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 50 条
  • [21] Contaminated sediments in a natural wetland in a uranium deposit
    Groudev, SN
    Komnitsas, K
    Spasova, II
    Georgiev, PS
    Paspaliaris, L
    CHARACTERIZATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS, 2002, : 209 - 216
  • [22] Probing uranium speciation in contaminated Hanford sediments
    Catalano, JG
    Wang, ZM
    McKinley, JP
    Zachara, JM
    Heald, SM
    Brown, GE
    GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA, 2005, 69 (10) : A474 - A474
  • [23] Immobilization of uranium in contaminated sediments by hydroxyapatite addition
    Arey, JS
    Seaman, JC
    Bertsch, PM
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1999, 33 (02) : 337 - 342
  • [24] Quantification of thorium and uranium sorption to contaminated sediments
    Kaplan, DI
    Serkiz, SM
    JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY, 2001, 248 (03) : 529 - 535
  • [26] Quantification of thorium and uranium sorption to contaminated sediments
    D. I. Kaplan
    S. M. Serkiz
    Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2001, 248 : 529 - 535
  • [27] REMOVAL OF URANIUM(VI) FROM AQUEOUS SOLUTION BY RICE HUSK
    Xia, Liangshu
    Li, Reirei
    Xia, Yiqun
    Zheng, Weina
    Tans, Kaixuan
    ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ENGINEERING, 2017, 43 (04): : 41 - 53
  • [28] Removal of uranium (VI) from aqueous solution by adsorption of hematite
    Xie Shuibo
    Zhang Chun
    Zhou Xinghuo
    Yang Jing
    Zhang Xiaojian
    Wang Jingsong
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY, 2009, 100 (02) : 162 - 166
  • [29] Uranium(VI) removal from aqueous solutions by a chelating fiber
    Yuan He
    Xiaoqiang Wang
    Xiaoqin Nie
    Hao Zou
    Ning Pan
    Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2018, 317 : 1005 - 1012
  • [30] Removal of uranium(VI) from aqueous solution by rice husk
    Xia L.
    Li R.
    Xiao Y.
    Zheng W.
    Tan K.
    Environment Protection Engineering, 2021, 43 (04): : 41 - 53