Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T08:17:18.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Experimental Validation of a Speciation Model Applied to Organic-Rich Groundwaters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

M. B. Crawford
Affiliation:
Fluid Processes Group, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG.
J. J. W. Higgo
Affiliation:
Fluid Processes Group, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG.
J. Davis
Affiliation:
Fluid Processes Group, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG.
Get access

Abstract

Natural organic compounds can play an important role in the transport of radionuclides through the geosphere, but the inclusion of polyelectrolytic fulvic and humic acids into geochemical speciation codes is not straightforward. Schubert ion-exchange experiments have been used to parameterise an equilibrium-based, discrete site-electrostatic model, Model V, which is concerned with predicting trace metal-humic interactions in solution. However, before such a model can be applied to natural groundwaters, its ability to deal with competition between trace cations and anionic ligands has to be tested.

PHREEQEV, which incorporates Model V with the inorganic speciation code PHREEQE, has been used to guide experiments based on a modified Hummel-Dreyer method. To improve speed and precision, these experiments used a HPLC method rather than Sephadex gel, and measured the effect of Ca on Co and Ni binding to fulvic acid. The results were compared with the predictions made by PHREEQEV. Although the system was further complicated by the need to add citric acid to prevent binding of metals to the HPLC column, predictions at pH 5 were good for both metals. At pH 7, the Co binding results were not well predicted and the reasons for this are still unclear. Comparisons between the Schubert and Hummel-Dreyer-type experiments show that the two methods are compatible.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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. Tipping, E. and Hurley, M.A., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 56, 36273641 (1992).Google Scholar
2. Higgo, J.J.W., Kinniburgh, D., Smith, B. and Tipping, E., Radiochim. Acta 61, 91103 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Parkhurst, D.L., Thorstenson, D.C. and Plummer, L.N., US Geol. Survey Water Resources Invstigation 8096, 1980.Google Scholar
4. Crawford, M.B., British Geol. Survey Technical Report WE/93/19, 1993.Google Scholar
5. Hummel, J.P. and Dreyer, W.J., Biochim. Biophys. Acta 63, 530532 (1962).Google Scholar
6. Mantoura, R.F.C. and Riley, J.P., Analytica Chim. Acta 78, 193200 (1975).Google Scholar
7. Smith, B., Higgo, J.J.W. and Moody, P., British Geol. Survey Technical Report WE/91/24, 1991.Google Scholar
8. Maes, A., DeBrabandere, J. and Cremers, A., Radiochim. Acta 44/45, 5157 (1988).Google Scholar
9. Korpela, T.K. and Himanen, J-P., in Aqueous Size-Exclusion Chromatography, edited by Dubin, P.L. (Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1988), pp. 345373.Google Scholar