Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T23:51:58.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Composition, Geochemical Alteration, and Alpha-Decay Damage Effects of Natural Brannerite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Gregory R. Lumpkin ,
S.H.F. Leung  and
M. Colella
Gregory R. Lumpkin
Affiliation:
Materials Division, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Private Mail Bag 1, Menai, NSW 2234, AUSTRALIA
S.H.F. Leung
Affiliation:
Materials Division, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Private Mail Bag 1, Menai, NSW 2234, AUSTRALIA
M. Colella
Affiliation:
Materials Division, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Private Mail Bag 1, Menai, NSW 2234, AUSTRALIA
Get access

Abstract

To investigate the long-term alteration behavior of brannerite, we have undertaken a study of twelve natural samples from a range of geological environments. Our results indicate that seven of the samples exhibit only minor alteration, usually within veinlets or around the rim of the sample. The remaining five samples consist of variable amounts of unaltered and altered brannerite. SEMEDX analyses of unaltered areas indicate that the chemical formulae may deviate from the ideal stoichiometry. The U content ranges from 0.45 to 0.88 atoms per formula unit (pfu). Maximum amounts of the other major cations on the U-site are 0.48 Ca, 0.22 Th, 0.14 Y, and 0.07 Ln (lanthanide = Ce, Nd, Gd, Sm) atoms pfu. The Ti content ranges from 1.86 to 2.10 atoms pfu. Maximum values of other cations on the Ti-site are 0.15 Fe, 0.14 Si, 0.09 Al, 0.06 Nb, 0.04 Mn, and 0.04 Ni atoms pfu. Altered regions of brannerite contain significant amounts of Si and other elements incorporated from the fluid phase, and up to 40-90% of the original amount of U has been lost as a result of alteration. SEM-EDX results also provide evidence for TiO2 phases, galena, and a thorite-like phase as alteration products. Electron diffraction patterns of all samples typically consist of two broad, diffuse rings that have equivalent d-spacings of 0.31 nm and 0.19 nmi, indicating complete amorphization of the brannerite. Many of the grains also exhibit weak diffraction spots due to fine-grained inclusions of a uranium oxide phase and galena. Using the available age data, these samples have average accumulated alpha-decay doses of 2-170 × 1016 alphas/mg. Our results indicate that brannerite is subject to amorphization and may lose U under certain P-T-X conditions, but the overall durability of the titanate matrix remains high.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 608: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIII , 1999 , 359
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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

REFERENCES

1 Ebbinghaus, B.B., Konynenburg, R. Van, Ryerson, F.J., Vance, E.R., Stewart, M.W.A., Jostsons, A., Allender, J.S., Rankin, T., and Congdon, J., presented at Waste Management '98, Tucson, AZ, 1998 (unpublished).Google Scholar
2 Vance, E.R., Watson, J.N., Carter, M.L., Day, R.A., Lumpkin, G.R., Hart, K.P., Zhang, Y., McGlinn, P.J., Stewart, M.W.A., and Cassidy, D.J., presented at the American Ceramic Society Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, 1999 (unpublished).Google Scholar
3 Zhang, Y., Lumpkin, G.R., Hart, K., Day, R., Leung, S., Aly, Z., and Carter, M., presented at theGoogle Scholar
4 Lumpkin, G.R., Smith, K.L., Blackford, M.G., Gieré, R., and Williams, C.T., Micron 25, 581 (1994).Google Scholar
5 Graeser, S. and Guggenheim, R., Schweiz. Mineral. Petrogr. Mitt. 70, 325 (1990).Google Scholar
6 Ludwig, K.R. and Cooper, J.A., Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 86, 298 (1984).Google Scholar
7 Headley, T.J., Ewing, R.C., and Haaker, R.F., Nature 293, 449 (1981).Google Scholar
8 Ewing, R.C. and Headley, T.J., J. Nucl. Mater. 119, 102 (1983).Google Scholar
9 Lumpkin, G.R. and Ewing, R.C., Phys. Chem. Minerals 16, 2 (1988).Google Scholar
10 Lumpkin, G.R., J. Nucl. Mater. 190, 302 (1992).Google Scholar
11 Lumpkin, G.R., Hart, K.P., McGlinn, P.J., Payne, T.E., Gieré, R., and Williams, C.T., Radiochim. Acta 66/67, 469 (1994).Google Scholar
12 Lumpkin, G.R., Smith, K.L., Blackford, M.G., Gieré, R., and Williams, C.T., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXI, edited by McKinley, I.G. and McCombie, C. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 506, Pittsburgh, PA, 1998) pp. 215–222.Google Scholar
13 Pabst, A., Amer. Mineral. 39, 109 (1954).Google Scholar
14 Bianconi, F. and Simonetti, A., Schweiz. Mineral. Petrogr. Mitt. 47, 887 (1967).Google Scholar
15 Ifill, R.O., Cooper, W.C., and Clark, A.H., CIM Bulletin 89, 93 (1996).Google Scholar
16 Szymanski, J.T. and Scott, J.D., Can. Mineral. 20, 271 (1982).Google Scholar
17 Mariano, A.N., in Geochemistry and Mineralogy of Rare Earth Elements, edited by Lipin, B.R. and McKay, G.A. (Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 1989) pp. 309–348.Google Scholar
18 Banfield, J.F. and Veblen, D.R., Amer. Mineral. 77,545 (1992).Google Scholar
19 Mitchell, R.H. and Chakhmouradian, A.R., Can. Mineral. 36,939 (1998).Google Scholar
20 Lumpkin, G.R. and Ewing, R.C., Amer. Mineral. 80, 732 (1995).Google Scholar
21 Lumpkin, G.R. and Ewing, R.C., Amer. Mineral. 81, 1237 (1996).Google Scholar