Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-28T00:29:19.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints on the Affinity Term for Modeling Long-Term Glass Dissolution Rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

William L. Bourcier ,
Susan A. Carroll  and
Brian L. Phillips
William L. Bourcier
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-219, Livermore CA 94550 USA
Susan A. Carroll
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-219, Livermore CA 94550 USA
Brian L. Phillips
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-219, Livermore CA 94550 USA
Get access

Abstract

Predictions of long-term glass dissolution rates are highly dependent on the form of the affinity term in the rate expression. Analysis of the quantitative effect of saturation state on glass dissolution rate for CSG glass (a simple analog of SRL-165 glass), shows that a simple (1-Q/K) affinity term does not match experimental results. Our data at 100°C show that the data is better fit by an affinity term having the form where σ =10.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 333: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVII , 1993 , 507
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1 High-level waste borosilicate glass: a compendium of corrosion characteristics.; J.C. Cunnane, Ed.; Argonne National Laboratory (in press), 1993.Google Scholar
2 Grambow, B., “Nuclear waste glass dissolution: Mechanism, model and application.”, JSS Project, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., 87–02, (1987).Google Scholar
3 Aagaard, P. and Helgeson, H.C., Am. J. Science, 282, 237–285 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Knauss, K.G., Bourcier, W.L., McKeegan, K.D., Merzbacher, C.I., Nguyen, S.N., Ryerson, F.J., Smith, D.K., Weed, H.C. and Newton, L., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 176, 371–381 (1990).Google Scholar
5 Bourcier, W.L., “Geochemical modeling of radioactive wasteglass dissolution using EQЗ/6: Preliminary results and data needs”, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCID-21869, (1989).Google Scholar
6 Advocat, T., Crovisier, J.L., Fritz, B. and Vernaz, E., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc, 176, 241–248 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Jørgensen, S.S., Acta Chem. Scandinavia, 22, 335–341 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Svensson, U. and Dreybrodt, W., Chem. Geol., 100,129–145 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Nagy, K.L. and Blum, A.E., Lasaga, A.C. , Am. J. Science, 291, 649–686 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Burch, T.E., Nagy, K.L. and Lasaga, A.C., Chem. Geol., 105,137–162 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Rimstidt, J.D. and Barnes, H.L., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 44,1683–1699 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar