Jump to content
Geochemist's Workbench Support Forum

ACT2 and REACT not in agreement


webmaster
 Share

Recommended Posts

From: Andrew L. Scott

Subject: ACT2 and REACT not in agreement

I have been trying to model the Yucca Mountain J-13 well water in preparation for performing a sensitivity analysis for U speciation. Attached you will find the Statement of the Problem, some REACT output, the thermo dB, scripts for ACT2 and REACT and some calculation macros. I updated the thermo.com.v8.r6+ dB with the NEA 2003 numbers for U species only at 25 deg C. I hope someone is able to understand and help with my problem. I have tried to be as complete as possible with the materials I have provided, but if there is anything that I have not included or you do not understand something I have done, please feel free to ask. [A note from the admin: The files are not available

 

From: Mark Logsdon

Subject: Re: ACT2 and REACT not in agreement

You certainly have been complete in your information. I regret that I don't have time to go throuygh all your calculations, but I have a quick question on the two bases you use. Your REACT basis gives Na at 2 mmolar and Cl at 0.2 mmolar. But the ACT2 basis has log a Na at - 3.5 and log a Cl at -2.8. Are you sure you are calculating the acivities properly? If you just take log C (as a quick consistency check) I get -2.7 and -3.7, respectively, so the log a values look funny to me - and in fact, their order doesn't look right either. I haven't tried to do this for other components or to check your spreadsheet.

 

From: Tom Meuzelaar

Subject: Re: ACT2 and REACT not in agreement

I think I see the problem. If you allow NO3- to speciate over your activity diagram (in Act2, Basis tab, click the right-most arrow for the NO3- entry, and choose "Speciate over X-Y"), you'll get a very similar diagram to your Act2 plot (the "correct" plot) without NO3- (if you additionally suppress Coffinite, the diagrams look even more similar). In your original "incorrect" activity diagram, there is an implicit assumption that NO3- is stable over your entire Eh-pH range- React predicts, however, that most of your NO3- component will occur as the N2(aq) species- you can confirm this by looking at your React output file. By choosing the "speciate" option in Act2, you're allowing the program to predict which nitrogen species is stable- the outcome greatly effects the final diagram.

 

From: Andrew L. Scott

Subject: RE: ACT2 and REACT not in agreement

Thanks for the feedback, particularly Tom Meuzlaar and Mark Logsdon. Based on their comments, I recalculated the basis and allowed speciation over the X-Y axis in ACT2, and now have perfect agreement (and a greater understanding of process) between ACT2 and REACT.

 

............... view attachments ...........

http://gwb.eligeos.org/attachments/al-scott1.jpg

http://gwb.eligeos.org/attachments/al-scott2.jpg

...................................................

 

If the silicon species is not allowed to speciate, quartz will not precipitate, and allows the precipitation of Haiweeite, a uranyl silicate mineral, at equilibrium. This calls into question the kinetics of the two processes (quartz and Haiweeite precipitation/dissolution) with regard to the mobility of the U in the Yucca Mountain J-13 water (represented by the top-most green dot).

 

............... view attachments ...........

http://gwb.eligeos.org/attachments/al-scott3.jpg

http://gwb.eligeos.org/attachments/al-scott4.jpg

...................................................

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...