M F Barakat1, M M Abdel Hamid2. 1. Nuclear and Radiological Control Authority, 3, Ahmed El-Zomor Str., Nasr City, P. O. Box 7551, Cairo, 11787 Egypt. 2. Hot Lab. Center, Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
Valence stabilization of polyvalent ions in gamma irradiated aqueous solutions is sometimes necessary in some chemical operations. In previous publications, valence stabilization of some polyvalent ions in solution upon gamma irradiation was achieved by using inorganic additives capable of interacting with the oxidizing or reducing species formed during water radiolysis. The results showed that the nature and duration of valence stabilization of Fe(II) depend on the concentration of the inorganic additives used. In the present work, a series of some organic additives has been used to investigate their capability in inducing valence stabilization of polyvalent iron ions, taken as an indicator, in aqueous acidic solutions when subjected to extended gamma irradiation. The results showed that the efficiency of valence stabilization depends on the amount and chemical structure of the organic additive used.
Valence stabilization of polyvalent ions in gamma irradiated aqueous solutions is sometimes necessary in some chemical operations. In previous publications, valence stabilization of some polyvalent ions in solution upon gamma irradiation was achieved by using inorganic additives capable of interacting with the oxidizing or reducing species formed during water radiolysis. The results showed that the nature and duration of valence stabilization of Fe(II) depend on the concentration of the inorganic additives used. In the present work, a series of some organic additives has been used to investigate their capability in inducing valence stabilization of polyvalent iron ions, taken as an indicator, in aqueous acidic solutions when subjected to extended gamma irradiation. The results showed that the efficiency of valence stabilization depends on the amount and chemical structure of the organic additive used.
Protective effects against structural and ionic changes induced by traces of
some chemicals during irradiation by X- or γ-radiations have been treated by several
authors [1-5]. It was suggested that protection of irradiated systems
containing aqueous polyvalent ions is a phenomenon that is greatly related to
competitive reactions. Competition depends on the reaction rates and also on the
equilibrium constant of the oxidation reduction reactions occurring in gamma
irradiated aqueous systems containing polyvalent ions.The protective effect of additives in some aqueous irradiated systems was
observed long time ago. Fricke et al. [6] showed that addition of formic acid to X-irradiated aqueous acetic
acid solution highly reduced the oxidation of acetic acid even if the concentration
of the protective agent is 100 times lower than the concentration of acetic
acid.Other authors reported on the existence of protective effects in case of
methylene blue decolorization by α rays, in presence of formic, malonic acids or
gelatin [7]. Saturated compounds act
more weakly than unsaturated compounds [8].Stabilization of the oxidation states of certain polyvalent ions when present in
a strong irradiation field is an important problem in applied radiation
chemistry.It is well known that in aqueous irradiated systems the nature of reactions
between solutes and primary products of water radiolysis are different. The
reactions occurring in presence of transition metal ions generally occur by electron
transfer (Oxidation–Reductions reactions) while in systems containing organic
solutes the reactions predominantly occur by hydrogen abstraction or addition
reactions [9]. It is therefore possible
to expect that in aqueous systems containing both transition metal ions and organic
additives as solutes both type of reactions can occur. Many studies have been
carried out to investigate the role of some inorganic additives in valence
protection of some multivalent ions during radiolysis of their aqueous solutions.
The results showed that valance stabilization continues for periods dependant on the
concentration of the additive used and is most probably due to the competition
reactions of the multivalent ions and the additives for the oxidizing or reducing
species formed in the systems due to water radiolysis [10-14].It is well known that aqueous Fe(II) solutions are rapidly oxidized under the
effect of gamma radiations. The present work aims at investigating the possibility
of protecting the divalent state of iron ions during extended gamma irradiation by
using a series of some organic additives. The results showed that the efficiency of
valence stabilization of Fe(II) during extended gamma irradiation depends on the
amount and chemical structure of the organic additive used.
Experimental
In the present work, extended gamma irradiation of aqueous acidic iron ions
solutions in presence of different types of organic additives comprising alcohols,
aldehydes or organic acids, has been undertaken. The effect of additive type and
concentration on the prevailing reactions of the polyvalent ions in the irradiated
systems has been particularly treated.
