Advertisement

Estimation of Distribution Coefficient of Uranium and Its Correlation with Soil Parameters Around Uranium Mining Site

  • G.G. Pandit
  • S. Mishra
  • S. Maity
  • V.D. Puranik
Part of the Springer Geology book series (SPRINGERGEOL)

Abstract

Distribution coefficient of uranium and its daughter products are very important for migration study around uranium mining sites. Since the distribution coefficient depends very much on the soil chemistry, generation of site specific Kd is very important. The present study emphasizes on the estimation of distribution coefficient for uranium and its correlation with various soil parameters. The distribution coefficient of uranium in top and one meter depth soil samples from above locations were estimated using laboratory batch method. The distribution coefficient of uranium varies from 69 to 5524 l/kg. No significant difference in uranium Kd values was observed for top and one meter depth soil samples. A good correlation was observed between distribution coefficient of uranium and soil parameters like pH and concentration of CaCO3.

Keywords

Distribution Coefficient Calcium Carbonate Soil Parameter Ground Water Sample Ammonium Acetate Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Echevarria G, Sheppard M, Morel JL (2001). Effect of pH on the sorption of uranium in soils. J. Environ. Radioactiv. 53:257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1999). Understanding Variation in Partitioning Coefficients, Kd, Values: Volume II: Review of Geochemistry and Available Kd Values for Cadmium, Caesium, Chromium, Lead, Plutonium, Radon, Strontium, Thorium, Tritium and Uranium. US-EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, USA. EPA 402-R-99-004B.Google Scholar
  3. Hsi CKD, Langmuir D (1985). Adsorption of Uranyl onto Ferric Oxyhydroxides: Application of the Surface Complexation Site-binding Model. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 49:1931–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2003). Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technological Options for Remediation. Technical report series 419. STI/DOC/010/419, ISBN 92-0-112503-8.Google Scholar
  5. McKinley JP, Zachara JM, Smith SC, Turner GD (1995). The Influence of Uranyl Hydrolysis and Multiple Site-Binding Reactions on Adsorption of U(VI) to Montmorillonite. Clays Clay Min., 43:586–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Serkiz SM, Johnson WH (1994). Uranium Geochemistry in Soil and Groundwater at the F and H Seepage Basins (U). EPD-SGS-94-307, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Tripathi VS (1984). Uranium(VI) Transport Modeling: Geochemical Data and Submodels. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  8. Turner GD, Zachara JM, McKinley JP, Smith SC (1996). Surface-Charge Properties and UO2 2 + Adsorption of a Subsurface Smectite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60:3399–3414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Vandenhove H, Gil-Garcı C, Rigol A, Vidal M (2009). New best estimates for radionuclide solid–liquid distribution coefficients in soils. Part 2. Naturally occurring radionuclides. J. Environ. Radioactivity.Google Scholar
  10. Waite TD, Payne TE, Davis JA, Sekine K (1992). Alligators Rivers Analogue Project. Final Report Volume 13. Uranium Sorption. ISBN 0-642-599394 (DOE/HMIP/RR/92/0823, SKI TR 92:20–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • G.G. Pandit
    • 1
  • S. Mishra
    • 1
  • S. Maity
    • 1
  • V.D. Puranik
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Assessment DivisionBhabha Atomic Research CentreTrombay, MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations