4.4 Article

Comparative study of strontium adsorption on muscovite, biotite and phlogopite

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2020.106446

关键词

Adsorption; Strontium; Muscovite; Biotite; Phlogopite

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41773095, 21906187]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [45000-18833403, 45000-31610037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Micaceous minerals are the natural materials that can block radioactive strontium (Sr) released in the environment, and their adsorption capacity and mechanism are highly divergent owing to the different properties of micas. In this work, we comparatively studied the adsorption of Sr(II) on three typical micas, muscovite, biotite and phlogopite. The effects of pH, contact time, ionic strength, and background electrolyte were evaluated. It was found that phlogopite and muscovite had the largest solid-liquid distribution coefficient (Kd) for a reaction time of 48 h under acidic and alkaline conditions, respectively. Under alkaline conditions, as the reaction time increased to 44 days, phlogopite and muscovite showed the highest and lowest Kd, respectively. The Kd for Sr(II) adsorption on biotite and phlogopite increased with increasing pH but decreased with increasing pH for muscovite. X-ray diffraction analysis revealed that the interlayer weathering of phlogopite (a new diffraction peak appeared at 2-theta of similar to 6.1 degrees) occurred along with the adsorption of Sr(II) below pH 9.0 under 0.01 mol/L NaCl. Furthermore, the adsorption of Sr(II) was significantly inhibited in the presence of 10(-5) and 10(-2) mol/L Cs+, resulting in similar adsorption capacity for phlogopite and muscovite at pH similar to 4.1 degrees Consequently, the difference in Sr(II) adsorption on muscovite, biotite and phlogopite mainly came from the synergistic process of adsorption and weathering, which induced the differences in availability of interlayer sites among micas over a certain time.

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

4.4
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