Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:35:36.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiolysis and Ageing of C2-BTP in Cinnamaldehyde/Hexanol Mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2011

Anna Fermvik ,
Christian Ekberg ,
Teodora Retegan  and
Gunnar Skarnemark
Anna Fermvik
Affiliation:
[email protected], Chalmers University of Technology, Nuclear Chemistry, Kemiv. 4, Gothenburg, SE-412 96, Sweden
Christian Ekberg
Affiliation:
[email protected], Chalmers University of Technology, Nuclear Chemistry, Kemiv. 4, Gothenburg, SE-412 96, Sweden
Teodora Retegan
Affiliation:
[email protected], Chalmers University of Technology, Nuclear Chemistry, Kemiv. 4, Gothenburg, SE-412 96, Sweden
Gunnar Skarnemark
Affiliation:
[email protected], Chalmers University of Technology, Nuclear Chemistry, Kemiv. 4, Gothenburg, SE-412 96, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

The separation of actinides from lanthanides is an important step in the alternative methods for nuclear waste treatment currently under development. Polycyclic molecules containing nitrogen are synthesised and used for solvent extraction. A potential problem in the separation process is the degradation of the molecule due to irradiation or ageing. An addition of nitrobenzene has proved to have an inhibitory effect on degradation when added to a system containing C2-BTP in hexanol before irradiation. In this study, 2,6 di(5,6 diethyl 1,2,4 triazin 3 yl)pyridine (C2-BTP) was dissolved in different mixtures of cinnamaldehyde and hexanol and the effects on extraction after ageing and irradiation were investigated. Similar to nitrobenzene, cinnamaldehyde contains an aromatic ring which generally has a relatively high resistance towards radiolysis. Both C2-BTP in cinnamaldehyde and C2-BTP in hexanol seem to degrade with time. The system with C2-BTP in pure hexanol is relatively stable up to 17 days but then starts slowly to degrade. The solution with pure cinnamaldehyde as diluent started to degrade after only ∼20 hours. The opposite is true for degradation caused by radiolysis; hexanol systems are more sensitive to radiolysis than cinnamaldehyde systems. Most of the radiolytic degradation took place during the first days of irradiation, up to a dose of 4 kGy.

Keywords

radiation effectsactinidewaste management
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 985: Symposium NN – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXX , 2006 , 0985-NN03-20
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

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

1. IAEA Website: <http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS- 126_web.pdf> [Accessed Sept 27, 2006].+[Accessed+Sept+27,+2006].>Google Scholar
2. Choppin, G., Liljenzin, J-O. and Rydberg, J., Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, 3rd ed. (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002) Ch. 21.Google Scholar
3. Musikas, C., Schulz, W.W and Liljenzin, J-O., in Solvent Extraction Principles and Practice, edited by Rydberg, J., Cox, M., Musikas, C. and Choppin, G. R., (Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, 2004), pp. 507–557.Google Scholar
4. Ekberg, C., Andersson, S., Drouet, F., Foreman, M.R.S., Hudson, M.J., Liljenzin, J-O., Magnusson, D., Nilsson, M., Retegan, T. and Skarnemark, G., Abstracts of Papers, 232nd ACS National Meeting, San Fransisco, CA, 2006.Google Scholar
5. György, I. and Wojnarovits, L., in Radiation Chemistry of Hydrocarbons, edited by G., Földiak (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Budapest, 1981) pp. 17–53.Google Scholar
6. Andersson, S., Ekberg, C., Fermvik, A., Liljenzin, J-O., Magnusson, D., Meridiano, Y., Nilsson, M., Retegan, T. and Skarnemark, G., Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., SKB Report R-06–45 (2006).Google Scholar
7. Nilsson, M., Andersson, S., Ekberg, C., Foreman, M.R.S., Hudson, M.J., Liljenzin, J-O., Magnusson, D. and Skarnemark, G., Radiochim. Acta, 94 (1), 1–4 (2006).Google Scholar
8. Hudson, M.J., Boucher, C.E., Braekers, D., Desreux, J.F., Drew, M.G.B., Foreman, M.R.S.J., Harwood, L.M., Hill, C., Madic, C., Marken, F. and Youngs, T.G.A., New J. Chem. 30, 1171–1183 (2006).Google Scholar
9. Manion, J.P. and Burton, M., J. Phys. Chem., 56, 560–569 (1952).Google Scholar
10. Swallow, A.J., Progr. Reaction Kinetics, 9 (3/4), 195–366 (1978).Google Scholar
11. MacLachlan, A. and McCarthy, R.L., Journal of the American Chem. Society, 84, 2519–2524 (1962).Google Scholar
12. Sherman, W.V., Journal of Phys. Chem. 71 (13), 4245–4255 (1967).Google Scholar
13. Davids, E.L., Warman, J.M. and Hummel, A., Journal of Chem. Society, Faraday Transactions 1, 71 (6), 1252–1264 (1974).Google Scholar
14. Kolarik, Z., Solvent Extr. Ion Exch. 21 (3), 381–397 (2003).Google Scholar
15. Kolarik, Z., Müllich, U. and Gassner, F., F. Solvent Extr. Ion Exch. 17 (5), 1155–1170 (1999).Google Scholar
16. Hill, C., Berthon, L., Bros, P., Dancausse, J-P. and Guillaneux, D., Proceedings of the 7th International Exchange Meeting on Actinide and Fission Product Partitioning, Jeju, Korea, 14–16 October (2002).Google Scholar
17. M.G.B Drew, Foreman, M.R.S.J., Geist, A., Hudson, M.J., Marken, F., Norman, V. and Weigl, M., Polyhedron, 25, 888–900 (2006).Google Scholar
18. Solomons, T.W.G., Organic Chemistry, 6th ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1996) p. 740.Google Scholar