Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:47:17.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application And Results Of A Reinjection Technique For Hydrothermal Experiments In Dickson Autoclaves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

M. A. Gardiner ,
G. H. Kacandes ,
G. C. Ulmer  and
D. E. Grandstaff
M. A. Gardiner
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
G. H. Kacandes
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
G. C. Ulmer
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
D. E. Grandstaff
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
Get access

Abstract

Cohassett basalt was reacted with synthetic Hanford groundwater in a Dickson rocking autoclave at 300°C and 30 MPa for ca. 7600 hours. During the experiment fresh solution was twice reinjected into the reaction cell, raising the nominal water:rock mass ratio from 50:1 to 140:1. The reinjection experiment is intermediate between closed-system Dickson experiments and flow-through tests in that the fluid and solids can remain in contact for extended periods of time before the solution is replaced. This allows more time for equilibrium to be approached. Data from this experiment suggest:

(1) After reinjection many solution parameters quickly (hrs-days) returned to near preinjection values. (2) The redox buffer capacity of the basalt was not exceeded, i.e. fO2 values remained near magnetite-hematite values, although the nominal water:rock mass ratio was raised to ca. 140 during the experiment. (3) After reinjection the stable high-temperature pH value was only slightly less than the initial pH value. (4) The silica concentration stabilized near apparent quartz saturation rather than the cristobalite saturation value found in closed-system experiments. (5) Short-term relationships between cations appear to be controlled by ionexchange between the solutions and clay minerals.

Reaction products identified from the experiment include: Fesmectite, illite, hematite, minor cristobalite and possibly Ti-maghemite.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 112: Symposium P – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XI , 1987 , 383
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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. Moore, E.L., Ulmer, G.C., and Grandstaff, D.E.. Chem.Geol., 49, 53 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Geomedia-Specific Repository-Relevant Research: Basalt; in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VII, edited by McVay, G. L., (Elsevier North-Holland Publishers, NY, 1984), pp. 77–170.Google Scholar
3. Lane, D.L., Allen, C.C., Johnston, R.G., and Rawson, S.A., Second International Symposium on Hydrothermal Reactions, Pennsylvania State University, p. 45, (1985).Google Scholar
4. Allen, C.C., Casper, R.V., Lane, D.L., Johnston, R.C., and Rawson, S.A., in High Level Nuclear Waste Disposal, Proceedings of the Am. Nuclear Soc., Burkholder, H.C., ed. (Battelle Press, 1986), pp. 371–380.Google Scholar
5. Potter, J.M. and Dibble, W.E., in Fifth International Symposium on Water-Rock Interaction (Orkustofnun, Reykjavik, 1986) p 444.Google Scholar
6. Seyfried, W.E., Janecky, D.R., and Berndt, M., , M. in Hydrothermal Experimental Techniques, edited by Ulmer, G.C. and Barnes, H. L., (John Wiley, New York, 1987), pp. 216–239.Google Scholar
7. Jones, T.E., Rockwell Hanford, Letter Report 103011–83-001, (1983).Google Scholar
8. Allen, C.C., and Strope, M.B., Hanford Document RHO-BW-SA-924P, (1983).Google Scholar
9. Friel, J., Microbeam Analysis-1987, p 325, (1987).Google Scholar
10. Kuo, L-C, Lee, J.H., Essene, E.J., and Peacor, D.R., Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 94, 90, (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Kacandes, G.H., Ulmer, G.C., and Grandstaff, D.E., in Fifth International Symposium on Water-Rock Interaction (Orkustofnun,Reykjavik,1986) p302 Google Scholar
12. Wang, J., Ulmer, G.C., Grandstaff, D.E., and Friel, J., (in press). Goldschmidt Conference, Baltimore, MD, May, 1988.Google Scholar
13. Kishima, N. and Sakai, H., Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett., 67, 79, (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Grandstaff, D.E., Korn, R., Foster, R.W., Ulmer, G.C., in Proceedings of the Second Hydrothermal Reactions Symposium, Pennsylvania State University, p 10, (1985).Google Scholar
15. Worm, H-U and Banerjee, S.K., Geophys. Res. Lett., 11, 169, (1984).Google Scholar
16. Tole, M.P., Lasaga, A.C., Pantano, C., and White, W.B., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 50, 379, (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Ulmer, G.C., Kacandes, G.H., and Grandstaff, D.E., in Nuclear Waste Management II, Advances in Ceramics, Vol.20, edited by Clark, D.E., (Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1987), pp. 755–764.Google Scholar
18. Myers, J., Apted, M.J., and Mazer, J.J., RHO-BW-ST-59P (1984).Google Scholar
19. Ohmoto, H. and Lasaga, A.C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 46, 1727, (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Giggenbach, W.F., Applied Geochemistry, 2, 143, (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Lindberg, R.D., and Runnells, D.D., Science, 225, 925, (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Gislason, S.R. and Eugster, H.P., Am. Geophys. Union, p (1984).Google Scholar
23. Grandstaff, D.E. and Ulmer, G.C., BWIP Document RHO-SD-TI-298, (1985).Google Scholar
24. Helgeson, H.C., Delaney, J.M., Nesbitt, H.W., and Bird, D.K., Am. J. Sci, 278–A, 1, (1978).Google Scholar
25. Berner, R.A., Principles of Chemical Sedimentology, (McGraw-Hill, 1971) 240p.Google Scholar
26. Fournier, R.O. and Truesdell, A.H., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 37, 1255, (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Arnorsson, S.A., Gunnlaugsson, E., Svavarsson, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 47, 547, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar