pH dependence of uranyl retention in a quartz/solution system: an XPS study

Froideval, Annick; Nero, Mirella Del; Barillon, Rémi; Hommet, J.; Mignot, G.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9797(03)00528-9

Cited by 67 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences in U(VI) adsorption extent to quartz and ferrihydrite as compared to the results of Fox et al (2006) were noted that result from solid-liquid ratio effects. Direct comparisons are not easily made with other previous studies of U(VI) adsorption to smectites Morris et al, 1994;McKinley et al, 1995;Turner et al, 1996;Sylwester et al, 2000;Chisholm-Brause et al, 2001;Hennig et al, 2002;Chisholm-Brause et al, 2004;Kowal-Fouchard et al, 2004;Catalano and Brown, 2005) and quartz or amorphous silica (Glinka et al, 1997;Arnold et al, 1998;Gabriel et al, 2001;Froideval et al, 2003) because of differences in solution pH, U(VI) concentration, solid-to-liquid ratio, and carbonate concentration as well as the procedure of mineral preparation. U(VI) affinity varied by more than two orders of magnitude for the phyllosilicates with the highest K d values observed for chlorites, particularly the ones rich in Mg but poor in Fe (Table 3).…”

Section: U(vi) Adsorption Affinity On Reference Mineralsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Determining individual mineral contributions to U(VI) adsorption in a contaminated aquifer sediment: A fluorescence spectroscopy study

Wang

Zachara

Boily

et al. 2011

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adsorption and speciation of U(VI) was investigated on contaminated, fine grained sediment materials from the Hanford 300 area (SPP1 GWF) in simulated groundwater using cryogenic laser-induced U(VI) fluorescence spectroscopy combined with chemometric analysis. A series of reference minerals (montmorillonite, illite, Michigan chlorite, North Carolina chlorite, California clinochlore, quartz and synthetic 6-line ferrihydrite) was used for comparison that represents the mineralogical constituents of SPP1 GWF. Surface area-normalized K d values were measured at U(VI) concentrations of 5 Â 10 À7 and 5 Â 10 À6 mol L À1 that displayed the following affinity series: 6-line-ferrihydrite > North Carolina chlorite % California clinochlore > quartz % Michigan chlorite > illite > montmorillonite. Both time-resolved spectra and asynchronous twodimensional (2D) correlation analysis of SPP1 GWF at different delay times indicated that two major adsorbed U(VI) species were present in the sediment that resembled U(VI) adsorbed on quartz and phyllosilicates. Simulations of the normalized fluorescence spectra confirmed that the speciation of SPP1 GWF was best represented by a linear combination of U(VI) adsorbed on quartz (90%) and phyllosilicates (10%). However, the fluorescence quantum yield for U(VI) adsorbed on phyllosilicates was lower than quartz and, consequently, its fractional contribution to speciation may be underestimated. Spectral comparison with literature data suggested that U(VI) exist primarily as inner-sphere complexes with surface silanol groups on quartz and as surface U(VI) tricarbonate complexes on phyllosilicates. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

show abstract

Section: U(vi) Adsorption Affinity On Reference Mineralsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Determining individual mineral contributions to U(VI) adsorption in a contaminated aquifer sediment: A fluorescence spectroscopy study

Wang

Zachara

Boily

et al. 2011

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experiments have evaluated the U sorption to a vast array of soil mineral and organic surfaces, as well as other sorbents, such as quartz (Prikryl et al 2001;Greathouse et al 2002;Froideval et al 2003;Fox et al 2006), mackinawite Livens et al 2004), granite (Baik et al 2004a), hematite surfaces colonized by sulfate-reducing bacteria (Neal et al 2004), gibbsite (Baumann et al 2005), negatively charged cell walls of Bacillus subtilis (Gorman- Lewis et al 2005), synthetic imogolite (Arai et al 2006), amorphous silica (Sylwester et al 2000), silica gel (Reich et al 1998), gamma alumina (Sylwester et al 2000, nanocrystalline titanium dioxide (Wazne et al 2006), zero valent iron (Noubactep et al 2005), biogenic manganese oxide (Webb et al 2006), bone charcoal and bone meal apatite (Fuller et al 2003), hydroxyapatite (Fuller et al 2002), clinoptilolite (Prikryl et al 2001), natural sediments (Kohler et al 1996;Rosentreter et al 1998;Waite et al 2000;Davis 2001;Bostick et al 2002;Davis and Curtis 2003;Curtis et al 2004Curtis et al , 2006Davis et al 2004Davis et al , 2006Kohler et al 2004;Qafoku et al 2005Qafoku et al , 2008aQafoku et al , 2008bPayne and Airey 2006;Um et al 2007a), and nanoporous zirconium-phosphate (Um et al 2007b). There has been some recent resea...…”

