4.5 Article

In situ tracer tests to determine retention properties of a block scale fracture network in granitic rock at the Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 70, 期 3-4, 页码 271-297

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2003.09.009

关键词

migration; in situ; retention; radionuclide; sorption; crystalline rock; fracture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experiments were conducted at the Aspo Hard Rock Laboratory in order to improve the understanding of radionuclide retention properties of fractured crystalline bedrock in the 10-100 m scale (TRUE Block Scale Project, jointly funded by ANDRA, ENRESA, Nirex, JNC, Posiva and SKB). A series of tracer experiments were performed using sorbing tracers in three different flow paths. The different flow paths had Euclidian lengths of 14, 17 and 33 m, respectively, and one to three water conducting structures. Four tests were performed using different cocktails made up of radioactive sorbing tracers (Na-22,24(+), K-42(+), Ca-47(2+), Sr-85(2+), Rb-83.86(+), Ba-131,133(2+) and Cs-134,137(+)). For each tracer injection, the breakthrough of sorbing tracers was compared to the breakthrough of a conservative tracer, Br-82(-), I-131(-), HTO and (ReO4-)-Re-186, respectively. In the two longer flow paths, no breakthrough of Rb-113(+) and Cs-137(+) was observed after 8 months of pumping. Selected tracer tests were subject to basic modelling in which a one-dimensional (ID) advection-dispersion model, including surface sorption, and an unlimited matrix diffusion were used for the interpretation of the results. The results of the modelling indicated that there is a slightly higher mass transfer into a highly porous material in the block-scale experiment compared with in situ experiments performed over shorter distances and significantly higher than what would have been expected from laboratory data obtained from studies of the interactions in nonaltered intact rock. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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