A Thermodynamics-Based Conceptual Model for Colloid-Facilitated Solute Transport

  • Vyacheslav G. RumyninEmail author
Part of the Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media book series (TATP, volume 25)


As mentioned above (Sect. 19.1.2), changes in the physicochemical conditions in the system over space and time, which take place in unsteady-state migration flows, reduce the potential of the above-considered sorption isotherm-based models with time-invariant coefficients, in particular, models describing colloid-facilitated transport. Their empirical nature does not allow them to be applied outside of the specific parameters of the contaminated site. Therefore, thermodynamics-based approach, describing sorption as a series of specific reactions between dissolved ions and surface sites, can be more productive for analyzing solute transport under field conditions.


Colloidal Particle Plutonium Isotope Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficient Complex Formation Reaction Plutonium Oxidation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allison JD, Brown DS, Novo-Gradac KJ (1991) MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2. A Geochemical assessment model for environmental systems: Version 3.0 User’s manual, EPA/600/3-91/021. United States Environment Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Apak R (2006) Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soil surfaces and similar substances: theoretical aspects. In: Somasundaram P (ed) Encyclopedia of surface and colloid science. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 484–509Google Scholar
  3. Appelo CAJ, Postma D (2005) Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution. A.A. Balkema Publishers, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banwart SA (1997) Aqueous speciation at the interface between geological solids and groundwater. In: Grenthe I, Puigdomenech I (eds) Modelling in aquatic chemistry. OECD Publications, Paris, pp 245–287Google Scholar
  5. Callahan TJ, Reimus PW, Bowman RS et al (2000) Using multiple experimental methods to determine fracture/matrix interactions and dispersion of nonreactive solutes in saturated volcanic tuff. Water Resour Res 36:3547–3558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantrell KJ, Riley RG (2008) Subsurface behavior of plutonium and americium at Non-Hanford Sites and relevance to Hanford. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL-17386Google Scholar
  7. Choppin GR, Morgenstern A (2001) Distribution and movement of environmental plutonium. In: Kudo A (ed) Plutonium in the environment., pp 91–105Google Scholar
  8. Clark DL (2000) The chemical complexities of plutonium. Los Alamos Sci 26:364–381Google Scholar
  9. Dai M, Kelly JM, Buesseler KO (2002) Sources and migration of plutonium in groundwater at the Savannah River Site. Environ Sci Technol 36:3690–3699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dai M, Buesseler KO, Pike SM (2005) Plutonium in groundwater at the 100 K–Area of the U.S. DOE Hanford Site. J Contam Hydrol 76:167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis JA, Kent DB (1990) Surface complexation modeling in aqueous geochemistry. Rev Miner Geochem 23:177–260Google Scholar
  12. Davis JA, James RO, Leckie JO (1978) Surface ionization and complexation at oxide/water interface. I Computation of electrical double layer properties in simple electrolytes. J Colloid Interface Sci 63:480–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dzombak DA, Morel MM (1990) Surface complexation modeling: hydrous ferric oxide. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. EPA (1999) Methods for determining Kd values. In: Understanding variation in partition coefficient, Kd, values.Volume I: The Kd model, methods of measurement, and application of chemical reaction codes. EPA Report No 402-R-99-004A, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Fioravanti M, Makhijani A (1997) Containing the Cold War mess: restructuring the environmental management of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex, Takoma Park, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, October 1997Google Scholar
  16. Flury M, Harsh JB (2003) Fate and transport of plutonium and americium in the subsurface of OU 7-13/14. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Report INEELEXT-03-00558, Project No 23378Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg S (1995) Adsorption models incorporated into chemical equilibrium models. In: Loeppert R, Schwab AP, Goldberg S (eds) Chemical equilibrium and reaction models. Soil Sci Soc Am 42:75–95 (Special Publication)Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg S (2002) Competitive adsorption of arsenate and arsenite on oxides and clay minerals. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillaumont R, Fanghänel T, Fuger J (2003) Update on the chemical thermodynamics of uranium, neptunium, plutonium, americium and technetium. Nuclear Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ELSEVIER B.V.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes KF, Leckie JO (1987) Modeling ionic strength effects on cation adsorption at hydrous oxide/solution interface. J Colloid Interface Sci 115:564–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayes KF, Papelis C, Leckie JO (1988) Modeling ionic strength effects on anion adsorption at hydrous oxide/solution interfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci 125:717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson GL, Toth LM (1978) Plutonium (IV) and thorium (IV) polymer chemistry. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-6365Google Scholar
  23. Kallay N, Žalac S (2001) Introduction of the surface complexation model into the theory of colloid stability. Croat Chem Acta 74:479–497Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan DI, Wilhite EL (2000) Disposal at SRS. Report of Savannah River Company. WSRC-RP-2000–00980Google Scholar
  25. Katz JJ, Seaborg GT, Morss LR (eds) (1986) The chemistry of the actinide elements, vol 2, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Lu N, Cotter CR, Kitten HD et al (1998a) Reversibility of sorption of plutonium-239 onto hematite and goethite colloids. Radiochim Acta 83:167–182Google Scholar
  27. Lu N, Triay IR, Cotter CR et al (1998a) Reversibility of sorption of plutonium-239 onto colloids of hematite, goethite, smectite and silica: A milestone final report of YMP. Technical Report LA-UR-98-3057. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los AlamosGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu N, Reimus PW, Parker GR et al (2003) Sorption kinetics and impact of temperature, ionic strength and colloid concentration on the adsorption of plutonium-239 by inorganic colloids. Radiochim Acta 91:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Painter S, Cvetkovic V, Pickett D et al (2002) Significance of kinetics for sorption on inorganic colloids: modeling and data interpretation issues. Environ Sci Technol 36:5369–5375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rai D, Serne RJ, Moore DA (1980) Solubility of plutonium compounds and their behavior in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reimus PW, Callah TJ, Ware SD et al (2007) Matrix diffusion coefficients in volcanic rocks at the Nevada test site: Influence of matrix porosity, matrix permeability, and fracture coating minerals. J Contam Hydrol 93:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Runde W (2000) The chemical interactions of actinides in environment. Los Alamos Sci 26:392–411Google Scholar
  33. Santamarina JC, Klein KA, Wang YH et al (2002) Specific surface: determination and relevance. Can Geotech J 39:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwantes JM (2004) Re-evaluating effects of sorption kinetics on colloid-enhanced migration of plutonium. In: Proceedings of the WM4–04? Conference, Tucson,29 Feb’4 March 2004Google Scholar
  35. Silva RV, Nitsche H (1995) Actinide environmental chemistry. Radiochim Acta 70(71):377–396Google Scholar
  36. Simon W, Reichert P, Hinz C (1997) Properties of exact and approximate traveling wave solutions for transport with nonlinear and nonequilibrium sorption. Water Resour Res 33:1139–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith B, Amonette A (2006) The environmental transport of radium and plutonium: a review. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, June 2006Google Scholar
  38. Turner DR, Bertetti FP, Pabalan RT (2006) Applying surface complexation modeling to radionuclide sorption. Interface Science and Technology 11:553–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang P, Anderko A, Turner DR (2001) Thermodynamic modeling of the adsorption of radionuclides on selected minerals. I: Cations. Ind Eng Chem Res 40:4428–4443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wittman RS, Buck EC, Hanson BD (2005) Data analysis of plutonium sorption on colloids in a minimal kinetics model. Techn. Rep. of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-15285Google Scholar
  41. Yeh G-T, Carpenter SL, Hopkins PL et al (1995) Users manual for LEHGC: A Lagrangian-Eulerian finite-element model of HydroGeoChemical transport through saturated-Unsaturated media - Version 1.1, Sandia Report, SAND95-1121, UC-814Google Scholar
  42. Zhao P, Steward SA (1997) Literature review of intrinsic actinide colloids related to spent fuel waste package release rates. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-ID-126039Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological DepartmentThe Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Environmental Geology Saint Petersburg Division Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations