# Experimental Observations of Heat-Assisted Boycott Effect in Trapezoidal Enclosures
## 3 Results
### Impact of Heat on Concentration
#### 3.4.1 Initial Concentration of 1500 ppm  
Figure 15 illustrates the impact of heat injection on concentration \(C_{N}\) (concentration normalized to initial concentration) for four columns analyzed (\(A_{1},A_{2},A_{3}\), and \(A_{4}\)). In column \(A_{1}\), no significant differences in behavior are observed at the one-minute mark between experiments. However, after 10 min, a distinct stratification is evident in heat-injected processes. A higher power input results in a deeper, more homogeneous concentration layer in the upper part of the column. However, this concentration exceeds that of the non-heated process, and a clear horizontal interface is still evident in this column. At 35 min, the concentration at the bottom of the cell is comparable between the non-heated and 9 W processes, while the non-heated process displays a lower concentration at the top, probably due to increased resuspension in the heat-injected process.  
Column A2 exhibits a pattern similar to that of column A1, displaying elevated concentrations in heat-injected processes. However, after 10 min, it is observed that the concentration for the heat-injected processes is higher for column A2 than for column A1. This observation is consistent with the results presented in Figures 7, 8, 10, and 11, which indicate a horizontal concentration gradient resulting from the upward flow of clear water hitting the vertical wall and propagating towards the inclined wall.  
Column \(A_{3}\) demonstrates a distinct contrast between the heat-injected processes and the non-heated process, the latter exhibiting a consistently lower concentration. However, the heat-injected processes show a predominantly homogeneous upper zone.  
Finally, column \(A_{4}\), located below the inclined surface, exhibits a similar trend at 10 and 35 min. It should be noted that in all the columns analyzed, the particle concentrations are higher in the 4.5 W process than in the 9 W process and than in the non-heated process.  
Furthermore, Figure 16 shows the concentration behavior for various rows analyzed. For row \(F_{1}\) at a depth of 0.5 cm from the surface, the heat-injected processes exhibit higher concentrations than the non-heated process, with no notable distinction between 4.5 W and 9 W over time. In row \(F_{2}\), a concentration gradient is observed at the 10 min mark between the vertical and inclined walls, indicating particle resuspension and the formation of the aforementioned vertical interface. By 35 min, the concentration gradient has decreased in the 9 W process, possibly due to the smaller amount of particles in suspension. However, a residual gradient persists in the 4.5 W process. For rows \(F_{3}\) and \(F_{4}\), the formation of the clear water interface is not yet observable at the 10 min mark. However, for \(F_{3}\) at \(t=35\) min, it is evident that this interface has formed in the heat injection processes.  
Figure 15: _Cont._  
Figure 16: _Cont._  
Figure 15: Effect of heat injection on particle concentration for an initial concentration of 1500 ppm. Columns analyzed are \(A_{1}\), \(A_{2}\), \(A_{3}\), and \(A_{4}\) for three analyzed times from left to right (1, 10, and 35 min).