4.4 Article

Harvesting 88Zr from heavy-ion beam irradiated tungsten at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory

期刊

APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2023.110831

关键词

Radiochemical separation; Isotope harvesting; Tungsten; 88Zr

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a radiochemistry method to recover 88Zr from irradiated tungsten using a heavy-ion beam. The method involves dissolving tungsten foils in hydrogen peroxide, followed by chemical purification of 88Zr from the tungsten matrix and other co-implanted radionuclides using strong cation-exchange chromatographic resin. The procedure yielded 88Zr with no detectable radio-impurities in sulfuric acid solution. The results demonstrate the potential for recovering elements from irradiated tungsten parts.
Tungsten is a commonly used material at many heavy-ion beam facilities, and it often becomes activated due to interactions with a beam. Many of the activation products are useful in basic and applied sciences if they can be recovered efficiently. In order to develop the radiochemistry for harvesting group (IV) elements from irradiated tungsten, a heavy-ion beam containing 88Zr was embedded into a stack of tungsten foils at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory and a separation methodology was devised to recover the 88Zr. The foils were dissolved in 30% hydrogen peroxide, and the 88Zr was chemically purified from the tungsten matrix and from other co-implanted radionuclides (such as 85Sr and 88Y) using strong cation-exchange (AG MP-50) chromatographic resin in sulfuric acid media. The procedure provided 88Zr in approximately 60 mL 0.5 M sulfuric acid with no detectable radio-impurities. The overall recovery yield for 88Zr was (92.3 +/- 1.2)%. This proof-ofconcept experiment has facilitated the development of methodologies to harvest from tungsten and tungstenalloy parts that are regularly irradiated at heavy-ion beam facilities.

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