Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 511–535 | Cite as

Grain-Size Based Additivity Models for Scaling Multi-rate Uranyl Surface Complexation in Subsurface Sediments

  • Xiaoying Zhang
  • Chongxuan Liu
  • Bill X. Hu
  • Qinhong Hu
Article

Abstract

The additivity model assumed that field-scale reaction properties in a sediment including surface area, reactive site concentration, and reaction rate can be predicted from field-scale grain-size distribution by linearly adding reaction properties estimated in laboratory for individual grain-size fractions. This study evaluated the additivity model in scaling mass transfer-limited, multi-rate uranyl (U(VI)) surface complexation reactions in a contaminated sediment. Experimental data of rate-limited U(VI) desorption in a stirred flow-cell reactor were used to estimate the statistical properties of the rate constants for individual grain-size fractions, which were then used to predict rate-limited U(VI) desorption in the composite sediment. The result indicated that the additivity model with respect to the rate of U(VI) desorption provided a good prediction of U(VI) desorption in the composite sediment. However, the rate constants were not directly scalable using the additivity model. An approximate additivity model for directly scaling rate constants was subsequently proposed and evaluated. The result found that the approximate model provided a good prediction of the experimental results within statistical uncertainty. This study also found that a gravel-size fraction (2 to 8 mm), which is often ignored in modeling U(VI) sorption and desorption, is statistically significant to the U(VI) desorption in the sediment.

Keywords

Scaling Additivity model Uranium surface complexation Multi-rate mass transfer Statistical analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the US DOE, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER), as part of the Subsurface Biogeochemical Research (SBR) Program through Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) SBR Science Focus Area (SFA) Research Project. QH thanks the financial support of the Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Program #DE-SC0005394, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, US Department of Energy, for Project ER65073. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.