Chemicals and materials
Extra pure ferrous ammonium sulphate
(FeSO4(NH4)2SO4·6H2O),
ferrous sulphate (FeSO4·7H2O),
ferric sulphate
(Fe2(SO4)3·9H2O)
were obtained from May and Baker (M & B) Co. LTD., and the British Drug
Houses (B.D.H.) England.Chemically pure methanol, ethanol, n-propanol and n-butanol were obtained from Camberian Chemicals,
England. Acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde were supplied from
Prolabo Co., Paris. Formic acid, chemically pure 100 %, sp.g. 1.231 was also
obtained from Prolabo, France, acetic acid for analysis, 99–100 % sp.g.
1.055–1.050 was obtained from Fein Chemie K–H. Kallies KG, Germany.
Propionic acid, 99 % was obtained from B.D.H. Co. England. All these
chemicals except alcohols were used without further purification. All
alcohols were distilled twice over freshly ignited and cooled CaO.Analytical grade chemicals such as 1.10, phenanthroline (M.W. 180.21)
were obtained from B.D.H. England. Sulphuric acid (98 %); sp.g. 1.84,
hydrochloric acid (35–37 %), sp.g. 1.18, were also obtained from B.D.H.
England.All other chemicals were of the analytical grade reagents and were used
without further purification.
Equipments
All pH measurements were carried out using an Orion Research pH meter model
616 A digital ion analyser with a combined glass-calomel electrodeSpectrophotometric measurements, were carried out using a Shimadzu UV–Vis
double beam spectrophotometer type UV-2l0A. Glass or quartz cells were used
whenever necessary.Potentiometric titrations were carried out using a Radiometer type
PO3 pH meter with Pt and saturated calomel
electrodes.
Preparation of solutions
All solutions were prepared using double distilled water. The water was boiled
then cooled and stored in stoppered glass flasks.
Preparation of iron solutions
Preparation of Fe(II) solution A.R.
FeS04·7H2O crystals were washed
twice with double distilled water followed by A.R. acetone and then dried by
heating at 50 °C for a few minutes. Exactly 2.7803 g of the purified ferrous
sulphate were weighed and dissolved in about 300 ml of freshly boiled and cooled
bidistilled water. The solution was quantitatively transferred to a 1 l flask
together with 22.2 ml cone. H2SO4,
after being diluted with bidistilled water in 400 ml water. The resultant
solution was then completed to the mark to give ~0.01 N Fe(II) solution in 0.8 N
H2SO4.The exact ferrous ion concentrations was determined titrimetrically with a
standard (exactly about 0.1 N) potassium permanganate solution prepared as
described in detail elsewhere. The end point was detected
potentiometricallyPreparation of Fe(III) solution About 0.01 N
Fe(III) solution was prepared by dissolving 3.999 g
Fe2(SO4)3·9H2O
in hot bidistilled water. The resultant solution was filtered and the filtrate
was introduced into a 1 l volumetric flask together with 22.2 ml conc.
H2SO4 previously diluted to
400 ml and the resultant solution was then completed to the mark with double
distilled water to give a solution containing 0.8 N
H2SO4. The exact concentration
of ferric ions in the solution was titrimetrically determined against a standard
EDTA solution using tiron indicator at 40–50 °C. At the equivalence point the
solution turned from green to yellow.
Preparation and irradiation of samples
The irradiated samples were prepared by taking 5 ml of
10−2 M Fe2+ or
Fe3+ in 0.8 N
H2SO4 together with the necessary
amounts of different organic additives and the solutions were completed to the
mark in 50 ml volumetric flasks. The resultant solutions were introduced into
glass irradiation tubes (15 cm long and 2.5 m diameter) provided with a neck 1 cm
in diameter ending with a ground glass stopper.Irradiation of samples was carried out using a Canadian
Co60 gamma cell-220 for extended time periods. The
irradiation dose rate of the gamma cell was around 0.43 KGy per hour. Samples were
withdrawn from the irradiated solutions at intervals and were analyzed. The
irradiation dose of the irradiator was occasionally checked by the well known
ferrous sulphate method.During irradiation care was always taken to keep the position of the
irradiation tubes unchanged along the whole irradiation time.
Analysis of irradiated solution
The concentration of existing Fe(II) ions in the irradiated solutions was
followed spectrophotometrically at intervals by measuring the absorbance of the
orange red complex formed with 1,10-phenanthroline against a reagent blank at
510 nm [15]. The molar absorptivity
is 1.16 × 104 [10]. The unknown concentrations of iron in the analysed samples
were determined by calibration curves constructed within the concentration range
1.0 × 10−5–1.5 × 10−4 M
of Fe(II).
