4.4 Article

Immobilization of cesium-137 and uranium in contaminated sediments using soil amendments

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 1206-1213

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2001.3041206x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Batch and dynamic leaching methods were used to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxyapatite (HA), illite, and zeolite, alone and in combination, as soil additives for reducing the migration of cesium-137 (Cs-137(+)) and uranium (U) from contaminated sediments. Amendment treatments ranging from 0 to 50 g kg(-1) were added to the sediment and equilibrated in 0.001 M CaCl2. After equilibration, the treatment supernatants were analyzed for Cs-137(+), U, PO4, and other metals. The residual sediments were then extracted overnight using one of the following: 1.0 M NH4Cl, 0.5 M CaCl2, or the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extractant. Cesium was strongly sorbed to the contaminated sediments, presumably due to interlayer fixation within native illitic clays. In fact, Cs-137(+) was below detection limits in the initial equilibration solutions, the CaCl2 extract, and the TCLP solution, regardless of amendment. Extractants selective for interlayer cations (1.0 M NH4Cl) were necessary to extract measurable levels of Cs-137(+). Addition of illitic clays further reduced Cs+ extractability, even when subjected to the aggressive extractants. Zeolite, however, was ineffective in reducing Cs+ mobility when subjected to the aggressive extractants. Hydroxyapatite was less effective than illite at reducing NW-extractable Cs+. Hydroxyapatite, and mixtures of HA with illite or zeolite, were highly effective in reducing U extractability in both batch and leaching tests. Uranium immobilization by HA was rapid with similar final U concentrations observed for equilibration times ranging from 1 h to 30 d. The current results demonstrate the effectiveness of soil amendments in reducing the mobility of U and Cs+, which makes in-place immobilization an effective remediation alternative.

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