Jump to content
Geochemist's Workbench Support Forum

Recommended Posts

I am a little confused by page 16 of the GWB Reactive Transport Modelling Guide.  It implies that swapping a mineral into the basis is equivalent to declaring equilibrium between that mineral and the solution being constructed.  Why is this the case?  Surely its possible to express the chemical composition of a solution in terms of a dissolved mineral (rather than its constituent ions, for example) without the solution actually being saturation with respect to that mineral.

Thanks in advance,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello William,

Modern water chemical analyses are most commonly expressed in dissolved ion concentrations. The GWB programs (React, SpecE8, X1t, X2t) are set up so you can configure the fluid using chemical analysis directly. GWB can swap minerals into the basis as a way to set up the fluid in equilibrium with that mineral. I am not sure how constraining the chemical composition in terms of dissolved minerals is more advantageous than using a chemical analysis or setting a fluid in equilibrium with the mineral.  Are you thinking of a particular example or problem? 

Best regards,

Jia Wang
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...