Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:22:15.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of Uranium Adsorption by Crystalline Rocks: The Key Role of Reactive Surface Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Richard B. Wanty ,
Cynthia A. Rice ,
Donald Langmuir ,
Paul Briggs  and
Errol P. Lawrence
Richard B. Wanty
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 916, Denver, CO 80225 USA
Cynthia A. Rice
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 916, Denver, CO 80225 USA
Donald Langmuir
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401
Paul Briggs
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, M.S. 916, Denver, CO 80225 USA
Errol P. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1099 18th St, Suite 2100, Denver, CO 80202
Get access

Abstract

Adsorption processes are important in controlling U concentrations in ground water. Quantifying such processes is extremely difficult in that in situ conditions cannot be directly measured. One rock characteristic that must be known to quantify adsorption is the specific surface area of reactive minerals exposed to the ground water. We evaluate here three methods for estimating specific surface area in situ. The first is based on the dissolution kinetics of sodium feldspars, the second on emanation of radon-222 and the third on adsorption of naturally-occurring U. The radon-222 method yields estimates 5 to 8 orders of magnitude greater than those obtained via the other two methods; too large probably because of effects related to fracture geometry. Estimates of specific surface area based on modelling adsorption of natural U by aquifer materials are of comparable magnitude to those from the feldspar-dissolution kinetics approach. These conclusions are based on analyses of water from 145 wells in crystalline-rock aquifers from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Colorado. Computer modelling of the chemical data using PHREEQE [1] showed that uraninite or coffinite approach saturation in reducing water, limiting total U to <2 × 10−9 m. Generally, U minerals are below saturation in oxidizing ground water, where uranyl-carbonate complexes are the dominant dissolved U species. Autoradioluxographs of thin sections show areas of concentration of radioactivity in the rocks and establish that U is concentrated along fracture boundaries and on ferric oxyhydroxide grain coatings. Because U minerals generally are undersaturated, U mobility is limited by adsorption onto ferric oxyhydroxides and other mineral surfaces. Calculations of uranyl adsorption from the ground water onto goethite using the program M1NTEQ [2] show that adsorption decreases with increased carbonate concentrations due to the formation of uranyl-carbonate complexes. Results of this paper improve our understanding of the mobility of U that might be released into oxidized ground water in crystalline rock from a breached radioactive-waste repository.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 212: Symposium P – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIV , 1990 , 695
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1991

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. Parkhurst, D.L., Thorstenson, D.C., Plummer, L.N., U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 80–96 (1980), 210 p.Google Scholar
2. Brown, D.S., Allison, J.D., Report EPA/600/3-87/012, (Environmental Protection Agency, 1987).Google Scholar
3. Gascoyne, M., Appl. Geochem. 4 (6), 577 (1989).Google Scholar
4. Langmuir, D., in Coupled Processes Associated with Nuclear Waste Repositories, edited by Tsang, C.-F., (Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida, 1987), p. 67.Google Scholar
5. Krishnaswami, S., Graustein, W.C., Turekian, K.K., Dowd, J.F., Water Resources Research 18 (6), 1633 (1982).Google Scholar
6. Neretnieks, I., J. Geophys. Res. 85, 4379 (1980).Google Scholar
7. Langmuir, D., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42, 547 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Skougstad, M.W., Fishman, M.J., Friedman, L.C., Erdmann, D.E., Duncan, S.S., Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Ch. A5 U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, 1979), 626 p.Google Scholar
9. Wood, W.W., Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 1, Ch. D2 (U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, 1976), 24 p.Google Scholar
10. Wanty, R.B., Gundersen, L.C.S., in Geological Causes of Natural Radionuclide Anomalies, edited by Marikos, M.A., Hansman, R.H., (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, St. Louis, MO, 1988), p. 147.Google Scholar
11. Krupka, K., Report PNL–4333 (Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1983).Google Scholar
12. Smith, R.W., Jenne, E.A., Report PNL–6754 (Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1988).Google Scholar
13. Hsi, C.-K.D., Thesis, Ph. D., Colorado School of Mines (1981).Google Scholar
14. Paòes, T., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 37, 2641 (1973).Google Scholar
15. Hammond, D.E., Leslie, B.W., Ku, T.-L., Torgersen, T., Geophys. Res. Let. 15 (9), 1045 (1988).Google Scholar
16. Torgersen, T., Benoit, J., Mackie, D., Geophys. Res. Let. 17 (6), 845 (1990).Google Scholar
17. Wanty, R.B., Lawrence, E.P., Gundersen, L.C.S., edited by Gates, A., Gundersen, L.C.S., Geological Society of America Special Papers Series, (in press).Google Scholar
18. Helgeson, H.C., Murphy, W.M., Aagaard, P., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48, 2405 (1984).Google Scholar
19. White, A.F., Peterson, M.L., in Chemical Modeling of Aqueous Systems II, edited by Melchior, D.C., Bassett, R.L., (American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C, 1990), p. 461.Google Scholar
20. Hicks, J.R., Thesis, M.S., Colorado School of Mines (1987).Google Scholar
21. Riese, A.C., Thesis, Ph.D., Colorado School of Mines (1982).Google Scholar
22. Andrews, J.N., Ford, D.J., Hussain, N., Trivedi, D., Youngman, M.J., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53, 1791 (1989).Google Scholar
23. Novakowski, K.S., in Fourth Canadian/American conference on hydrogeology: Fluid flow, heat transfer and mass transport in fractured rocks, edited by Hitchon, B., Bachu, S., (National Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, 1988), p. 68.Google Scholar
24. Scott, R.C., Barker, F.B., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 426 (1962), 115 p.Google Scholar
25. Freeze, R.A., Cherry, J.A., Groundwater (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979), 604 p.Google Scholar
26. Nordstrom, D.K., Olsson, T., Carlsson, L., Fritz, P., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53, 1717 (1989).Google Scholar
27. Andrews, J.N., Giles, I.S., Kay, R.L.F., Lee, D.J., Osmond, J.K., Cowart, J.B., Fritz, P., Barker, J.F., Gale, J., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46, 1533 (1982).Google Scholar
28. Nordstrom, D.K., Ball, J.W., Donahoe, R.J., Whittemore, D., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53,1727 (1989).Google Scholar
29. McHugh, J.B., U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79–249 (1979), 14 p.Google Scholar
30. Paòes, T., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 47 (11), 1855 (1983).Google Scholar
31. Lichte, F.E., Golightly, D.W., Lamothe, P.J., U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1770 (1987), B1.Google Scholar
32. Fishman, M.J., Pyen, G., U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 79–101 (1979).Google Scholar
33. Hsi, C.-K D., Langmuir, D., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 49, 1931 (1985).Google Scholar