Advertisement

Journal of Applied Electrochemistry

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1209–1216 | Cite as

Decontamination of radioactive concrete using electrokinetic technology

  • Gye-Nam Kim
  • Wang-Kyu Choi
  • Kune-Woo Lee
Original Paper

Abstract

The experimental results of the electrokinetic decontamination with 0.01 M of nitric acid were that the cesium ions were removed by up to 52% from the concrete after 15 days, also the cobalt ions were only removed by up to 0.7%. The concrete should be washed with H2SO4 as a pretreatment before electrokintic decontamination to lower its pH below 4.0. The removal efficiencies of 60Co and 137Cs by nitric acid were increased by 3.1 and 2.5% more than those by acetic acid. The larger the particle size of the concrete, the more the removal efficiencies of 60Co and 137Cs were increased. Also, the removal efficiencies of 60Co and 137Cs by the application of an electric current of 20 mA/cm2 were increased by 1.6 and 3.9% more than those by the application of 10 mA/cm2. The removal efficiencies of 60Co and 137Cs from the radioactive concrete of 1,940 Bq/kg were 99.8 and 92.3% by electrokinetic decontamination after pretreatment by the application of an electric current of 20 mA/cm2 for 25 days.

Keywords

Electrokinetic decontamination Concrete Cobalt Cesium Nitric acid 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Nuclear Research & Development Program of the Korea science and engineering foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST).

References

  1. 1.
    Popov K, Glazkova I, Yachmenev V, Nikolayev A et al (2008) Environ Pollut 153:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voinitchi D, Julien S, Lorente S et al (2008) Cem Concr Compos 30:157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Popov K, Glazkova I, Myagkov S, Petrov A et al (2006) Russ Colloid J 68:743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DePaoli DW, Harris MT, Morgan IL, Ally MR et al (1997) Sep Sci Technol 32:387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castellote M, Andrade C, Alonso C et al (2002) Environ Sci Technol 36:2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yurchenko AY, Karlin YU, Nikolaev AN, Karlina OK, Barinov AS et al (2009) At Energy 106:225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris MT, Depaoli DW et al (1997) Sep Sci Technol 32:827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris MT, Depaoli DW et al (1997) Sep Sci Technol 32:387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braud F, Tellier S et al (1998) Int J Environ Anal Chem 68:105Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim SO, Moon SH, Kim KW et al (2001) Water Air Soil Pollut 125:259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Page MM, Page CL et al (2002) ASCE 128:208Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaiyaraksa C, Sriwiriyanuphap N et al (2004) Chemosphere 546:129Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rampley CG, Ogden KL et al (1988) Environ Sci Technol 32(7):987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun B, Zhao FJ, Lombi E et al (2001) Environ Pollut 113:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abumaizar R, Khan LL et al (1996) J Air Waste Manage Assoc 46:765Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kornilovich B, Mishchuk N et al (2005) Colloid Surf A 265:114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giannis A, Gidarakos E, Skouta A et al (2007) Desalination 211:249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Popov K, Glazkova I, Petrov A et al (2007) Colloid Surf 299:198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim GN, Jung YH, Lee JJ, Moon JK, Jung CH et al (2008) Sep Purif Technol 63:116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Korea Atomic Energy Research InstituteDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations