Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:52:17.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of sample preparation on MX-80 bentonite microstructure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

M. Matusewicz ,
V.-M. Pulkkanen  and
M. Olin
M. Matusewicz*
Affiliation:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland
V.-M. Pulkkanen
Affiliation:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland
M. Olin
Affiliation:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Compacted bentonite is to be used as a buffer material between waste canisters and the bedrock in the deep geological disposal of high-level nuclear waste in several countries. In spite of the fact that such large bentonite systems have long equilibration times, estimation of the material properties and performance in repository conditions is often based on short-term, laboratory-scale experiments. Sample-preparation procedures in these experiments may differ from the natural evolution of the bentonite in the repository, however, affecting the bentonite properties. The present study reports the influence on the structure of clay tactoids of four different preparation procedures of water-saturated, compacted MX-80 bentonite samples using four target dry bulk densities. Small-angle X-ray scattering was used to illustrate the differences between the samples. The different treatments of the bentonite samples may lead to different structural features. Clear differences between low-density samples prepared using different procedures were observed. The influence of the preparation methods was less, but still noticeable, for the high-density samples.

Keywords

MX-80bentonitebuffermicrostructurerepository conditionssmall-angle X-ray scattering
Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 189 - 195
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2016 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2016

References

Barden, L. & Sides, G. (1971) Sample disturbance in the investigation of clay structure. Geotechnique, 21, 211–222.10.1680/geot.1971.21.3.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bish, D.L. & Reynolds, R. (1989) Sample preparation for X-ray diffraction. Pp. 73–99 in: Modern Powder Diffraction (D.L. Bish and J.E. Post, editors). Reviews in Mineralogy, 20, Mineralogical Society of America, Washington D.C. 10.1515/9781501509018-007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cases, J., Bérend, I., Besson, G., Francois, M., Uriot, J., Thomas, F. & Poirier, I. (1992) Mechanism of adsorption and desorption of water vapor by homo-ionic montmorillonite. 1. The sodium-exchanged form. Langmuir, 8, 2730–2739.10.1021/la00047a025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delage, P., Marcial, D., Cui, Y. & Ruiz, X. (2006) Ageing effects in a compacted bentonite: a microstructure approach. Géotechnique, 56, 291–304.10.1680/geot.2006.56.5.291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillier, S. (1999) Use of an air brush to spray dry samples for X-ray powder diffraction. Clay Minerals, 34, 127–135.10.1180/000985599545984Google Scholar
Holmboe, M., Wold, S. & Jonsson, M. (2012) Porosity investigation of compacted bentonite using XRD profile modeling. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 128, 19–32.10.1016/j.jconhyd.2011.10.005Google Scholar
Huang, T.C., Toraya, H., Blanton, T.N. & Wu, Y. (1993) X-ray powder diffraction analysis of silver behenate, a possible low-angle diffraction standard. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 26, 180–184.10.1107/S0021889892009762Google Scholar
Jonas, E.C. & Kuykendall, J.R. (1966) Preparation of montmorillonites for random powder diffraction. Clay Minerals, 6, 232–235.10.1180/claymin.1966.006.3.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiviranta, L. & Kumpulainen, S. (2011) Quality control and characterization of bentonite materials. Working Report 2011-84, Posiva Oy, Eurajoki.Google Scholar
Kleeberg, R., Monecke, T. & Hillier, S. (2008) Preferred orientation of mineral grains in sample mounts for quantitative XRD measurements: how random are powder samples. Clays and Clay Minerals, 56, 404–15.10.1346/CCMN.2008.0560402Google Scholar
Laird, D.A. (2006) Influence of layer charge on swelling of smectites. Applied Clay Science, 34, 74–8.10.1016/j.clay.2006.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D.M. & Reynolds, R.C. (1997) X-ray Diffraction and the Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Muurinen, A. (2009) Studies on the Chemical Conditions and Microstructure in the Reference Bentonites of Alternative Buffer Materials Project (ABM) in Äspö. Working Report 2009-42, Posiva OY, Eurajoki.Google Scholar
Muurinen, A., Karnland, O. & Lehikoinen, J. (2004) Ion concentration caused by an external solution into the porewater of compacted bentonite. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 29, 119–12.10.1016/j.pce.2003.11.004Google Scholar
Muurinen, A., Karnland, O. & Lehikoinen, I. (2007) Effect of homogenization on the microstructure and exclusion of chloride in compacted bentonite. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32, 485–9.10.1016/j.pce.2006.02.058Google Scholar
Muurinen, A., Carlsson, T. & Root, A. (2013) Bentonite pore distribution based on SAXS, chloride exclusion andNMR studies. Clay Minerals, 48, 251–26.10.1180/claymin.2013.048.2.07Google Scholar
Norrish, K. (1954) The swelling of montmorillonite. Discussions of the Faraday Society, 18, 120–13.10.1039/df9541800120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oscarson, D.W. (1994) Surface diffusion: Is it an important transport mechanism in compacted clays. Clays and Clay Minerals, 42, 534–543.10.1346/CCMN.1994.0420504Google Scholar
Posiva (2012) YJH 2012, Nuclear Waste Management at Olkiluoto and Loviisa Power Plants: Review of Current Status and Future Plans for 2013-2015. YJH-2012, Posiva OY, Eurajoki.Google Scholar
Sato, H., Ashida, T., Kohara, Y., Yui, M. & Sasaki, N. (1992) Effect of dry density on diffusion of some radio-nuclides in compacted sodium bentonite. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 29, 873–88.10.1080/18811248.1992.9731607Google Scholar
Schatz, T., Kanerva, N., Martikainen, J., Sane, P., Olin, M., Seppälä, A. & Koskinen, K. (2013) Buffer erosion in dilute groundwater. Posiva 2012-44, Posiva Oy, Eurajoki.Google Scholar
Segad, M., Jönsson, B., Åkesson, T. & Cabane, B. (2010) Ca/Na montmorillonite: Structure, forces and swelling properties. Langmuir, 26, 5782–579.10.1021/la9036293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SKB (2011) Long-term safety for the final repository for spent nuclear fuel at Forsmark. TR-11-01, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Svensson, P.D. & Hansen, S. (2013) Combined salt and temperature impact on montmorillonite hydration. Clays and Clay Minerals, 61, 328–34.10.1346/CCMN.2013.0610412Google Scholar
Van Loon, L., Soler, J., Jakob, A. & Bradbury, M. (2003) Effect of confining pressure on the diffusion of HTO, 36C1∼ and 125I∼ in a layered argillaceous rock (Opalinus Clay): diffusion perpendicular to the fabric. Applied Geochemistry, 18, 1653–166.10.1016/S0883-2927(03)00047-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Loon, L.R., Glaus, M.A. & Müller, W. (2007) Anion exclusion effects in compacted bentonites: towards a better understanding of anion diffusion. Applied Geochemistry, 22, 2536–255.10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.07.008Google Scholar