Reaction rate constants
In the present work, all reaction rate constants (k) in
dm3 mol−1 s−1,
were used from the work of Anbar and Neta [16, 17].
Results and discussions
In air free aqueous irradiated systems the following highly reactive primary
water radiolysis products are formed. The corresponding G values, at pH 7 are as follows [18]:In presence of small amounts of oxygen, H and OH radicals are rapidly scavenged
as follows:Consequently, in aerated aqueous systems the most important reaction is the
attack of OH radicals and to a lesser extent the perhydroxyl radicals
() and perhydroxide radical anions () on the prevailing species in the irradiated systems [19].It has been reported before that a 10−3 M Fe(II)
acidic solution (0.08 N H2SO4) was
completely oxidized when irradiated for about 2 h, using a gamma dose rate of
310 Gy/h i.e. after absorbing about 620 grays [13].In the present work, valence stabilization of Fe(II) during extended gamma
irradiation, in presence of different aliphaticorganic acids, aldehydes or
alcohols, has been investigated. Thus, increasing amounts of some aliphatic acids,
aldehydes or alcohols were added to a certain concentration of Fe(II) ions in acidic
aqueous solutions and the concentration of existing Fe(II) was followed
spectrophotometrically during the continued irradiation of the systems. In the
following sections the obtained results are discussed.
Valence stabilization of Fe(II) ions during extended gamma irradiation in
presence of organic acids
In Fig. 1 the change of Fe(II)
concentration during extended gamma irradiation of acidic Fe(II) solutions in
presence of different organic acids is shown, by the solid lines which represent
the actual protection lines. It could be observed that the effect of formic acid,
being more easily oxidized to CO2 and water, is different
from other fatty acids which have more than one carbon atom [9, p. 317]. In case of other acids valence
protection of Fe(II) ions occurs in three steps. The first involves oxidation of
Fe(II) to Fe(III), followed by gradual reduction of Fe(III) to Fe(II) again, the
concentration of which remained almost constant during extended gamma irradiation,
until finally at the end of the valence protection period, the concentration of
Fe(II) ions gradually decreased being finally transformed to Fe(III) ions. That
behaviour could be explained on the basis of competitive reactions occurring
between H or OH radicals—formed in water radiolysis—and the polyvalent ion or the
organic additive.
Fig. 1
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe2+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing a Formic acid, b acetic acid c
propionic acid; at various concentrations: 1—1.6 × 10−3 M (filled circle) 2—3.2 × 10−3 M (times) 3—8.0 × 10−3 M (open circle) 4—16.0 × 10−3 M (open triangle). Dashed
line 100 % protection line, solid
line actual protection
line
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe2+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing a Formic acid, b acetic acid c
propionic acid; at various concentrations: 1—1.6 × 10−3 M (filled circle) 2—3.2 × 10−3 M (times) 3—8.0 × 10−3 M (open circle) 4—16.0 × 10−3 M (open triangle). Dashed
line 100 % protection line, solid
line actual protection
lineThus, in presence of acetic or propionic acid additives, oxidation of Fe(II)
ions occurs very rapidly by OH radicals as follows:At that stage, the organic acid additive probably does not interfere due to
their relatively lower reaction rates as compared to the reaction rate of OH with
Fe(II).When most of the iron ions are present in the Fe(III) state gradual reduction
starts to take place by the action of H radicals as follows:Organic additives are only slightly capable of affecting the reduction
reaction of Fe(III) by H radicals since competition between the organic acids and
Fe(III) forH radicals occurs in favor of the H radical reaction with Fe(III), as
could be deduced from the lower rate values of the following reactions:
whereby,Moreover, organic carboxylate radicals, now present at higher concentrations,
due to H and OH radicals reactions with acids by reactions 5–7 and
9–11 can also contribute to the reduction process of Fe(III) as
follows [20]:This could be further clarified by referring to the standard reduction
potentials [21] of the following
reactions:Using these standard reduction potential values, it is possible to find out
that the equilibrium constant of the reaction [22]is equal to 7.6 × 1032 which shows that the
reaction is very favorable.At that stage, reduction of Fe(III) continues until most iron ions were
reduced to Fe(II) ions.It could also be observed in Fig. 1c
that in presence of propionic acid, reduction of ferric ions occurred more slowly
than in case of acetic acid. This is probably due to the fact that propionic acid
competes more effectively for H radicals than acetic acid. This is further
confirmed by the decrease in the rate of Fe(III) reduction when greater propionic
acid concentrations were used .At the end of Fe(III) reduction stage the concentration of the formed Fe(II)
ions remained almost constant during continued gamma irradiation for durations
depending on the amount of organic acid used. During that stage OH radicals
actively interact with the organic acid existing in the medium (by
reactions 5, 6, 7) being present in
greater excess than Fe(II) ions. At the end of the valence protection stage, the
organic acid concentration gradually decreases and consequently OH radicals
gradually interact with Fe(II) ions until most irons are transformed to the
trivalent state.
