Co-Extraction of Uranium and Mercury Using Ion Exchange from Cemented Radioactive Waste Sulfuric Leachate in Iodide Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production of medical isotopes in Chalk River Laboratories facilities (Chalk River, ON, Canada) has resulted in a large quantity of cemented radioactive waste (CRW) containing valuable elements such as uranium. From the perspective of recovering and ultimately recycling valuable elements from CRW, the solubilization of key constituents such as uranium, mercury, and cesium has been previously investigated using H2SO4/KI. However, to achieve recycling of these elements, separation must be performed as they are co-solubilized. In this study, the extraction of uranium and mercury by chelating resin Lewatit TP260 from surrogate cemented radioactive waste (SCRW) leaching solution in sulfuric media and in the presence of iodide was investigated. Extraction of U and Hg was assessed as a function of the concentration of KI (0.12 M to 0.24 M) used during the SCRW dissolution process. Continuous experiments showed that the Lewatit TP260 functional group, aminomethylphosphonic acid, had a high affinity for U. Mercury was also extracted onto the Lewatit TP260. However, the presence of iodide in the SCRW leaching solution increased the competition between the adsorbed mercury of the stationary phase and the iodide–mercury complexes of the mobile phase. Additionally, the reusability of the resin was tested through extraction and desorption cycles. Due to the presence of trivalent cation, the capacity of Lewatit TP260 for U and Hg decreases with the number of cycles.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".