Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T23:41:36.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Alpha-Radiolysis on UO2 Dissolution Determined from Batch Experiments with 238Pu-Doped UO2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Simcha Stroes-Gascoyne  and
James S. Betteridge
Simcha Stroes-Gascoyne
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, MB R0E 1L0, Canada, [email protected]
James S. Betteridge
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, MB R0E 1L0, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Dissolution experiments were performed with 238Pu-doped UO2 containing doping levels of ∼1–100 Ci/kg UO2, in 0.1M perchlorate with or without 0.1M carbonate, at pH 9.5, to investigate the effects of α dose-rate on UO2 dissolution rates and on Geff, the fraction of radiolytically produced H2O2 supporting dissolution. Dissolution rates increased by only about 10 times for a ∼100-fold increase in doping level in both solutions, but increased between 10 and 100 times in 0.1M carbonate, compared to dissolution rates in 0.1M perchlorate. Geff values increased with decreasing doping level, suggesting that the dissolution reaction is limited by the reaction rate between UO2 and H2O2 at high dose rates, but becomes limited by the rate of production of H2O2 at lower dose rates.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 824: Symposium CC – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVIII , 2004 , CC9.9
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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. Shoesmith, D. W.. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-12034 (1999).Google Scholar
2. Garisto, F., (Ontario Power Generation). Personal Communication (2004).Google Scholar
3. Stroes-Gascoyne, S., King, F., Betteridge, J.S. and Garisto, F.. Radiochimica Acta 90, 603–609 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Stroes-Gascoyne, S., and Betteridge, J.S.. Ontario Power Generation Report 06819-REP-01200-10110-R00 (2003).Google Scholar
5. Stroes-Gascoyne, S., Betteridge, J.S., Dimayuga, F.C., Gravelle, F.B. and Doering, K.P.. Ontario Power Generation Report No: 06819-REP-01200-10037-R00 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Stroes-Gascoyne, S., King, F. and Betteridge, J.S.. Ontario Power Generation Report No: 06819-REP-01300-10030-R00 (2002).Google Scholar
7. Rondinella, V. V., Matzke, Hj., Cobos, J. and Wiss, T.. Radiochimica Acta 88, 527–531 (2000).Google Scholar
8. Rondinella, V. V., Matzke, Hj., Cobos, J. and Wiss, T.. Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 556, 447–454 (1999).Google Scholar