Skip to main content
Log in

A comparative study on the sorption and desorption of Hg, Th and U on clay

  • Published:
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sorption and desorption of uranium, thorium and mercury on a western Anatolian montmorillonite, obtained from the deposit located in Kula, were studied by application of a batch technique. The clay used is a tertiary clay originally found in a rather large geological formation of west Anatolia. It is nearly pure montmorillonite. Its cation exchange capacity (CEC) determination was performed for ammonium acetate by the Mehlich procedure. The mean CEC was found to be 83 meq/100 g, which, taking into account that CEC determinations were carried out on unfractionated material, is in good agreement with previously reported data. The concentration ranges were between 70–1500 ppm for mercury and 100–2000 ppm for thorium and uranium. The relative importance of test parameters, e.g., pH, clay particle size, groundwater composition, contact time and solid/water ratio, which determine the distribution coefficients was studied. The sorption coefficients varied between 2.7–6.4 ml/g for U, 0.22–1.59 ml/g for Th and 152.4–427.2 ml/g for Hg. The differences of distribution coefficients are discussed. The data could be fitted to Freundlich and Langmuir isotherms. The quantities of the sorbed and desorbed Th were much lower than its theoretical CEC's. This attitude was attributed to the blocking of montmorillonite by cation islands sorbed in the interlayer. Hg is sorbed most strongly. The experimental results indicate that the montmorillonites studied should be effective components of the buffer and backfill material and lead to eventual immobilization of these elements, which are environmentally dangerous.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Fujiki, 6th Int. Conf. Water Poll. Res. Paper No. 12 (1972).

  2. D.E. Robertson, D.S. Sklarew, K.B. Olsen, N.S. Bloam, E.A. Crecelies, C.W. Apts, Research Project 2020-3, Final Report, Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (1987).

  3. L.H. Baetsle,Waste Management, 2 (1990) 907.

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Catalogue of Geological Formations Having Favorable Characteristics for the Disposal of Solidified High-level and Long-lived Radioactive Wastes, CEC Report EUR 6891 (1980).

  5. L.H. Baetsle et al., R. Heremans et al., H. Beale et al. (Ed. by R. Simon and S. Orlowski), Harwood Academic Publishers, EUR 6871 (1980), Proc. First Eur. Conf., Luxemburg, (1980), pp. 442, 468, 488.

  6. R.T. Di Giulio, E.A. Ryan,Water Air Soil Poll., 33 (1987) 205.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Schmidt, P. Freimann P.,Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem., 317 (1984) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Garisto, F. Garisto,Ann. Nucl. Energy, (1990), VI., 17, 4, 183.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Bell, T.H. Bates,Sci. Tot. Env., 69 (1988) 297.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. F. Salter, L.L. Ames, J.J. Mc.Garrah, Rockwell Hanford Operations Report, RHO-BWL-LD-48 (1981).

  11. B. Alard, G.W. Beal, T. Krajewski,Nucl. Tech., 49 (1980) 474.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.J.W. Higgo,Prog. Nucl. Energy, 19 (2) (1987) 173.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.D. Rhoades, Methods of Soil Analysis, Am. Soc. Agron., Wisconsin, (1982) pp. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Polemio, J.D. Rhoades,Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 41 (1977) 524.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Mehlich,Soil Sci., 66 (1948) 429.

    Google Scholar 

  16. I. Carlsen, P. Bo, Environ. Migr. Long-Lived Radionuclides Proc. Int. Sym., Vienna, (1981), IAEA-SM-257/82, pp. 97.

  17. K.H. Lieser, B. Gleitsmann, T.H. Steinkopff,Radiochim. Acta, 40 (1986) 33.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J.J.W. Higgo,Prog. Nucl. Energy, 19 (2) (1987) 173.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R.E. Grim, Clay Mineralogy, Mc Graw Hill, New York (1968) pp. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J.J. Fritz, J.J. Ford,Anal. Chem., 25 (1953) 1640.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Methodes d'Analyse, Presse Universitaire de France, Paris, (1964 and 1970), Vol. 3, pp. 134 and Vol. 5, pp. 260.

  22. H. Freundlich, Colloid and Capil. Chem., Methuen, London (1926).

    Google Scholar 

  23. I. Langmuir,J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 40 (1918) 1361.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Akçay, F. Kurtulmuş,J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Letters, 200 (1995) 529.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Akçay, S. Kilinç,J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., Letters, 212 (1996) 173.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akçay, H., Kilinç, S. & Karapire, C. A comparative study on the sorption and desorption of Hg, Th and U on clay. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry Letters 214, 51–66 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02165058

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02165058

Keywords

Navigation