4.6 Article

Evaluation of Fillers for Magnesium Potassium Phosphate Cement (MKPC) for the Encapsulation of Low and Intermediate Level Metallic Radioactive Wastes

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16020679

关键词

magnesium phosphate cement; metallic radioactive waste; cement filler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the influence of coal fly ash (FA), wollastonite (WO), pumice (PM), and metakaolin (MK) as fillers on the rheological, mechanical, chemical, and mineralogical properties of a magnesium potassium phosphate cement (MKPC) used for encapsulating radioactive wastes. Various pastes and mortars of MKPC were investigated, and parameters such as workability, compression strength, dimensional stability, pH, chemical composition, and mineralogical properties were analyzed. The results showed that the fillers had minimal chemical impact on the MKPC system, and all formulations with a water/cement mass ratio of <0.65 exhibited high compressive strengths and pH values in the passivation zone of aluminum corrosion after 90 days.
This study investigates the effect of coal fly ash (FA), wollastonite (WO), pumice (PM), and metakaolin (MK) as filler materials in the rheological, mechanical, chemical, and mineralogical properties of a magnesium potassium phosphate cement (MKPC), designed for the encapsulation of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes containing reactive metals. Workability, compression strength, dimensional stability, pH, chemical composition, and mineralogical properties were studied in different pastes and mortars of MKPC with a fixed molar ratio of MgO/KH2PO4 = 1. No new mineral phases were found with the addition of the fillers, denoting their low chemical impact on the MKPC system. Moreover, all formulations with a water/cement mass ratio of <0.65 presented compressive strengths higher than 30 MPa after 90 days, and pH values lower than 8.5, corresponding to the passivation zone of aluminum corrosion.

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

4.6
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