Removal of Uranium(VI) from contaminated sediments by surfactants

被引:27
作者
Gadelle, F [1 ]
Wan, JM [1 ]
Tokunaga, TK [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2134/jeq2001.302470x
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Uranium(VI) sorption onto a soil collected at the Melton Branch Watershed (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN) is strongly influenced by the pH of the soil solution and, to a lesser extent, by the presence of calcium, suggesting specific chemical interactions between U(VI) and the soil matrix. Batch experiments designed to evaluate factors controlling desorption indicate that two anionic surfactants, AOK and T77, at concentrations ranging from 60 to 200 mM, are most suitable for U(VI) removal from acidic soils such as the Oak Ridge sediment. These surfactants are very efficient solubilizing agents at low uranium concentrations: re. 100% U(M) removal fur [U(VI)](o).(sorbed) = 10(-6) mol kg(-1). At greater uranium concentrations (e.g., [U(VI)](o,sorbed) = ca. 10(-5) mol kg(-1)), the desorption efficiency of the surfactant solutions increases with an increase in surfactant concentration and reaches a plateau of 75 to 80% of the U(VI) initially sorbed. The must probable mechanisms responsible for U(VI) desorption include cation exchange in the electric double layer surrounding the micelles and, to a lesser extent, dissolution of the soil matrix. Limitations associated with the surfactant treatment include loss of surfactants onto the soil (sorption) and greater affinity between U(VI) and the soil matrix at large soil to liquid ratios. Parallel experiments with H2SO4 and carbonate-bicarbonate (CB) solutions indicate that these more conventional methods suffer from strong matrix dissolution with the acid and reduced desorption efficiency with CB due to the buffering capacity of the acidic soil.
引用
收藏
页码:470 / 478
页数:9
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2002, SSSA Book Series, DOI DOI 10.2136/SSSABOOKSER5.1.2ED.C15
[2]   SEQUENTIAL EXTRACTION OF IRON, MANGANESE, ALUMINUM, AND SILICON IN SOILS FROM 2 CONTRASTING WATERSHEDS [J].
ARNSETH, RW ;
TURNER, RS .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1988, 52 (06) :1801-1807
[3]  
*ATOM EN CAN LTD, 1996, DOEMC282455291
[4]  
DAVIS JA, 1990, REV MINERAL, V23, P177
[5]   Uranium(VI) adsorption on goethite and soil in carbonate solutions [J].
Duff, MC ;
Amrhein, C .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1996, 60 (05) :1393-1400
[6]  
GRENETHE I, 1992, CHEM THERMODYNAMICS
[7]   COUNTERION BINDING ON MICELLES - AN ULTRAFILTRATION STUDY [J].
HAFIANE, A ;
ISSID, I ;
LEMORDANT, D .
JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE, 1991, 142 (01) :167-178
[8]  
HSI CKD, 1985, GEOCHIM COSMOCHIM AC, V49, P1931
[9]  
Jackson M. L., 1986, Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods, P101
[10]   UNSATURATED TRANSPORT PROCESSES IN UNDISTURBED HETEROGENEOUS POROUS-MEDIA .1. INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS [J].
JARDINE, PM ;
JACOBS, GK ;
WILSON, GV .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1993, 57 (04) :945-953