Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:55:18.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Migration of Cs-137 and Co-60 in the Australian Arid Zone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

T.E. Payne ,
J.R. Harries  and
T. Itakura
T.E. Payne
Affiliation:
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, PMB 1, Menai 2234, Australia
J.R. Harries
Affiliation:
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, PMB 1, Menai 2234, Australia
T. Itakura
Affiliation:
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, PMB 1, Menai 2234, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Batch adsorption experiments with Cs-137 and Co-60 were undertaken using representative samples of geologic materials from the arid region that has been selected for an Australian low-level waste repository. The results indicate that the pH is the main factor affecting the adsorption of Co-60 but has little influence on the sorption of Cs-137. The ionic strength affects Cs sorption, with a decrease in Kd associated with higher ionic strength. Selective sorption sites on mica and illite control uptake of trace Cs, whereas the high total site availability of smectite is significant when the total Cs is higher (1 mmol/L). The effects of mineralogy on Cs sorption which were observed for these complex materials confirmed previous results reported for pure minerals.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 663: Symposium – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste management XXIV , 2000 , 1125
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

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

REFERENCES

1. Bureau of Resource Sciences: A Radioactive Waste Repository for Australia: Site Selection Study (Phase 3). BRS, Canberra (1997).Google Scholar
2. Smiles, D.E. and McOrist, G.D., these proceedings.Google Scholar
3. McKinley, I.G. and Scholtis, A.. Compilation and Comparison of Radionuclide Sorption Databases used in Recent Performance Assessments. In: Radionuclide Sorption from the Safety Evaluation Perspective. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris (1992).Google Scholar
4. Sheppard, M.I. and Thibault, D.H., Health Phys. 59, 471 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Tewari, P.H., Campbell, A.B. and Lee, W., Can. J. Chem. 50, 1642 (1972).Google Scholar
6. Serne, R.J. and Relyea, J.F.. The Status of Radionuclide Sorption-desorption Studies Performed by the WRIT Program. Report PNL-3997. PNL, Richland (1982).Google Scholar
7. Torstenfelt, B., Anderson, K., Allard, B., Chem. Geol. 36, 123 (1982).Google Scholar
8. McKenzie, R.M., Aust. J. Soil Res. 18, 61 (1980).Google Scholar
9. Waite, T.D., Davis, J.A., Payne, T.E., Waychunas, G.A. and Xu, N., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 58, 5465 (1994).Google Scholar
10. Payne, T.E. and Harries, J.R., Radiochim. Acta, in press.Google Scholar
11. Gutierrez, M. and Fuentes, H.R., J. Env. Radioactivity 13, 271 (1991).Google Scholar
12. Cornell, R.M., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 171, 483 (1993).Google Scholar