Valence stabilization of Fe(II) ions during extended gamma irradiation in
presence of aliphatic aldehydes
In Fig. 2, the solid lines (the actual
protection lines) shows the change of the concentration of Fe(II) ions during
extended gamma irradiation of acidic Fe(II) solutions in presence of organic
aldehydes. Two protection periods exist, the first of which occurs within
50–60 KGys while the second involves longer irradiation periods i.e. larger
doses.
Fig. 2
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe2+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing a Acetaldehyde, b Propionaldehyde, c Butyraldehyde; at various concentrations: 1—1.6 × 10−3 M
(filled circle) 2—3.2 × 10−3 M
(times) 3—8.0 × 10−3 M (open circle) 4—16.0 × 10−3 M (open triangle). Dashed
line 100 % protection line, solid
line actual protection
line
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe2+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing a Acetaldehyde, b Propionaldehyde, c Butyraldehyde; at various concentrations: 1—1.6 × 10−3 M
(filled circle) 2—3.2 × 10−3 M
(times) 3—8.0 × 10−3 M (open circle) 4—16.0 × 10−3 M (open triangle). Dashed
line 100 % protection line, solid
line actual protection
lineIt has been reported before that at the beginning of irradiation Fe(II) ions
are oxidized very rapidly in presence of aliphatic aldehydes and after a very
short steady state Fe(III) is rapidly reduced to Fe(II) ions [12]. On continued irradiation Fe(II) ions
survived until the end of the first protection period at the end of which rapid
oxidation of Fe(II) to the trivalent state occured. The second protection period
starts by the gradual reduction until most of Fe(III) is transformed to Fe(II),
the concentration of which remained almost stable for durations depending on the
aldehyde concentration used.It is possible to assume that the stability of Fe(II) ions during the first
protection period is very probably due to aldehydes acting as OH radical
scavengers according to the following reactions:
WhileAldehydes being present in a great excess as compared to Fe(II) concentration
can effectively remove OH radicals. During the first protection period continued
gamma irradiation continuously changes aldehydes to the corresponding acids
through their transformation to the hydrates followed by their interaction with H
or OH radicals [19].The formed organic radicals can easily change to the corresponding
acids:At the same time, oxidation of Fe(II) by OH radicals is rendered ineffective.
Oxidation of aldehydes to the corresponding acids can also occur by interaction of
oxygen liberated from water radiolysis by the following reaction [23].It is therefore possible to assume that aldehydes are continuously changed
during irradiation to the corresponding acids.At the beginning of the second protection period i.e. during the Fe(III)
reduction by H radicals, aldehydes can enhance the Fe(III) reduction to Fe(II)
being themselves changed to the corresponding acids [24, 25].
This could be further clarified by calculating the equilibrium constant
of these reactions using the standard reduction potential values [22] of the half reactions involved. The
equilibrium constant values obtained are 2.8 × 1026 and
1.4 × 1030 for reactions 24 and 25 respectively
showing that these reaction are very favorable.When all iron present is reduced to the divalent state, continued survival of
Fe(II) ions during the second protection period very probably occurs by continued
interaction of OH radicals with the existing acids. That continues until the
complete exhaustion of the formed acids at the end of the second protection
period.
Valence stabilization of Fe(II) ions, during extended gamma irradiation, in
presence of aliphatic alcohols
Varying amounts of some aliphatic alcohols were added to acidic Fe(II)
solution to investigate the valence stability of Fe(II) ions during extended gamma
irradiation of the solutions. The concentration of Fe(II) was followed
spectrophotometrically and the results are given in Fig. 3. The solid lines represent the change of Fe(II) concentration
during extended gamma irradiation periods.
