UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN PARTITION COEFFICIENT, Kd ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and then decreases with increasing pH over the pH range from 5.2 to 6.7. Serkiz and Johnson found that the field-derived K d values for 238 U and 235 U were not well correlated with the weight percent of clay-size particles (Figure J.2) or CEC (Figure J.3) of the soil samples. Based on the field-derived K d values and geochemical modeling results, Serkiz and Johnson proposed that the uranium was not binding to the clays by a cation exchange reaction, but rather to a mineral surface coating with the variable surface charge varying due to the porewater pH. <strong>Kd</strong> (ml/g) 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure J.1. Field-derived K d values for 238 U and 235 U from Serkiz and Johnson (1994) plotted as a function of porewater pH for contaminated soil/porewater samples. [Square and circle symbols represent field-derived K d values for 238 U and 235 U, respectively. Solid symbols represent minimum K d values for 238 U and 235 U that were based on minimum detection limit values for the concentrations for the respective uranium isotopes in porewaters associated with the soil sample.] J.8 pH
<strong>Kd</strong> (ml/g) 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 Clay-Size Particle Content (wt%) Figure J.2. Field-derived K d values for 238 U and 235 U from Serkiz and Johnson (1994) plotted as a function of the weight percent of clay-size particles in the contaminated soil/porewater samples. [Square and circle symbols represent field-derived K d values for 238 U and 235 U, respectively. Solid symbols represent minimum K d values for 238 U and 235 U that were based on minimum detection limit values for the concentrations for the respective uranium isotopes in porewaters associated with the soil sample.] J.9
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 248 and 249: H.2.4 Approach Figure H.4. Relation
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 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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?