Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 321, Issue 3, pp 1067–1071 | Cite as

Comparison of several models for fitting breakthrough curves of radionuclides transport in crushed rock: groundwater systems

  • Štefan PalágyiEmail author


The mutual comparison of six models for fitting the experimental breakthrough curves of 137Cs+ and 85Sr2+ transportation in the crushed rock–groundwater system is described. The models are: Clark, Thomas, modified dose–response, Yan, Yoon–Nelson and the authors’ models. These mathematical models are regarding models with continuous inlet of the radionuclides into column, and where the dependence of activity concentration on the time C = f(t) can be expressed explicitly. The use of these models should help in the more accurate determination of the retardation coefficients of radionuclides transport in crushed granite—groundwater systems in the far-field environment of disposal facilities.


Crushed rock Groundwater Continuous inlet Transport Breakthrough curves Models 



The author is grateful to Dr. Dušan Vopálka for reading the manuscript and valuable comments.


Funding was provided by Czech Technical University and Czech Technical University Prague.


  1. 1.
    IAEA (1985) Deep underground disposal of radioactive wastes: near-field effects. Technical Report Series No. 251, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander WR, Smith PA, McKinley IG (2003) Modelling radionuclide transport in the geological environment. In: Scott EM (ed) Modelling radioactivity in the environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 109–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnett MO, Jardine PM, Brooks SC, Selim HM (2000) Adsorption and transport of uranium(VI) in subsurface media. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:908–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhe X, Jian-Guo C, Bing-cai P (2013) Review: Mathematically modeling fixed-bed adsorption in aqueous systems. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 14:155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riazi M, Kesthkar AR, Moosavian MA (2014) Batch and continuous fixed-bed column biosorption of thorium(IV) from aqueous solutions: equilibrium and dynamic modeling. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 301:493–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar A, Rout S, Chopra MK, Mishra DG, Singhal RK, Ravi PM, Tripathi RM (2014) Modeling of 137Cs migration in cores of marine sediments of Mumbai Harbor Bay. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 301:615–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palágyi Š, Štamberg K (2010) Modeling of transport of radionuclides in beds of crushed crystalline rocks under equilibrium non-linear sorption isotherms conditions. Radiochim Acta 98:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palágyi Š, Štamberg K, Vopálka D (2015) Determination of transport parameters of radionuclides. Lambert Academic Publishing, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palágyi Š, Štamberg K, Vopálka D (2017) Simplified modeling in dynamic column technique for the determination of radionuclide transport parameters in systems of solid granular materials and groundwater. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 311:1059–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark RM (1987) Evaluating the cost and performance of field-scale granular activated carbon systems. Environ Sci Technol 21:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomas HC (1944) Heterogeneous ion exchange in a flowing system. J Am Chem Soc 66:1664–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan G, Viraraghavan T, Chen M (2001) A new model for heavy metal removal in a biosorption column. Adsorpt Sci Technol 19:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh A, Kumar D, Gaur JP (2012) Continuous metal removal from solution and industrial effluents using Spirogyra biomass-packed column reactor. J Water Res 46:779–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoon YH, Nelson JH (2001) Application of gas adsorption kinetics I. A theoretical model for respirator cartridge service life. Am Ind Hyg Ass J 45:509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rachinskiy BV (1964) Introduction into general theory of the dynamics of sorption and chromatography. Nauka, Moskva (in Russian) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bossew P, Kirchner G (2004) Modelling the vertical distribution of radionuclides in soil. Part 1: the convection–dispersion equation revisited. J Environ Radioact 73:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zidan WI, Abo-Aly MM, Elhefnawy OA, Bakier E (2015) Batch and column studies on uranium adsorption by Amberlite XAD-4 modified with nano-manganese dioxide. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 304:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Inglezakis VJ, Poulopoulos SG (2007) Adsorption, ion exchange and catalysis. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ararem A, Bouras O, Bouzidi A (2013) Batch and continuous fixed-bed column adsorption of Cs+ and Sr2+onto montmorillonite–iron oxide composite: comparative and competitive study. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 298:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zou W, Lei Zhao L (2013) Adsorption of uranium(VI) by grapefruit peel in a fixed-bed column: experiments and prediction of breakthrough curves. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 295:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baral SS, Das N, Ramulu TS, Sahoo SK, Das SN, Chaudhury GR (2009) Removal of Cr(VI) by thermally activated weed Salvinia cucullata in a fixed-bed column. J Hazard Mater 161:1427–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khamseh AG, Ghorbanian SA (2018) Experimental and modeling investigation of thorium biosorption by orange peel in a continuous fixed-bed column. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 317:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Chemistry, Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations