Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T00:26:30.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of mixed modifiers on nuclear waste glass processing, leaching, and Raman spectra

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

S. V. Raman
S. V. Raman
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402
Get access

Extract

Borosilicate glasses with different waste loadings were prepared by ambient melting, quenching, and annealing. Some melt compositions partially crystallize to durable phases of zircon and forsterite. The coexisting liquid quenches to glass and endures the leach tests. The waste loading dependent leach rate trends of these glasses are reminiscent of the mixed alkali effect. Raman spectra suggest initial increase in durability with increases in the depolymerization of silicate species. Fluorine and hydroxyl ions also contribute to depolymerization. Tetraborate and metaborate rings are identified in the Raman spectra. The durability is enhanced when tetraborate bands are more intense than the metaborate bands.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 8 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Matzke, Hj. and Vernaz, E., J. Nucl. Mater. 201, 295 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Fowler, J. R. and Plodinec, M. J., in Proc. Third Int. High Level Radioactive Waste Management (IHLRWM) Conference (Las Vegas, NV, 1992), p. 904.Google Scholar
3.LaCourse, W. C. and Stevens, H. J., in Borate Glasses, edited by Pye, L. D., Frechette, V. D., and Kreidl, N. J. (Materials Science Research, Plenum Press, New York, 1977), Vol. 12, p. 539.Google Scholar
4.Hendrickson, J. R. and Bray, P. J., Phys. Chem. Glasses 13, 43 (1972).Google Scholar
5.Raman, S. V., USDOE-WINCO-Report-1173 (1993).Google Scholar
6. MCC, Nuclear Waste Materials Handbook (Materials Characterization Center, Hanford, WA), U.S. Report No. DOE/TIC-11400 (1983).Google Scholar
7.Raman, S. V., Bopp, R., Batcheller, T. A., and Yan, Q., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIX, edited by Murphy, W. M. and Knecht, D. A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 412, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996), p. 113.Google Scholar
8.McMillan, P., Am. Mineral. 69, 622 (1984).Google Scholar
9.Ellison, A. J. G. and Hess, P. C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 58, 1877 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.White, W. B. and Minser, D. G., in Natural Glasses, edited by Pye, L. D., O'Keefe, J. A., and Frechette, V. D. (Proc. Int. Conf. on Glass in Planetary and Geological Phenomena (North-Holland Physics Publishing, Amsterdam, 1984), p. 45.Google Scholar
11.Krogh-Moe, J., Phys. Chem. Glasses 1, 26 (1960).Google Scholar
12.Konijnendijk, W. L. and Stevels, J. M., in Borate Glasses, edited by Pye, L. D., Frechette, V. D., and Kreidl, N. J. (Materials Science Research, Plenum Press, New York, 1977), Vol. 12, p. 259.Google Scholar
13.Cunnane, J. C., USDOE-EM-0177 (1993).Google Scholar