UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table E.1. Summary of K d values for Cr(VI) adsorption on soils. Experimental Parameters Reference <strong>Kd</strong> (ml/g) pH CEC (meq/100g) Iron Oxide Conten1 (wt.%) Organic Carbon (wt.%) Soil Description Clay Content (wt.%) Wong et al. (1983) NR 2905 0.453 7.1 NR 7.05 NR NR 865 0.409 7.2 NR 6.71 NR NR 346 0.158 7.3 NR 2.79 NR NR 1729 0.113 8.2 NR 1.45 NR Organic Soil (Muck) Top Layer, Florida Organic Soil (Muck) Middle Layer, Florida Organic Soil (Muck) Bottom Layer, Florida Hallandale Fine sand, Florida Stollenwerk and Grove (1985) Batch experiment, deionized water , eq. Cr conc. 1.4 - 0.0004 mmol/l Batch experiment, groundwater (pH: 6.8) Batch experiment, groundwater, Soil with org matter removed Batch experiment, groundwater, Soil with iron oxides removed Column experiment, groundwater, initial Cr conc. (0.01 mmol/l) Alluvium, Telluride, Colorado 1 0.1 1.2 6.45 NR 1.7 - 52 E.5 5.3 5.6 0.25 2.35 Sheppard and Sheppard (1987) NR NR 1000 100 60 1.6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Loam (Chernozem), Canada Sand (Regosol), Canada Sheppard et al., 1987 Column experiments (lysimeter). Solutions: leachate, groundwater 263, 6 8.1 5.2 NR NR NR Column experiments (lysimeter). Solutions:leachate, groundwater Column experiments (lysimeter). Solutions: leachate, groundwater Column experiments (lysimeter). Solutions: leachate, groundwater 91, 35 135,160 53, 9 0.29 0.21 0.17 5.1 5.2 6.2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Sand (Brunisol) organic surface layer (LFH-Ah) Sand (Brunisol) upper layer (Ae) Sand (Brunisol) middle layer (Bfj) Sand (Brunisol) lower layer (Bfjgj) 1 Total iron oxide (Fe2O 3) content of soils. Values within parenthesis represent DCB extractable Fe content (mmol/g) of soils.
Page 1 and 2:
United States Office of Air and Rad
Page 3 and 4:
NOTICE The following two-volume rep
Page 5 and 6:
This publication is the result of a
Page 7 and 8:
TO COMMENT ON THIS GUIDE OR PROVIDE
Page 9 and 10:
CONTENTS NOTICE ...................
Page 11 and 12:
Concentrations Extractable Iron Con
Page 13 and 14:
Appendix A - Acronyms and Abbreviat
Page 15 and 16:
Figure E.1. Variation of K d for Cr
Page 17 and 18:
Table 5.16. Uranium(VI) aqueous spe
Page 19 and 20:
Table H.3. Simple and multiple regr
Page 21 and 22:
1.0 Introduction The objective of t
Page 23 and 24:
discussed. The geochemical modeling
Page 25 and 26:
2.0 The K d Model The simplest and
Page 27 and 28:
track many more parameters and some
Page 29 and 30:
of interest. The retardation factor
Page 31 and 32:
(e.g., soil). An increasing body of
Page 33 and 34:
complexation constants for the cont
Page 35 and 36:
the soil column. Additionally, the
Page 37 and 38:
Element Table 5.2. Concentrations o
Page 39 and 40:
5.2.3 Aqueous Speciation Cadmium fo
Page 41 and 42:
5.2.4 Dissolution/Precipitation/Cop
Page 43 and 44:
cadmium, indicating that cadmium an
Page 45 and 46:
5.2.6.2.2 Limits of K d Values with
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
organic chelates (e.g., EDTA). Init
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
(tarapacaite) in chromium sludge fr
Page 55 and 56:
K d). Soils containing Mn oxides ox
Page 57 and 58:
Table 5.7. Estimated range of Kd va
Page 59 and 60:
most common valence state of lead e
Page 61 and 62:
Table 5.8. Lead aqueous species inc
Page 63 and 64:
Under reducing conditions, galena (
Page 65 and 66:
C Adsorption of lead increases with
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
(Choppin, 1983). Plutonium hydrolyt
Page 71 and 72:
Table 5.10. Plutonium aqueous speci
Page 73 and 74:
5.6.5 Sorption/Desorption Plutonium
Page 75 and 76:
content in the system. Additionally
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