Section: U(vi) Sorption To Soil Mineralsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions of aqueous U(VI) with soil minerals in slightly alkaline natural systems

Qafoku

Icenhower

2008

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uranium (U) is a common contaminant at numerous surface and subsurface sites in proximity to areas involved with weapons manufacturing and atomic energy related activities. This paper covers some important aspects of the aqueous hexavalent uranium [U(VI)] interactions with soil minerals that are present in contaminated soils and sediments. The retention of U via interactions with soil minerals has significant consequences for the prediction of its short-and long-term behavior in soils and geological systems. Studies of the nature and type of these interactions have provided the necessary evidence for assessing the geochemical behavior of U in natural systems under different physical, biogeochemical, hydrological, and reducing or oxidizing conditions. Over the last 20 years, aqueous U(VI): soil mineral interactions have been studied by geochemists, soil chemists, clay and soil mineralogists, and the progress in some areas is remarkable. Although a mechanistic description and understanding of the complex interactions involving U and soil minerals in natural systems is currently difficult, results from carefully designed and executed field and laboratory experiments with these materials have improved our understanding of the heterogeneous system's behavior and U contaminant mobility and transport. There are, however, areas that warrant further exploration and study. Numerous research publications were reviewed in this paper to present recent important findings to reveal the current level of the understanding of the U(VI) interactions with soil minerals, and to provide ideas for future needs and research directions.

show abstract

“…27 Many researcher reported that at pH≤4.3, uranium exist predominantly as monomeric species, 2 2 UO ＋ . 28,29 In this experiment, pH of solution was adjusted to pH around 3, therefore uranium(VI) exists predominantly as 2 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solid Phase Extraction of Uranium by Naphthalene‐Methyltrioctylammonium Chloride and Arsenazo(III) Adsorbent and Subsequent Spectrophotometric Determination

Behpour¹,

Ghoreishi²,

Qamsari³

et al. 2010

Chin. J. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simple and effective method has been presented for the preconcentration of uranium by solid phase extraction. For this purpose arsenazo(III) supported on naphthalene-methyltrioctylammonium chloride was used as an adsorbent and uranium solution at pH 3.5 with flow rate of 1 mL•min -1 was passed through the column. Therefore, uranium-arsenazo(III) complex was formed onto column. Uranium was quantitatively eluted with 5 mL of a 0.1% ammonium tetraphenylborate and determined by spectrophotometric method at 652 nm. Several parameters such as pH, amount of reagents, sample volume, etc. were investigated. The effect of diverse ions on the preconcentration has also been studied and the optimized conditions developed have been utilized for the trace determination of uranium. A preconcentration factor of 100 was achieved. The relative standard deviation (N＝8) was 0.5% for 3 ng• mL -1 of uranium. The three sigma detection limit (36) was 0.045 ng•mL -1 .

show abstract

pH dependence of uranyl retention in a quartz/solution system: an XPS study

Cited by 67 publications

References 55 publications

Determining individual mineral contributions to U(VI) adsorption in a contaminated aquifer sediment: A fluorescence spectroscopy study

Determining individual mineral contributions to U(VI) adsorption in a contaminated aquifer sediment: A fluorescence spectroscopy study

Interactions of aqueous U(VI) with soil minerals in slightly alkaline natural systems

Solid Phase Extraction of Uranium by Naphthalene‐Methyltrioctylammonium Chloride and Arsenazo(III) Adsorbent and Subsequent Spectrophotometric Determination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About