Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 322, Issue 2, pp 923–932 | Cite as

A novel methodology for investigating the redox potential of underground water in China’s Beishan HLW repository site

  • Guangze Yang
  • Mingliang KangEmail author
  • Xi Cheng
  • Yue Ma
  • Yang Liu
  • Jiebiao Li
  • Ju WangEmail author


The determination of the redox potential (Eh) of underground water in repository site is extremely important for long-term safety evaluation. The present study has developed a novel methodology for Eh estimation of the underground water of Beishan borehole 28 (BS28), which consists of the on site logging, the modelling with the characteristics of sampled water and rock cores and the verification study dedicated to evaluate the reliability of the Eh measurement. An Eh range between − 56 and 118 mV is suggested for BS28 underground water at 365–690 m deep after a thorough analysis of both modelling data and measurements.


HLW repository Redox potential (Eh) Beishan site On site measurement Eh modelling 



Funding for this research was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No. 41773095, 41403075) and the Fundamental Research Fund of Sun Yat-sen University No. 45000-18833403). The authors are grateful to Zhichao Zhou, Ming Zhang, Ruili Ji, Weiqiang Li and other workers from Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology, for their skilful and helpful contribution to the on site investigation. Thanks are also given to Prof. Gérard Cote (PSL Research University, Chimie ParisTech - CNRS, France), for his helpful and constructive comments. Declarations of interest: none.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wang J (2010) High-level radioactive waste disposal in China: update 2010. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2:1–11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang J (2014) On area-specific underground research laboratory for geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste in China. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6(2):99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang J, Chen L, Su R, Zhao X (2018) The Beishan underground research laboratory for geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste in China: planning, site selection, site characterization and in situ tests. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10(3):411–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu X, Kang M, Cai Z, Song Y, Shang C, Xu F, Wang J, Li Y, Chen F (2017) Investigation of redox potential of beishan site and its impact on mobility of redox-sensitive radionuclides. J Nucl Radiochem 39(3):227–234Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ma B, Charlet L, Fernandez-martinez A, Kang M, Madé B (2019) A review of the retention mechanisms of redox-sensitive radionuclides in multi-barrier systems. Appl Geochem 100:414–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Albrecht S, Zimmermann T, Grützmann R, Tzmann R, Scheller D, Saeger HD, Distler W (1999) Redox sensitive behavior of selenite in the presence of reactive oxygen species. Are there nonenzymatic direct reaction pathways. Med Klinik 94(Suppl 3):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kang M, Jiang M, Yang Z, Chen F, Liu C (2013) Prediction of the species and solubility of uranium in beishan groundwater. J Nucl Radiochem 35(3):160–166Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kang M, Ma B, Bardelli F, Chen F, Liu C, Zhong Z, Wu S, Charlet L (2013) Interaction of aqueous Se(IV)/Se(VI) with FeSe/FeSe2: implication to Se redox process. J Hazard Mater 248–249:20–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kang M, Bardelli F, Charlet L, Géhin A, Shchukarev A, Chen F, Morel MC, Ma B, Liu C (2014) Redox reaction of aqueous selenite with As-rich pyrite from Jiguanshan ore mine (China): reaction products and pathway. Appl Geochem 47:130–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang Z, Kang M, Ma B, Xie J, Chen F, Charlet L, Liu C (2014) Inhibition of U(VI) reduction by synthetic and natural pyrite. Environ Sci Technol 48(18):10716–10724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Çevirim-papaioannou N, Yal-ıntaş E, Gaona X, Dardenne K, Altmaier M, Geckeis H (2018) Redox chemistry of uranium in reducing, dilute to concentrated NaCl solutions. Appl Geochem 98:286–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stumm W, Morgan J (1970) Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters, 3rd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metz V, Kienzler B, Schussler W (2003) Geochemical evaluation of different groundwater—host rock systems for radioactive waste disposal. J Contam Hydrol 61(1–4):265–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Auqué L, Gimeno MJ, Mez JG, Nilsson AC (2008) Potentiometrically measured Eh in groundwaters from the Scandinavian Shield. Appl Geochem 23(7):1820–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nordstrom DK, Jenne EA, Ball JW (1979) Redox equilibria of iron in acid mine waters. In: Chemical modelling in aqueous system. ACS symposium series, Chapter 3, pp 51–79Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nordstrom DK, Puigdomenech I (1986) Redox chemistry of deep ground-waters in Sweden. SKB. Tech. Rep. Accessed 25 May 2019
  17. 17.
    Grenthe I, Stumm W, Laaksuharju M, Nilsson AC, Wikberg P (1992) Redox potentials and redox reactions in deep groundwater systems. Chem Geol 98(s1–2):131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guan H, Zhang Z, Su X, Long H, Wang B, Yao J, Song Z, Chen X (2009) Calculation on the distribution of americium species in Beishan groundwater. J Nucl Radiochem 31(2):121–124Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Measuring ORP on YSI 6-series sondes: tips, cautions and limitations. YSI Environmental. Accessed 25 May 2019
  20. 20.
    Office of water data coordination (1972) National handbook of recommended methods for water data acquisition. U.S.Geological Survey, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parkhurst DL, Appelo CAJ (1999) User’s guide to PHREEQC (Version 2): a computer program for speciation, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. Water-resources investigation report. U.S.Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Follin S, Stephens MB, Laaksoharju M, Nilsson AC, Smellie JAT, Tullborg EL (2008) Modelling the evolution of hydrochemical conditions in the Fennoscandian Shield during Holocene time using multidisciplinary information. Appl Geochem 23(7):2004–2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iwatsuki T, Yoshida H (1999) Groundwater chemistry and fracture mineralogy in the basement granitic rock in the Tono uranium mine area, Gifu prefecture, Japan—groundwater composition, Eh evolution analysis by fracture filling minerals. Geochem J 33(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC). 2000. H12: Project to establish the scientific and technical basis for HLW disposal in Japan—Supporting Report 3, Safety assessment of the geological disposal system [R/OL]. JNC TN1410 2000-004. Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, IbarakiGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gascoyne M (2004) Hydrogeochemistry, groundwater ages and sources of salts in a granitic batholith on the Canadian shield, southeastern Manitoba. Appl Geochem 19(4):519–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fujimoto K, Ueda A, Ohtani T, Takahashi M, Ito H, Tanaka H, Bouiller AM (2007) Borehole water and hydrologic model around the nojima fault, SW Japan. Tectonophysics 443(3):174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dou S, Chen F, Yang Y, Wu S, Kang M, Zhang R (2010) Estimation of saturation index for the precipitation of secondary minerals during waterrock interaction in granite terrains. Geochim 39(4):326–336Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brigatti MF, Caprilli E, Malferrari D, Mottana A (2007) Crystal structure and crystal chemistry of fluorannite and its relationships to annite. Miner Mag 71(6):683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sino-French Institute of Nuclear Engineering and TechnologySun Yat-sen UniversityZhuhaiChina
  2. 2.Beijing Research Institute of Uranium GeologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations