Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:35:23.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of alkaline (pH 8.3–12.0) and saline solutions on chemical, mineralogical and physical properties of two different bentonites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

T. Heikola ,
S. Kumpulainen ,
U. Vuorinen ,
L. Kiviranta  and
P. Korkeakoski
T. Heikola*
Affiliation:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Otakaari 3K Espoo, 02044 VTT, Finland
S. Kumpulainen
Affiliation:
B+Tech Oy, Laulukuja 4, 00420 Helsinki, Finland
U. Vuorinen
Affiliation:
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Otakaari 3K Espoo, 02044 VTT, Finland
L. Kiviranta
Affiliation:
B+Tech Oy, Laulukuja 4, 00420 Helsinki, Finland
P. Korkeakoski
Affiliation:
Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, 27160 Eurajoki, Finland
*
*E-mail: tiina.heikola@vtt.fi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The interaction of two different bulk bentonites (Na- and Ca-types) with three types of simulated cement waters (pH 9.7, 11.3 and 12.0) and one saline groundwater simulate (pH 8.3) as a reference, was studied in batch reactors at 25°C. The solution pH was monitored in order to keep the pH as steady as possible by replacing the leaching solution with fresh one when needed. After 554 days, one set of parallel samples was removed from the experiment in order to investigate the possible changes in the bentonite materials.

The buffering capacity of bentonite was clearly observed, especially at the beginning of the high-pH experiments, as the pH of the leaching solutions decreased quite dramatically due to interaction with bentonite. The solution chemistry results showed a decrease of Ca content in all leachate samples, but especially in pH 12.0 experiments. Small amounts of silica were released throughout the experiment. Both bentonites in pH 12.0 experiments also released detectable amounts of Al, while in the lower pH experiments the levels were below detection limit. These observations were also supported by chemical analyses of the bentonite materials. Only minor changes were detected in the mineralogy, and they were mainly concentrated on experiments at pH 11.3 and pH 12.0. The measured swelling pressure showed an increase in pH 12.0 experiments. The results obtained in this research may facilitate modelling of bentonite interaction with high-pH solutions.

Keywords

bentonite bufferalterationbatchbentonitealkalinesaline spent nuclear fuelunderground repository
Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 309 - 329
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2013 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2013