References

  1. Arvidson RS, Ertan IE, Amonette JE, Lüttge A (2003) Variation in calcite dissolution rates: a fundamental problem? Geochim Cosmochim Acta 67(9):1623–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond DL, Davis JA, Zachara JM (2007) Uranium (VI) release from contaminated vadose zone sediment: estimation of potential contributions from dissolution and desorption. Earth Environ Sci 7:375–416Google Scholar
  3. Box GEP, Tiao GC (1992) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. In: Wiley classics library edition. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Curtis GP, Davis JA, Naftz DL (2006) Simulation of reactive transport of uranium (VI) in groundwater with variable chemical conditions. Water Resour Res 42:W04404. doi: 10.1029/2005WR003979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis JA, Curtis GP (2003) Application of surface complexation modeling to describe uranium (VI) adsorption and retardation at the uranium mill tailings site at Naturita, Colorado. In: US nuclear regulatory commission, Rockville, MD. Report NUREG CR-6820Google Scholar
  6. Davis JA, Kent DB (1990) Surface Complexation Modeling in Aqueous Geochemistry. In: Hochella MF, White AF (eds) Reviews in mineralogy: mineral water interface geochemistry, vol 23. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington DC, pp 176–260Google Scholar
  7. Dong W, Brooks SC (2006) Determination of the formation constants of ternary complexes of uranyl and carbonate with alkaline earth metal (\(\text{ Mg }^{2+}, \text{ Ca }^{2+}, \text{ Sr }^{2+}, \text{ and } \ \text{ Ba }^{2+}\)) using anion exchange method. Environ Sci Technol 40:4689–4695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Du J, Bao J, Hu Q, Ewing RP (2012) Uranium release from different size fractions of sediments in Hanford 300 area, Washington, USA. J Environ Radioac 107:92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewing RP, Liu C, Hu Q (2012) Modeling intragranular diffusion in low-connectivity granular media. Water Resour Res 48:W03518. doi: 10.1029/2011WR011407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher C, Arvidson RS, Lüttege A (2012) How predictable are dissolution rates of crystalline materials. Geochim Cosmichim Acta 98:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (eds) (2003) Bayesian data analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  12. Guillaumont R, Fanghänel T, Fuger J, Grenthe I, Neck V, Palmer D, Rand MH (2003) Update on the chemical thermodynamics of Uranium, Neptonium, Plutonium. Americium and Technetium. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Herbelin AL, Westall JC (1999) FITEQL version 4.0, a computer program for determination of chemical equilibrium constants from experimental data. In: Rep. 99–01. Dep. of Chem., Oreg. State Univ., CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill MC, Tiedeman CR (2007) Effective groundwater model calibration: with analysis of data, sensitivities, predictions, and uncertainty. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kohler M, Curtis GP, Meece DE, Davis JA (2004) Methods for estimating adsorbed uranium (VI) and distribution coefficients in contaminated sediments. Environ Sci Technol 38:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu C, Zachara JM, Qafoku NP, Wang Z (2008) Scale-dependent desorption of uranium from contaminated subsurface sediments. Water Resour Res 44:W08413. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006478 Google Scholar
  17. Liu C, Shi Z, Zachara JM (2009) Kinetics of Uranium(VI) Desorption from Contaminated sediments: effect of geochemical conditions and model evaluation. Environ Sci Technol 43:6560–6566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu C, Shang J, Kerisit S, Zachara JM, Zhu W (2013) Scale-dependent rates of urnyl surface complexation reaction in sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Act 105:326–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu C, Shang J, Shan H, Zachara JM (2014) Effect of subgrid heterogeneity on scaling geochemical and biogeochemical reactions: a case of U(VI) desorption. Environ Sci Technol 48(3):1745–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lüttge A, Arvidson RS, Fischer C (2013) A stochastic treatment of crystal dissolution kinetics. Elements 9(3):183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma R, Zheng C, Prommer H, Greskowiak J, Liu C, Zachara J, Rockhold M (2010) A field-scale reactive transport model for U(VI) migration influenced by coupled multirate mass transfer and surface complexation reactions. Water Resour Res 46:W05509. doi: 10.1029/2009WR008168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maher K, Steefel CI, DePaolo DJ, Viani BE (2006) The mineral dissolution rate conundrum: Insights from reactive transport modeling of U isotopes and pore fluid chemistry in marine sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller AW, Rodriguez DR, Honeyman BD (2010) Upscaling sorption/desorption processes in reactive transport models to describe metal/radionuclide transport: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 44:7996–8007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minasny B, Vrugt JA, McBratney AB (2011) Confronting uncertainty in model-based geostatistics using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Geoderma 163:150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Navarre-Sitchler A, Brantley S (2007) Basalt weathering across scales. Earth Planet Sci Lett 261:321–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NIST (2001) NIST critically selected stability constants of metal complexes database, Version 6.0 for Windows. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  27. Plummer LN (1972) Rates of mineral-aqueous solution reactions. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwest. Univ., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Plummer LN, Busenberg E (1982) The solubility of calcite, aragonite and vaterite in CO\(_{2}-\)H\(_{2}\)O solutions between 0C and 90\(\_\)C, and the evaluation of the aqueous model for the system CaCO\(_{3}-\)CO\(_{2}-\)H\(_{2}\)O. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 46:1011–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qafoku NP, Zachara JM, Liu C, Gassman PL, Qafoku OS, Smith SC (2005) Kinetic Desorption and Sorption of U(VI) during Reactive Transport in a Contaminated Hanford Sediment. Environ Sci Technol 39:3157–3165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shang J, Liu C, Wang Z, Zachara JM (2011) Effect of grain size on uranium (VI) Surface complexation kinetics and adsorption additivity. Environ Sci Technol 45:6025–6031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shang J, Liu C, Wang Z, Zachara JM (2014) Long-term kinetics of uranyl desorption from sedimetns under advective conditions. Water Resour Res 50:855–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sparks DL (1995) Environmental soil chemistry. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  33. Stoliker DL, Kent DB, Zachara JM (2011) Quantifying differences in the impact of variable chemistry on equilibrium uranium (VI) adsorption properties of aquifer sediments. Environ Sci Technol 45(20):8733–8740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoliker DL, Liu C, Kent DB, Zachara JM (2013) Characterizing particle-scale equilibrium adsorption and kinetics of uranium (VI) desorption from U-contaminated sediments. Water Resour Res. doi: 10.1002/wrcr.20104 Google Scholar
  35. Swoboda-Colberg NG, Drever JI (1993) Mineral dissolution rates in plot-scale field and laboratory experiments. Chem Geol 105:51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ter Braak CJF (2006) A Markov Chain Monte Carlo version of the genetic algorithm differential evolution easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces. Stat Comput 16:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Um W, Zachara JM, Liu C, Moore DA, Rod KA (2010) Resupply mechanism to a contaminated aquifer: a laboratory study of U(VI) desorption from capillary fringe sediments. Geochim Consmochim Acta 74:5155–5170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vrugt JA, Ter Braak CJF, Diks CGH, Robinson BA, Hyman JM, Higdon D (2009) Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 10:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White AF, Brantley SL (2003) The effect of time on the weathering of silicate minerals: why do weathering rates differ in the laboratory and field? Chem Geol 202:479–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yabusaki SB, Fang Y, Waichler SR (2008) Building conceptual models of field-scale uranium reactive transport in a dynamic vadose zone-aquifer-river system. Water Resour Res 44:W12403. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yin J, Haggerty R, Stoliker DL, Kent DB, Istok JD, Greskowiak J, Zachara JM (2011) Transient groundwater chemistry near a river: effects on U(VI) transport in laboratory column experiments. Water Resour Res 47:W04502. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009369 Google Scholar
  42. Zhang X, Liu C, Hu BX, Zhang G (2014) Uncertainty analysis of multi-rate kinetics of uranium desorption from sediments. J Contam Hydrol 156:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoying Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chongxuan Liu
    • 3
  • Bill X. Hu
    • 1
  • Qinhong Hu
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.College of Life Science and TechnologyJinan UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  4. 4.The University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations