|
|
Zhang, H., Gao, J., Xu, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). Case studies of radioactivity of drilling mud for in situ leaching uranium mining in China. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 251-252, 106982.
Abstract: The drilling mud from in situ leaching uranium mining is a type of low-radioactivity waste that contains natural nuclides and other harmful substances. In order to determine whether the drilling mud can meet the requirements of radioactive exemption management standards, field investigations and data simulations were conducted in this study. Two typical uranium mines were selected for onsite investigations. Drilling mud from different layers (i.e., the upper covering layer and ore-bearing layer) and from different stages (e.g., logging stage mud, drilling expansion stage mud, and mixed mud) was sampled. For each sample, the 238U and 226Ra concentrations of the solid components and the U and 226Ra concentrations of the supernatant were analyzed. The results revealed that the highest 238U and 226Ra concentrations of the solid components were 4122 Bq/kg and 4077 Bq/kg, while the 238U and 226Ra concentrations of the mixed drilling mud were all less than 300 Bq/kg. A radioactivity estimation model was established for scenario analysis. Exemption management screening lines of waste drilling mud, which can be used to classify and treat the drilling project according to the deposit’s grade and conditions, were proposed for in situ leaching drilling projects.
|
|
|
|
Zhou, Y., Li, G., Xu, L., Liu, J., Sun, Z., & Shi, W. (2020). Uranium recovery from sandstone-type uranium deposit by acid in-situ leaching – an example from the Kujieertai. Hydrometallurgy, 191, 105209.
Abstract: The factors influencing uranium recovery in water-rock systems during acid in-situ leaching (ISL) were studied at the Kujieertai uranium deposit in Xinjiang. Using an ISL unit, a field leach trial (FLT) had been carried out to test the sequential effects of a leaching solution without oxidant (H2SO4 solution 4–8 g/L) and a leaching solution with oxidant (H2SO4 3–7 g/L, and Fe (III) 2–6 g/L). The observation of the leaching process revealed clearly defined stages of uranium release from the solid mineral to solution. Uranium mobilization from solid mineral into solution can be described in four stages. At the beginning of the acid ISL process, there was no oxidant to be added to the leaching solution and the desorption of hexavalent uranyl ions in the open pores, as well as dissolution of hexavalent uranium minerals, led to a short-term peak in the pregnant solution, which happened while pH decreased from about 5.3 to 2.62. Following the depletion of the adsorbed hexavalent uranium and a decline in uranium dissolution intensity, the addition of Fe(III) facilitated the oxidation of tetravalent uranium, which enabled intensive uranium mobilization again. During this process, the dissolution of uranium had a strong positive correlation with the reduction of Fe(III) and Eh in the leach solution. Beside hydrochemical factors, the deportment of uranium was also an important factor affecting uranium recovery. Uranium located in the open pores can be completely exposed to the solution and the mobilization intensity was significantly affected by hydrogeochemical conditions; but the uranium present in microfissures and in the ore matrix could not be fully exposed to the solution, so, their dissolution intensity was primarily controlled by corrosion and permeability of the ore. In general, the hydrogeochemical conditions and the deportment of uranium were the external and internal factors that significantly affected the dissolution and recovery of uranium in the early and middle stages of the FLT. However, in the latest stages, due to uranium depletion, enhancing the chemical potential of the leaching solution, specifically acidity and/or the amount of oxidant, had little improvement on uranium recovery.
|
|
