## 3 Results and Discussion
### Experimental Results on the Effect of Dust Suppressant on Soil Wind Erosion Resistance  
The wind erosion resistance test procedure is illustrated in Figure 5, and the test results are presented in Figure 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Aluminum Boxes** & **Unit** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **Average** \\ \hline D1 & HA & 25 & 27 & 23 & 25.0 \\ D2 & HA & 58 & 60 & 54 & 57.3 \\ dust suppressant [32] & HA & / & / & / & 43 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Surface hardness of soil samples after drying.  
Figure 5: The relationship between mass loss rate and time under electric fan, hair dryer, and blower erosion.  
Based on the test results shown in Figure 5, under the three different dust suppression methods--covering with dustproof netting, spraying water, and spraying the composite dust suppressant--the mass loss rate of soil samples increased with the intensity of the simulated natural wind. The resistance to wind erosion was ranked from lowest to highest as follows: covering with dustproof netting \(<\) spraying water \(<\) spraying composite dust suppressant.  
As shown in Figure 5a, after continuous erosion by the electric fan for 100 min, the mass loss rates were 23.2% for the sample covered with dustproof netting (F1), 12.94% for the sample sprayed with water (F2), and 10.26% for the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant (F3). The mass loss was minimal for all samples, indicating comparable wind erosion resistance performance. This is because the wind speed simulated by the high-speed setting of the electric fan corresponds to a natural wind force of level 3, which represents mild perturbation.  
As the wind intensity increased, as seen in Figure 5b, after 100 min of erosion by the hair dryer, the mass loss rate surged to 70.97% for the sample covered with dustproof netting (G1), demonstrating significantly weaker wind erosion resistance. In contrast, the mass loss rates for the samples sprayed with water (G2) and the composite dust suppressant (G3) were controlled at 32.31% and 16.54%, respectively, both exhibiting markedly better wind erosion resistance than the sample covered with dustproof netting.  
Figure 5c includes additional test groups where two different dust suppressants were sprayed for comparison. Under the powerful erosion of the blower fan, the mass loss rate of the sample covered with dustproof netting (H1) dropped sharply, reaching 100% within approximately 6 min. For the samples sprayed with water (H2) and the other two dust suppressants, the mass loss rates after 20 min of erosion under wind force level 11 were 22.82%, 14.96%, and 12.01%, respectively, which were significantly lower than that of the sample covered with dustproof netting. Notably, the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant (H5) had the lowest mass loss rate of only 9.36% after 20 min of erosion.  
As seen in Figure 6, which compares the soil samples before and after the wind erosion resistance test using a hair dryer, most of the soil on the glass plate covered with dustproof netting was lost after erosion, with only a few soil particles remaining trapped by the netting at the edges. The sample sprayed with water lost more soil, exhibiting cracks on the surface and chips along the edges. In contrast, the sample sprayed with the composite dust suppressant remained largely intact with minimal mass loss.  
In summary, soil sprayed with the composite dust suppressant demonstrated excellent wind erosion resistance, thereby effectively inhibiting soil dust.  
Figure 6: Comparison diagram of soil sample status before and after wind erosion resistance test (hair dryer).