Fig. 3
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe2+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing a Methanol, b Ethanol, c
Propanol, d Butanol; at various
concentrations: 1—3.2 × 10−3 M (filled circle) 2—4.8 × 10−3 M (times) 3—8.0 × 10−3 M (open circle) 4—14.0 × 10−3 M (open triangle). Dashed
line 100 % protection line, solid
line actual protection
line
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe2+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing a Methanol, b Ethanol, c
Propanol, d Butanol; at various
concentrations: 1—3.2 × 10−3 M (filled circle) 2—4.8 × 10−3 M (times) 3—8.0 × 10−3 M (open circle) 4—14.0 × 10−3 M (open triangle). Dashed
line 100 % protection line, solid
line actual protection
lineIt is possible to observe the existence of two protection periods separated by
an oxidation then reduction stages. It is interesting to note that the first
protection period in case of alcohols is much more developed than in case of
aldehydes, while the second protection period is almost similar to that obtained
in case of aldehydes and acid additives.According to Broszkiewicz [11] at
the beginning of irradiation of 10−4 M Fe(II) in
presence of aliphatic alcohols in 0.1 N
H2SO4 at a dose rate of
2.97 × 1016 eV/ml min−1,
organic peroxides are formed capable of oxidizing several Fe(II) ions per OH
radical as follows [26]:That probably explains the rapid oxidation of Fe(II) at the beginning of
irradiation. This was followed by a steady state whereby after the absorption of
440 Grays reduction of the formed trivalent iron occurred gradually. In general,
after about 1 h of irradiation complete reduction of iron ions to Fe(II) was
observed.In the present work, when the initial oxidation, steady state then reduction
were over, divalent iron ions remained protected upon continued irradiation for
periods dependant on the alcohol concentration used until the end of the first
protection period. This probably shows that alcohols act as active scavengers for
the oxidizing radicals during that period as follows:Although the rate constants of the reactions with alcohols are slightly lower than the rate
constant of reaction with Fe(II) yet, the greater concentration of the
organic alcohols enhances their interaction with OH radicals and consequently the
valence of Fe(II) ions remains rather stable. Moreover, alcohol radicals formed
can further reduce any formed Fe(III) ions being themselves transformed to the
corresponding aldehyde [27].Therefore, during the first protection period alcohols are continuously
transformed to the corresponding aldehydes. Actually, the first protection period
in case of alcohols is much more developed than that occurring in aldehydes. It is
probably possible to assume that the first protection period in presence of
alcohols is due to the protective effect occurring during alcohol transformation
to aldehydes and aldehydes transformation to the corresponding acids. This
probably is confirmed by the fact that the rate constants of OH reaction with
alcohols (reactions 26–29) are comparable to the rate constants of OH
reactions with the corresponding aldehydes (reactions 14, 15).The second protection period in case of alcohol additives is similar to that
observed in case of aldehyde additives. Valance stability of Fe(II) ions is very
probably due to the scavenging effect of the formed organic acids on OH radicals.
This occurs until all the formed organic acids are exhausted leading to the
restoration of the oxidative effect of OH radicals on Fe(II) ions
(reaction 4).
Radiolysis of Fe(III) acidic solutions in presence of organic
additives
It was interesting to investigate the radiolytic behavior of Fe(III) ions in
acidic solutions containing different organic additives. Thus,
10−3 M Fe(III) acidic solutions containing organic
acids, aldehydes or alcohols, were subjected to extended gamma irradiation. Some
representative results are given in Fig. 4. It could be observed that in presence of acetic acid rapid
reduction of Fe(III) occurred at the beginning of irradiation until most of these
ions were transformed to the divalent state. Then a valence protection period of
Fe(II) starts and extends until the acid additive is exhausted whereby a gradual
decay of Fe(II) took place until the complete oxidation of iron to the trivalent
state.
Fig. 4
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe3+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing 16.0 × 10−3 M of: 1—Acetic acid, 2—Acetaldehyde, 3—Ethanol
Percent existing Fe2+ in γ-irradiated
10−3 M Fe3+
solutions (0.08 N H2SO4)
containing 16.0 × 10−3 M of: 1—Acetic acid, 2—Acetaldehyde, 3—EthanolOn using aldehyde or alcohol additives, rapid reduction of iron ions to the
divalent state occurred most probably by reaction 8. Then, two protection periods were observed.In case of aldehyde additive, the first period most probably involves aldehyde
protection accompanied with oxidation of the aldehyde to the corresponding acid.
