MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uranium in natural waters and the environment: Distribution, speciation and impact

2022· article· en· W4311183355 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Geochemistry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsFelsicGeologyAquiferGroundwaterAridGeochemistryAlluvial fanStructural basinVolcanic rockHydrology (agriculture)VolcanoSedimentary rockGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concentrations of U in natural waters are usually low, being typically less than 4 μg/L in river water, around 3.3 μg/L in open seawater, and usually less than 5 μg/L in groundwater. Higher concentrations can occur in both surface water and groundwater and the range spans some six orders of magnitude, with extremes in the mg/L range. However, such extremes in surface water are rare and linked to localized mineralization or evaporation in alkaline lakes. High concentrations in groundwater, substantially above the WHO provisional guideline value for U in drinking water of 30 μg/L, are associated most strongly with (i) granitic and felsic volcanic aquifers, (ii) continental sandstone aquifers especially in alluvial plains and (iii) areas of U mineralization. High-U groundwater provinces are more common in arid and semi-arid terrains where evaporation is an additional factor involved in concentrating U and other solutes. Examples of granitic and felsic volcanic terrains with documented high U concentrations include several parts of peninsular India, eastern USA, Canada, South Korea, southern Finland, Norway, Switzerland and Burundi. Examples of continental sandstone aquifers include the alluvial plains of the Indo-Gangetic Basin of India and Pakistan, the Central Valley, High Plains, Carson Desert, Española Basin and Edwards-Trinity aquifers of the USA, Datong Basin, China, parts of Iraq and the loess of the Chaco-Pampean Plain, Argentina. Many of these plains host eroded deposits of granitic and felsic volcanic precursors which likely act as primary sources of U. Numerous examples exist of groundwater impacted by U mineralization, often accompanied by mining, including locations in USA, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Portugal, China, Egypt and Germany. These may host high to extreme concentrations of U but are typically of localized extent. The overarching mechanisms of U mobilization in water are now well-established and depend broadly on redox conditions, pH and solute chemistry, which are shaped by the geological conditions outlined above. Uranium is recognized to be mobile in its oxic, U(VI) state, at neutral to alkaline pH (7–9) and is aided by the formation of stable U–CO3(±Ca, Mg) complexes. In such oxic and alkaline conditions, U commonly covaries with other similarly controlled anions and oxyanions such as F, As, V and Mo. Uranium is also mobile at acidic pH (2–4), principally as the uranyl cation UO22+. Mobility in U mineralized areas may therefore occur in neutral to alkaline conditions or in conditions with acid drainage, depending on the local occurrence and capacity for pH buffering by carbonate minerals. In groundwater, mobilization has also been observed in mildly (Mn-) reducing conditions. Uranium is immobile in more strongly (Fe-, SO4-) reducing conditions as it is reduced to U(IV) and is either precipitated as a crystalline or ‘non-crystalline’ form of UO2 or is sorbed to mineral surfaces. A more detailed understanding of U chemistry in the natural environment is challenging because of the large number of complexes formed, the strong binding to oxides and humic substances and their interactions, including ternary oxide-humic-U interactions. Improved quantification of these interactions will require updating of the commonly-used speciation software and databases to include the most recent developments in surface complexation models. Also, given their important role in maintaining low U concentrations in many natural waters, the nature and solubility of the amorphous or non-crystalline forms of UO2 that result from microbial reduction of U(VI) need improved quantification. Even where high-U groundwater exists, percentage exceedances of the WHO guideline value are variable and often small. More rigorous testing programmes to establish usable sources are therefore warranted in such vulnerable aquifers. As drinking-water regulation for U is a relatively recent introduction in many countries (e.g. the European Union), testing is not yet routine or established and data are still relatively limited. Acquisition of more data will establish whether analogous aquifers elsewhere in the world have similar patterns of aqueous U distribution. In the high-U groundwater regions that have been recognized so far, the general absence of evidence for clinical health symptoms is a positive finding and tempers the scale of public health concern, though it also highlights a need for continued investigation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it