References

Ammann, L., Bergaya, F. & Lagaly, G. (2005) Determination of the cation exchange capacity of clays with copper complexes revisited. Clay Minerals, 40, 441–453.10.1180/0009855054040182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baes, C.F. Jr. & Mesmer, R.E. (1976) Hydrolysis of Cations. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
Belyayeva, N.I. (1967) Rapid method for simultaneous determination of the exchange capacity and content of exchangeable cations in solonetzic soils. Soviet Soil Science, 3, 1409–1413.Google Scholar
Bodén, A. & Sievänen, U. (2005) Low-pH Injection Grout for Deep Repositories. Summary report from a co-operation project between NUMO (Japan), Posiva (Finland) and SKB (Sweden) . Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Report R 05-40.Google Scholar
Claret, F., Bauer, A., Schafer, T., Griffault, L. & Lanson, B. (2002) Experimental investigation of the interaction of clays with high-pH solutions: a case study from the Callovo-oxfordian formations, Meuse-Haute Marne underground laboratory (France). Clays and Clay Minerals, 50, 633–646.10.1346/000986002320679369Google Scholar
Delgado, A.H., Paroli, R.M. & Beaudoin, J.J. (1996) Comparisons of IR techniques for characterization of construction cement minerals and hydrated products. Applied Spectroscopy, 50, 970–976.Google Scholar
Dixon, D.A., Chandler, N.A. & Baumgartner, P. (2002). The influence of groundwater salinity and interfaces on the performance of potential backfilling materials. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Design and Construction of Final Repositories, Backfilling in Radioactive Waste Disposal, Brussels, 11–13 March 2002. ONDRAF/ NIRAS, Brussels, Belgium. Transactions, Session IV, Paper 9.Google Scholar
Heikola, T. (2009) Dynamic Leach Testing of Low- and Medium-pH Injection Grouts to Be Used in Deep Repositories – Cementitious Materials in Deep Geological Repositories. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland. Posiva Working Report 2008-92.Google Scholar
Jackson, M.L. (1975) Soil Chemical Analysis – Advanced Course. 2nd edition. Madison, Wisconsin. 991 pp.Google Scholar
Karnland, O., Olsson, S. & Nilsson, U (2006) Mineralogy and Sealing Properties of Various Bentonites and Smectite-rich clay materials. SKB Technical Report, TR-06-30, Sweden.Google Scholar
Karnland, O., Olsson, S., Nilsson, U. & Sellin, P. (2007) Experimentally determined swelling pressures and geochemical interactions of compacted Wyoming bentonite with highly alkaline solutions. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 32, 275–286.Google Scholar
Kaufhold, S. & Dorhmann, R. (2011) Stability of bentonites in salt solutions III – Calcium hydroxide. Applied Clay Science, 51, 300–307.10.1016/j.clay.2010.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiviranta, L. & Kumpulainen, S. (2011) Quality Control and Characterization of Bentonite Materials. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland. Posiva Working Report 2011-84.Google Scholar
Knauss, K.G. & Wolery, T.J. (1988) The dissolution kinetics of quartz as a function of pH and time at 70°C. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 52, 43–53.10.1016/0016-7037(88)90055-5Google Scholar
Kronlöf, A. (2005) Injection Grout for Deep Repositories – Low-pH Cementitious Grout for Large Fractures: Testing Technical Performance of Materials. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland. Posiva Working Report 2004-45.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, S. & Kiviranta, L. (2011) Mineralogical, Chemical and Physical Study of Potential Buffer and Backfill Materials from AMB Test Package 1. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland. Posiva Working Report 2011-41.Google Scholar
Meier, L.P. & Kahr, G. (1999) Determination of the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of clay minerals using the complexes of copper(II) ion with triethylenetetramine and tetraethylenepentamine. Clays and Clay Minerals, 47, 386–388.10.1346/CCMN.1999.0470315Google Scholar
Moore, D.M. & Reynolds, R.C. (1989) X-ray Diffraction and the Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals. Oxford University Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Mosser-Ruck, R. & Cathelineau, M. (2004) Experimental transformation of Na-Ca-smectite under basic conditions at 150°C. Applied Clay Science, 26, 259–273.10.1016/j.clay.2003.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, S., Cuevas, J., Vigil, R. & Leguey, S. (2002) Hydrothermal alteration of “La Serrata” bentonite (Almeria, Spain) by alkaline solutions. Applied Clay Science, 21, 257–269.10.1016/S0169-1317(02)00087-XGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L., Cuevas, J., Ramírez, S., Riuiz De León, D., Fernández, R., Vigil Dela Villa, R. & Leguey, S. (2006) Reaction kinetics of FEBEX bentonite in hyperalkaline conditions resembling the cement –bentonite interface. Applied Clay Science, 33, 125–141.10.1016/j.clay.2006.04.008Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Matsuda, S. (1969) Structure of vaterite and infrared spectra. Zeitshcrift für Kristallographie, 129, 405–410.Google Scholar
Savage, D. & Benbow, S. (2007) Low pH Cements. Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden. SKI Report 2007:32.Google Scholar
Savage, D., Noy, D. & Mihara, M. (2002) Modelling the interaction of bentonite with hyperalkaline fluids. Applied Geochemistry, 17, 207–223.10.1016/S0883-2927(01)00078-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, S., Sazarashi, M., Akimoto, T., Haginuma, M. & Suzuki, K. (2008) A study of the mineralogical alteration of bentonite in saline water. Applied Clay Science, 41, 190–198.10.1016/j.clay.2007.11.003Google Scholar
Vuorinen, U., Lehikoinen, J., Harutake, I., Yamamoto, T. & Cruz Alonso, M. (2005) Injection Grout for Deep Repositories Subproject 1: Low-pH Cementitious Grout for Larger Fractures, Leach Testing of Grout Mixes and Evaluation of the Long-Term Safety. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland. Posiva Working Report 2004-46.Google Scholar
Vuorinen, U., Lehikoinen, J., Luukkonen, A. & Ervanne, H. (2006) Effects of Salinity and High pH on Crushed Rock and Bentonite – Experimental Work and Modelling. Posiva Oy, Olkiluoto, Finland. Posiva Report 2006-1Google Scholar
Wilson, M.J., editor (1987) A Handbook of Determinative Methods in Clay Mineralogy. Blackie & Son Limited, Glasgow and London.Google Scholar
Wolery, T.J. 1983. EQ3NR a computer program for geochemical aqueous speciation-solubility calculations: User's guide and documentation. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory UCRL-53414, Livermore, CA, USA. 202 ppGoogle Scholar