4.5 Article

Comparative evaluation of radiolytic stability of aqueous soluble BTP and BTBP derivatives under static gamma irradiation

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10967-021-07711-1

关键词

Gamma irradiation; SO3-Ph-BTP; SO3-Ph-BTBP; Diglycolamide; FT-IR spectroscopy; Americium

资金

  1. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), India [65/06/2017]
  2. FIST scheme from Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India [SR/FIST/college-110/2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the radiolytic stability of aqueous solutions containing two different bis-1,2,4-triazines under static gamma irradiation, and compared the separation efficiency of different organic solvents at varying absorbed doses. Results showed that the separation efficiency remained unchanged at lower absorbed doses, but gradually decreased at higher doses. The radiolytic degradation was more significant for one of the bis-1,2,4-triazines in comparison to the other under higher acidity conditions, as evidenced by ATR-FTIR spectral studies.
The radiolytic stability of aqueous solutions containing two different bis-1,2,4-triazines was studied under static gamma irradiation. Sulphophenyl derivatives of bis-1,2,4- triazinyl pyridine (SO3-Ph-BTP) and bis-1,2,4-triazinylbipyridine (SO3-Ph-BTBP) were dissolved in 0.1 M and 1 M HNO3 solutions and the impact of gamma irradiation was assessed by the measurement of distribution ratios of Am(III) and Eu(III) using irradiated samples. The results were compared for two different organic solvents containing N,N,N',N'-tetraoctyldiglycolamide (TODGA) or N,N-didodecyl-N',N'-dioctyldiglycolamide (D(3)DODGA). The separation efficiency of all the systems remained unchanged when the absorbed dose was 100 kGy, and gradually decreased at 200 kGy and 500 kGy. The radiolytic degradation was more apparent for SO3-Ph-BTBP in comparison to SO3-Ph-BTP at higher acidity. The degradation of sulphonate groups in the molecules was evidenced in ATR-FTIR spectral studies.

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

4.5
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