curves for the quantity of nitrogen adsorbed per gram of sample is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0 gives the values of the model selection criteria for 16% stabilized concrete.</p><p>The Harkins and Jura model has the highest R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub> value, the lowest χ<sup>2</sup> value, the lowest BIC value and the lowest AIC value (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0), indicating that it is the best performing of the four models, followed by the Jaroniec model, then the Halsey model and finally the Carbon black model.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1 gives the values of slope and external specific surface as a function of the statistical thickness models.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2 gives the BET specific surface area and micropore surface area values for stabilized and non-stabilized concretes according to the models used.</p><p>The results obtained show that the Halsey model performs best for non-stabilized clay soil. However, the external specific surface area values obtained by this model are higher than the BET specific surface area values, so it is not possible to obtain the micropore surface area by this model. Thus, the Carbon Black model becomes the most relevant for non-stabilized clayey concrete, followed by the Jaroniec model, and finally by the Harkins and Jura model.</p><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Comparison of models using the AIC, BIC, chi-square and adjusted coefficient of determination criteria for clay stabilized at 16%</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon black model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins and Jura model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey model</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec model</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64.8245</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.2547</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−67.5963</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−74.3025</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BIC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−66.36987</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−76.8000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−69.1416</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75.8477</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00255</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00107</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00203</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00116</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99847</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99936</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99879</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99931</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table11" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1</label><caption><title> Slope and external specific surface values as a function of statistical thickness models</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Carbon black</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Halsey model</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Harkins model</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Jaroniec et al.</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (cm<sup>3</sup>/g∙nm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >σ e x t (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (cm<sup>3</sup>/g∙nm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >σ e x t (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (cm<sup>3</sup>/g∙nm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >σ e x t (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (cm<sup>3</sup>/g∙nm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >σ e x t (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.66</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table12" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2</label><caption><title> BET specific surface area and micropore surface area according to the models used</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >σ(BET) (m<sup>2</sup>/g) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref3">3</xref>]</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon black σ<sub>micropore</sub> (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Halsey Model σ<sub>micropore</sub> (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harkins Model σ<sub>micropore</sub> (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Jaroniec et al. σ<sub>micropore</sub> (m<sup>2</sup>/g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16% molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The results obtained for stabilized clay concretes show that the Harkins and Jura model is the most relevant, followed by the Jaroniec model and, finally, the Carbon Black model. The Halsey model does not provide micropore surfaces for the same reason as mentioned above.</p><p>This change compared to unsterilized clayey concrete leads us to believe that stabilization using molasses brings about modifications to the external surface of clayey concrete by occupying the pores [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref4">4</xref>] . Ngouallat Mfoutou (2020) reports that 53.10<sup>8</sup> molasses molecules occupy the accessible surface of clay concrete [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>The change in the shape of the curve from the curved form for clay concrete without molasses to the more linear form for stabilized clay concretes also expresses the change in texture of clay concrete from a porous material to a less and less porous material.</p><p>According to Tchemmou and Gherbi (2018), the t-plot method can be used to determine the external surface of microporous materials of the zeolite type [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref7">7</xref>] . For Magee (1995) cited Moulin (2018) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref1">1</xref>] , the Carbon black model is designed for the specific case of carbon blacks. Nevertheless, the results obtained show that the Carbon black model is also relevant for the case of clay concretes. Ngouallat (2022) used the Carbon Black statistical thickness model to obtain the textural properties of clay concretes stabilized with molasses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref2">2</xref>] .</p><p>According to Jeffrey Kevin (2008), the Carbon black statistical thickness model can also be used to determine the external surface of cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>The carbon black and Halsey equations (Eq. 2 and 3) are applicable to carbon black and related materials [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref15">15</xref>] .</p><p>According to Yijing Zheng (2008), the t-plot method (Halsey model, Harkin and Jura model, Carbon black model) used for the physical characterization of common adsorbents may not be applicable to carbon nanotubes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>The Harkins and Jura equation has been developed for well-selected alumina samples; however, it is applicable to other materials, including graphitized carbon blacks [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>The most commonly applied thickness curves are those of Harkin-Jura and Halsey (Webb and Orr, 1997) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref6">6</xref>] . Utpalendu Kuila and Manika Prasad (2011), have used Halsey thickness curves to estimate micropore volume and “open area”, mesopore area, macropore area and external area (i.e. total area excluding micropore area) in natural clay minerals and shales [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133648-ref18">18</xref>] .