UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

H.2.4 Approach Figure H.4. Relation between strontium K d values and soil pH. Two strontium K d look up tables were created. The first table requires knowledge of the CEC and pH of the system in order to select the appropriate strontium K d value (Table H.4). The second table requires knowledge of the clay content and pH to select the appropriate strontium K d value (Table H.5). A full factorial table was created that included 3 pH categories and 3 CEC categories. This resulted in 9 cells. Each cell contained a range for the estimated minimum- and maximum K d values. A 2 step process was used in selecting the appropriate K d values for each cell. For the first step, the appropriate equations in Table H.3 were used to calculate K d values. The lower and upper 95 percent confidence limit coefficients were used to provide guidance regarding the minimum and maximum K d values. For the 2 lowest CEC categories, Equation 6 in Table H.3 was used. For the highest CEC category, Equation 5 was used. For the second step, these calculated values were adjusted by “eye balling the data” to agree with the data in Figures H.2-H.4. It is important to note that some of the look-up table categories did not have any actual observations, e.g., pH
Table H.4. Look-up table for estimated range of K d values for strontium based on CEC and pH. [Tabulated values pertain to systems consisting of natural soils (as opposed to pure mineral phases), low ionic strength (< 0.1 M), low humic material concentrations (
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 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
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 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
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 and 202: chromium-reductive soils may stem f
Page 204 and 205: E.2.0 Approach The approach used to
Page 206 and 207: Table E.3. Estimated range of K d v
Page 208 and 209: Table E.4. Data from Rai et al. (19
Page 210 and 211: E.4.0 References Davis, J. A. and J
Page 212 and 213: APPENDIX F Partition Coefficients F
Page 214 and 215: (CEC) of the soils. Such an anomaly
Page 216 and 217: Table F.1. Summary of K d values fo
Page 218 and 219: Figure F.2. Variation of K d as a f
Page 220 and 221: F.4.0 References Abd-Elfattah, A.,
Page 222 and 223: APPENDIX G Partition Coefficients F
Page 224 and 225: A number of investigators have exam
Page 226 and 227: pH value, which is typical of the m
Page 228 and 229: These significant reductions in ads
Page 230 and 231: This is typically accomplished by t
Page 232 and 233: The scatterplots are typically disp
Page 234 and 235: Table G.2. Regression models for pl
Page 236 and 237: G.4.0 References Barney, G. S. 1984
Page 238 and 239: Nelson, D. M., R. P. Larson, and W.
Page 240 and 241: APPENDIX H Partition Coefficients F
Page 242 and 243: 1.6 ml/g for a measurement made on
Page 244 and 245: Figure H.1. Relation between stront
Page 246 and 247: Figure H.2. Relation between stront
Page 250 and 251: A second look-up table (Table H.5)
Page 252 and 253: Sr K d (ml/g) Clay Content (%) pH C
Page 254 and 255: Sr K d (ml/g) Clay Content (%) pH C
Page 256 and 257: Sr K d (ml/g) Clay Conten t (%) pH
Page 264 and 265: Konishi, M., K. Yamamoto, T. Yanagi
Page 266 and 267: APPENDIX I Partition Coefficients F
Page 268 and 269: descriptive statistics of the thori
Page 270 and 271: Figure I.1. Linear regression betwe
Page 272 and 273: The look-up table (Table I.5) for t
Page 274 and 275: Thorium K d (ml/g) pH Clay (wt.%) C
Page 276 and 277: Rai, D., A. R. Felmy, D. A. Moore,
Page 278 and 279: J.1.0 Background Appendix J Partiti
Page 280 and 281: J.2.2 Uranium K d Studies on Soils
Page 282 and 283: Washington. The studies included an
Page 284 and 285: and then decreases with increasing
Page 286 and 287: Kd (ml/g) 100,000 10,000 1,000 100
Page 288 and 289: papers. Warnecke et al. (1984) indi
Page 290 and 291: Anderson et al. (1982) summarize an
Page 292 and 293: McKinley and Scholtis (1993) compar
Page 294 and 295: In a similar comparison of sorption
Page 296 and 297: J.3.1 K d Values as a Function ff p
Page 298 and 299:
discussed, and one would have to ma
Page 300 and 301:
al., 1992; and others). These refer
Page 302 and 303:
· Manskaya et al. (1956) studied a
Page 304 and 305:
concentrations of humic acid, there
Page 306 and 307:
pH U Kd (ml/g) Clay Cont. (wt.%) CE
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
J.6.0 References Ames, L. L., J. E.
Page 328 and 329:
Erikson, R. L., C. J. Hostetler, R.
Page 330 and 331:
R. C. Ewing. Materials Research Soc
Page 332 and 333:
Sheppard, M. I., and D. H. Thibault
Page 334:
Yamamoto, T., E. Yunoki, M. Yamakaw
show all

UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?