Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:33:43.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferential leaching and natural annealing of alpha-recoil tracks in metamict betaflte and samarskite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

G. R. Lumpkin ,
R. C. Ewing  and
Y. Eyal
G. R. Lumpkin
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
R. C. Ewing
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Y. Eyal
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
Get access

Abstract

Leaching experiments on naturally occurring, metamict betafite and samarskite minerals in a bicarbonate-carbonate solution show strongly enhanced release to the solution of short-lived 228Th relative to its parent isotope 232Th (by a factor of 3 to 6), but only slightly enhanced dissolution (by a factor of 1.2 to 2) of long-lived 234U and 230Th relative to 238U and 232Th, respectively. The betafite (a complex Ca–U–Ti–Nb oxide of the pyrochlore group, A2−mB2X6Y0−1.H2O) and samarskite (a complex Y–Fe–U–Nb oxide with varying stoichiometry between AB O4 and AB2O6) are x-ray and electron diffraction amorphous having experienced doses of 2.2–2.8 × 1017 alpha-decay events/mg (24–31 dpa) and 3.8–4.4 × 1017 alpha-decay events/mg (39–45 dpa), respectively. The isotopic fractionation is attributed to the radiation damage created by the alpha-decay events. Individual alpha-recoil tracks are preserved for some time as disordered regions of higher chemical reactivity in already fully damaged, aperiodic areas that result from the alpha-decay events. The annealing time of the alpha-recoil track within the aperiodic atomic array of the metamict state is calculated to be 29 300 ± 8100 years for samarskite and 42 700 ± 13 700 years for the betafite. These data plus data on an earlier studied betafite sample (annealing time = 2000 ± 1300 years) give an average annealing time of 25 000 ± 21 000 years. The variation in calculated annealing time is due, in part, to post-metamict alteration of the sample, particularly for the betafite. The wider range of values for the betafite is attributed to its greater degree of alteration. These results demonstrate that recoil nuclei of alpha-decay events may be selectively leached from damaged, aperiodic phases, but that these tracks are subject to low-temperature annealing in short periods of time relative to the age of the samples (∼ 500 m.y.). The same phenomena are expected in actinide-containing nuclear waste form glasses.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 357 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Eyal, Y. and Kaufman, A., Nucl. Technol. 58, 77 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Eyal, Y., in Scientific Basisfor Nuclear Waste Management V, edited by Lutze, W. (Elsevier, New York, 1982), Vol. 11, p. 399.Google Scholar
3Eyal, Y. and Fleischer, R. L., Nature 314, 518 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Eyal, Y. and Fleischer, R. L., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 49, 1155 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Eyal, Y., Lumpkin, G. R., and Ewing, R. C., in Scientific Basis for Radioactive Waste Management IX, edited by Werme, L. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1986), Vol. 50, p. 379.Google Scholar
6Eyal, Y., Lumpkin, G. R., and Ewing, R. C., in Scientific Basis for Radioactive Waste Management X, edited by Bates, J. K. and Seefeldt, W. B. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1987), Vol. 84, p. 635.Google Scholar
7Lumpkin, G. R. and Ewing, R. C., in Scientific Basisfor Radioactive Waste Management VIII, edited by Jantzen, C. M., Stone, J. A., and Ewing, R. C. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1985), Vol. 44, p. 647.Google Scholar
8Sugitani, Y., Suzuki, Y., and Nagashima, K., Am. Mineral. 69, 377 (1984).Google Scholar
9Sugitani, Y., Suzuki, Y., and Nagashima, K., Am. Mineral. 70, 856 (1985).Google Scholar
10Nilssen, B., Nor. Geol. Tidsskr. 50, 357 (1970).Google Scholar
11Ringwood, A. E., Am. Scientist 70, 201 (1982).Google Scholar
12Ringwood, A. E., Mineral. Mag. 49, 159 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Lumpkin, G. R., Ewing, R. C., Chakoumakos, B. C., Greegor, R. B., Lytle, F. W., Foltyn, E. M., Clinard, F. W., Jr., Boatner, L. A., and Abraham, M. M., J. Mater. Res. 1, 564 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Dosch, R. G., Headley, T. J., and Hlava, P., Am. Ceram. Soc. J. 67, 354 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Morgan, P. E. D., Shaw, T. M., and Pugar, E. A., in Advances in Ceramics, edited by Wicks, G. W. and Ross, W. A. (American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1984), Vol. 8, p. 209.Google Scholar
16Weber, W. J., Wald, J. W., and Matzke, Hj., Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VIII, edited by Jantzen, C. M., Stone, J. A., and Ewing, R. C. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1985), Vol. 44, p. 679.Google Scholar
17Muller, O. and Roy, R., The Major Ternary Structural Families (Springer, New York, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Weber, W. J. and Matzke, Hj., Radiat. Eff. 98, 259 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Bence, A. E. and Albee, A. L., J. Geol. 76, 382 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Albee, A. L. and Ray, L., Anal. Chem. 42, 1408 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Lumpkin, G. R., Foltyn, E. M., and Ewing, R. C., J. Nucl. Mater. 139, 113 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Headley, T. J., Ewing, R. C., and Haaker, R. F., Nature 293, 449 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Mitchell, R. S., Southeast. Geol. 12, 121 (1970).Google Scholar
24Palache, C., Berman, H., and Frondel, C., in Dana's System of Mineralogy (Wiley, New York, 1944), Vol. 1, pp. 797–801.Google Scholar
25Komkov, A. I., Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Earth-Sci. Sect. 160, 127 (1965).Google Scholar
26Hogarth, D. D., Am. Mineral. 62, 403 (1977).Google Scholar
27Mazzi, F. and Munno, R., Am. Mineral. 68, 262 (1983).Google Scholar
28Ewing, R. C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 39, 521 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Rosholt, J. N., Shields, W. R., and Garner, E. L., Science 139, 224 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Kobashi, A., Sato, K., Sato, J., and Tominaga, T., Radiochim. Acta 26, 107 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Kobashi, A. and Tominaga, T., Radiochim. Acta 30, 205 (1982) and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Greegor, R. B., Lytle, F. W., Chakoumakos, B. C., Lumpkin, G. R., Ewing, R. C., Spiro, C. L., and Wong, J., in Scientific Basisfor Radioactive Waste Management X, edited by Bates, J. K. and Seefeldt, W. B. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1987), p. 645.Google Scholar