</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>The gist of this study has been to compare statistical thickness models for the determination of textural properties for the case of clay concrete and for stabilized clay concretes. The results showed that:</p><p>- Halsey’s model can be used to obtain external surfaces. However, it does not allow the surface of the micropores to be obtained. It is not suitable for clay concrete and for clay concretes stabilized with molasses.</p><p>- The Carbon Black model, the Jaroniec model and the Harkins and Jura model can be used for clay concrete and for stabilized clay concrete.</p><p>- The Carbon Black model is the most relevant for clay concrete.</p><p>- The Harkins and Jura model is the most appropriate for molasses-stabilized clay concrete.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Ngouallat, N.M., Malanda, N., Malanda, C.A.C., Maniongui, K.B., Madila, E.E.N. and Louzolo-Kimbembe, P. (2024) Comparative Analysis of Statistical Thickness Models for the Determination of the External Specific Surface and the Surface of the Micropores of Materials: The Case of a Clay Concrete Stabilized Using Sugar Cane Molasses. Geomaterials, 14, 13-28. https://doi.org/10.4236/gm.2024.142002</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.133648-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Moulin, L. (2018) Vapothermolyse des pneus usag&amp;#233;s. Valorisation du noir de carbone r&amp;#233;cup&amp;#233;r&amp;#233;, relation proc&amp;#233;d&amp;#233;-produit. Doctoral Thesis, Universit&amp;#233; de Toulouse, France.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngouallat, M.N. (2023) &amp;#201;tude des m&amp;#233;canismes internes lies &amp;#224; la stabilisation des sols fins argileux &amp;#224; l&amp;#8217;aide de la m&amp;#233;lasse de canne &amp;#224; sucre. Th&amp;#232;se de Doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; Marien-Ngouabi, Brazzaville.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngouallat, M.N., Malanda, N., NzabaMadila, E.E. and Louzolo-Kimbembe, P. (2022) Adsorption Isotherm of BET Nitrogen of ConcreteswithConsolidated Soil by Sugar Cane Molasses.&lt;i&gt; Journal of Materials Science and Engineering B&lt;/i&gt;, 12, 78-96. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-6221/2022.7-9.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malanda, N., Mfoutou, N., Madila, E. and Louzolo-Kimbembe, P. (2022) Microstructure of Fine Clay Soils Stabilized with Sugarcane Molasses. &lt;i&gt;Open Journal of Civil Engineering,&lt;/i&gt; 12, 247-269.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zheng, Y.J. (2008) Evaluation of a New Method to Estimate the Micropore Volume and External Surface Areaof Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes. Master&amp;#8217;s Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. &lt;br&gt;https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3673&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.4236/ojce.2022.122015 </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Webb, P.A. and Orr, C. (1997) Analytical Methods in Fine Particle Technology. Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, Norcross, GA, USA. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siham, T. and Amina, G. (2018) D&amp;#233;veloppement des z&amp;#233;olithes &amp;#224; porosit&amp;#233; hi&amp;#233;rarchis&amp;#233;e: adsorbants pour la d&amp;#233;pollution en solution aqueuse. M&amp;#233;moire de Master, Universit&amp;#233; Mouloud Mammeride Tizi-Ouzou, Alg&amp;#233;rie.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kevin, J. (2008) Characterization of Powders and Porous Materials with Pharmaceutical Excipient Case Studies. Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, Norcross, GA, USA.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boukabous, H. (2017) &amp;#201;tude de l&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;limination d&amp;#8217;un colorant en pr&amp;#233;sence de catalyseurs &amp;#224; base de TiO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; support&amp;#233; sur un silico-aluminophosphate microporeux. Universit&amp;#233; Abdelhamid Ibn Badis, Mostaganem.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Emeline, R. (2013) Purification, recuit et d&amp;#233;sassemblage d&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;chantillons de nanotubes de carbone: propri&amp;#233;t&amp;#233;s structurales et caract&amp;#233;risations de surface. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; de Lorraine, France.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">ASTM (2014) Standard Test Method for Carbon Black&amp;#8212;Total and External Surface Area by Nitrogen Adsorption. &lt;br&gt;https://www.astm.org/d6556-21.html </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghania, H. (2018) Cours des Ph&amp;#233;nom&amp;#232;nes de surface et catalyse h&amp;#233;t&amp;#233;rog&amp;#232;ne. Universit&amp;#233; Hassiba Benbouali de Chlef, Ouled Fares.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shi, K.H., Santiso, E.E. and Gubbins, K.E. (2021) Current Advances in Characterization of Nano-Porous Materials: Pore Size Distribution and Surface Area. In: Moreno-Piraj&amp;#225;n, J.C., Giraldo-Gutierrez, L. and G&amp;#243;mez-Granados, F., eds., &lt;i&gt;Porous Materials&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;i&gt;Engineering Materials&lt;/i&gt;. Springer, Cham. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65991-2_12</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bertrand, F. and Maumy, M. (2008) Choix du mod&amp;#232;le. IRMA, Universit&amp;#233; Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngouallat, M.N., Malanda, N. and Louzolo-Kimbembe, P. (2020) Analyse macroscopique des effets de la m&amp;#233;lasse de canne &amp;#224; sucre sur le sol fin argileux. &lt;i&gt;Revue RAMReS&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;Sciences Appliqu&amp;#233;es et de l&amp;#8217;Ing&amp;#233;nieur&lt;/i&gt;, 2, 24-31.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malanda, N., Louzolo-Kimbembe, P. and Tamba-Nsemi, Y.D. (2017) Etude des caract&amp;#233;ristiques m&amp;#233;caniques d&amp;#8217;une brique en terre stabilis&amp;#233;e &amp;#224; l&amp;#8217;aide de la m&amp;#233;lasse de canne &amp;#224; sucre. &lt;i&gt;Revue du CAMES&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;Sciences Appliqu&amp;#233;es et de l&amp;#8217;ing&amp;#233;nieur Cames&lt;/i&gt;, 2, 1-9.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Magee</surname><given-names> R.W. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1995</year>)<article-title>Evaluation of the External Surface Area of Carbon Black by Nitrogen Adsorption</article-title><source> &lt;i&gt;Rubber Chemistry and Technology&lt;/i&gt;</source><volume> 68</volume>,<fpage> 590</fpage>-<lpage>600</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133648-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kuila, U. and Prasad, M. (2011) Specific Surface Area and Pore-Size Distribution in Clays and Shales. &lt;i&gt;Geophysical Prospecting&lt;/i&gt;, 61, 341-362. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2118/146869-MS</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>