4.7 Article

Direct Experimental Evidence for Differing Reactivity Alterations of Minerals following Irradiation: The Case of Calcite and Quartz

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep20155

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMMI: 1066583, 1235269]
  2. Federal Highway Administration [DTFH61-13-H-00011]
  3. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
  4. ORNL Alvin M. Weinberg Fellowship
  5. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-00OR22725, 4000132990]
  6. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  7. Directorate For Engineering [1253269] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concrete, used in the construction of nuclear power plants (NPPs), may be exposed to radiation emanating from the reactor core. Until recently, concrete has been assumed immune to radiation exposure. Direct evidence acquired on Ar+-ion irradiated calcite and quartz indicates, on the contrary, that, such minerals, which constitute aggregates in concrete, may be significantly altered by irradiation. More specifically, while quartz undergoes disordering of its atomic structure resulting in a near complete lack of periodicity, calcite only experiences random rotations, and distortions of its carbonate groups. As a result, irradiated quartz shows a reduction in density of around 15%, and an increase in chemical reactivity, described by its dissolution rate, similar to a glassy silica. Calcite however, shows little change in dissolution rate - although its density noted to reduce by approximate to 9%. These differences are correlated with the nature of bonds in these minerals, i.e., being dominantly ionic or covalent, and the rigidity of the mineral's atomic network that is characterized by the number of topological constraints (n(c)) that are imposed on the atoms in the network. The outcomes have major implications on the durability of concrete structural elements formed with calcite or quartz bearing aggregates in nuclear power plants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据