much greater concentrations. Thus,
Page 83 and 84:
exchanged which they attributed to
Page 85 and 86:
up tables was based in part on thei
Page 87 and 88:
organic complexes likely predominat
Page 89 and 90:
Thorium undergoes hydrolysis in aqu
Page 91 and 92:
The distribution of thorium aqueous
Page 93 and 94:
from about 10 -8.5 mol/l (0.0007 mg
Page 95 and 96:
Based on the assumptions and limita
Page 97 and 98:
5.10 Tritium Geochemistry And K d V
Page 99 and 100:
uranium. Uranium(VI) species domina
Page 101 and 102:
gives 0.1 to 10 µg/l as the range
Page 103 and 104:
mineral in reducing ore zones (Fron
Page 105 and 106:
Percent Distribution 100 80 60 40 2
Page 107 and 108:
5.11.6 Partition Coefficient, K d ,
Page 109 and 110:
No attempt was made to statisticall
Page 111 and 112:
Table 5.18. Selected chemical and t
Page 113 and 114:
Another objective of this report is
Page 115 and 116:
6.0 REFERENCES Adriano, D. C. 1992.
Page 117 and 118:
Bensen, D. W. 1960. Review of Soil
Page 119 and 120:
Metals by Geomedia. Variables, Mech
Page 121 and 122:
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection
Page 123 and 124:
Griffin, R. A., A. K. Au, and R. R.
Page 125 and 126:
+ Keeney-Kennicutt, W. L., and J. W
Page 127 and 128:
Mattigod, S. V., A. L. Page, and I.
Page 129 and 130:
Oscarson, D. W., and H. B. Hume. 19
Page 131 and 132:
Relyea, J. F. and D. A. Brown. 1978
Page 133 and 134:
Schultz, R. K., R. Overstreet, and
Page 135 and 136:
Szalay, A. 1964. “Cation Exchange
Page 137 and 138:
Yariv, S., and H. Cross. 1979. Geoc
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX A Acronyms, Abbreviations,
Page 141 and 142:
PC Personal computers operating und
Page 143 and 144:
A.3.0 List of Symbols and Notation
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX B Definitions
Page 147 and 148:
Clay Content - particle size fracti
Page 149 and 150:
Polynuclear Species - an aqueous sp
Page 151 and 152: C.1.0 Background Appendix C Partiti
Page 153 and 154: Cadmium K d Table C.2. Correlation
Page 155 and 156: C.3.0 Data Set for Soils Table C.4
Page 157 and 158: Cd K d (ml/g) Clay Cont. (wt%) pH C
Page 167 and 168: D.1.0 Background Appendix D Partiti
Page 169 and 170: A second data set (see Section D.4)
Page 171 and 172: Table D.3. Correlation coefficients
Page 173 and 174: By transposing the CEC and cesium K
Page 175 and 176: Table D.6. Cesium K d values measur
Page 177 and 178: eported in Table D.8 are described
Page 179 and 180: a 1 b 1 Range of Solution Cs Concen
Page 181 and 182: Figure D.4. Generalized cesium Freu
Page 183 and 184: Table D.10. Estimated range of K d
Page 185 and 186: D.3.0 K d Data Set for Soils and Pu
Page 187 and 188: Cesium Kd (ml/g) Clay (wt.% ) Mica
Page 193 and 194: Cesium K d (ml/g) Clay (wt%) Mica (
Page 195 and 196: Bruggenwert, M. G. M., and A. Kamph
Page 197 and 198: Shiao, S. Y., P. Rafferty, R. E. Me
Page 199 and 200: E.1.0 Background Appendix E Partiti
Page 201: chromium-reductive soils may stem f
Page 205 and 206: Table E.2. Data from Rai et al. (19
Page 207 and 208: Figure E.1. Variation of K d for Cr
Page 209 and 210: Table E.5. Data from Rai et al. (19
Page 211 and 212: Sheppard, M. I., D. H. Thibault, an
Page 213 and 214: F.1.0 Background Appendix F Partiti
Page 215 and 216: also known to form methyl- lead com
Page 217 and 218: Figure F.1. Correlative relationshi
Page 219 and 220: F.3.0 Data Set for Soils The data s
Page 221 and 222: Leckie, J. O., M. M. Benjamin, K. H
Page 223 and 224: G.1.0 Background Appendix G Partiti
Page 225 and 226: icarbonate concentrations (8.2 x 10
Page 227 and 228: highly alkaline conditions. These d
Page 229 and 230: A number of studies indicate that K
Page 231 and 232: Table G.1. Plutonium adsorption dat
Page 233 and 234: KD PH CEC EC G.12 DCARB Figure G.1.
Page 235 and 236: Figure G.2. Variation of K d for pl
Page 237 and 238: Delegard, C. H. , G. S. Barney, and
Page 239 and 240: Rodgers, D. R. 1976. “Behavior of
Page 241 and 242: H.1.0 Background Appendix H Partiti
Page 243 and 244: H.2.0 Approach and Regression Model
Page 245 and 246: values at low CEC values, 2 approac
Page 247 and 248: Table H.3. Simple and multiple regr
Page 249 and 250: Table H.4. Look-up table for estima
Page 251 and 252: H.3.0 K d Data Set for Soils Table
Page 253 and 254:
Sr K d (ml/g) Clay Content (%) pH C
Page 255 and 256:
H.4.0 K d Data Set for Pure Mineral
Page 257 and 258:
Sr K d (ml/g) Clay Conten t (%) pH
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
H.5.0 References Adeleye, S. A., P.
Page 265 and 266:
Rhodes, D. W., and J. L. Nelson. 19
Page 267 and 268:
I.1.0 BACKGROUND Appendix I Partiti
Page 269 and 270:
Table I.2. Correlation coefficients
Page 271 and 272:
The regression equation between the
Page 273 and 274:
I.3.0 K d Data Set for Soils Figure
Page 275 and 276:
I.5.0 References Ames, L. L., and D
Page 277 and 278:
APPENDIX J Partition Coefficients F
Page 279 and 280:
J.2.1 Sources of Error and Variabil
Page 281 and 282:
Erikson et al. (1993) determined th
Page 283 and 284:
wt.% plagioclase feldspar, and mino
Page 285 and 286:
Kd (ml/g) 100,000 10,000 1,000 100
Page 287 and 288:
Sheppard and Thibault (1988) invest
Page 289 and 290:
Warnecke et al. (1986) present an o
Page 291 and 292:
Borovec (1981) investigated the ads
Page 293 and 294:
Table J.2. Uranium K d values liste
Page 295 and 296:
J.3.0 Approach in Developing K d Lo
Page 297 and 298:
any pH. These estimated K d values
Page 299 and 300:
The minimum and maximum K d values
Page 301 and 302:
optimization code FITEQL was used f
Page 303 and 304:
powder diffraction (XRD) indicated
Page 305 and 306:
pH Table J.5. Uranium K d values se
Page 307 and 308:
pH U Kd (ml/g) Clay Cont. (wt.%) CE
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
pH U Kd (ml/g) 27 (0.8- 332) 1 (0.3
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Barney, G. S. 1982a. Radionuclide S
Page 329 and 330:
Horráth, E. 1960. “Investigation
Page 331 and 332:
Puls, R. W., L. L. Ames, and J. E.
Page 333 and 334:
Turner, D. R., T. Griffin, and T. B
show all

UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?