When the aldehyde is consumed Fe(II) decays gradually to the trivalent state. This
is followed by a reduction stage until iron ions are almost completely reduced to
the divalent state whereby the second protection period started and continued
until the complete decay of the formed acid.In case of alcohol additive two protection periods also exists, as in case of
aldehyde additive. However, the first protection period is much more developed
than in case of aldehyde additives as has been also observed in the Fe(II) systems
discussed before. This has been attributed to the consecutive alcohol and aldehyde
protection of existing divalent iron in the first protection period. At the end of
the first protection period Iron ions are oxidized to the trivalent state. The
second protection period started by the gradual reduction of Fe(III) ions to the
divalent state. This is followed by a valence stable stage, for Fe(II) until the
formed acid is completely exhausted whereby final oxidation of iron(II) occurred.
This conforms with the previous discussions on the prevailing reactions in case of
Fe(II) systems.
Effect of concentration of the organic additives and the resultant valence
protection of Fe(II) during extended gamma irradiation
In order to define the relationship between the amount of the organic additive
used and the resultant protection of the Fe(II) ions in the irradiated systems the
areas under the actual protection lines, in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 were determined in cm2
and were taken as a measure of the occurring protection and were plotted against
the corresponding concentrations of the organic additives used. The results are
shown in Fig. 5. It is clear that good
linear relationships exist between the amount of the organic additive used and the
areas under the protection lines. This confirms the relationship between the
amount of the protective agent used and the valance protection obtained.
Fig. 5
Relationship between the organic additives concentration and the
area under the protection curves (in cm2)
1—Acetic acid, 2—Propionic acid 3—Acetoldehyde, 4—Propionaldehyde, 5—Butyraldehyde, 6—n-Butyl alcohol,
7—n-Propyl alcohol, 8—Ethyl
alcohol, 9—Methyl alcohol
Relationship between the organic additives concentration and the
area under the protection curves (in cm2)
1—Acetic acid, 2—Propionic acid 3—Acetoldehyde, 4—Propionaldehyde, 5—Butyraldehyde, 6—n-Butyl alcohol,
7—n-Propyl alcohol, 8—Ethyl
alcohol, 9—Methyl alcoholIn order to evaluate the overall protection capacity occurring in different
systems, the percent of total protection was determined as follows:where A
p is the area under the protection line and A
t total area under the 100 % protection line.The results are given in Table 1. From
these results it is clear that on using about 15 m moles of the organic additives
per m mole Fe(II) ions, the percent protection is around 70–80 % on using a total
dose of about 450 KGys. Lower molar ratios leads to about 60 % protection at a
total dose of 150–190 KGys.
Table 1
Percent protection of 10−3 M Fe(II)
solution during extended gamma irradiation in presence of different
organic additives
Additive
Conce. used (mM)
Total dosea (KGy)
Total protectionb
(%)
Additive
Conce. used (mM)
Total dosea (KGy)
Total
protectionb (%)
Methanol
14
260
82.9
Ethanol
14
460
76.7
8
140
67.0
8
310
61.0
4.8
145
87.1
4.8
178
70.3
3.2
–
–
3.2
145
72.0
n-Proponol
14
460
73.1
n-Butonol
14
465
75.0
8
290
66.4
8
350
78.5
4.8
185
56.5
4.8
230
76.4
3.2
175
48.1
3.2
180
60.9
Acetic acid
16
470
83.9
Propionic acid
16
535
72
8
255
76.7
8
345
86.6
3.2
165
81.4
3.2
190
71.2
1.6
95
67.0
1.6
100
53.9
Acetaldehyde
16
515
88.9
Propionaldehyde
16
430
75.6
8
300
85.4
8
225
68.3
3.2
167
51.7
3.2
160
54.2
1.6
115
71.2
1.6
125
47.3
Butyraldehyde
16
415
69.97
8
265
64.7
3.2
185
67.3
1.6
125
59.5
aTotal absorbed dose till the complete decay of
the used amount of additive
bPercent taken as a measure of actual
protection
Percent protection of 10−3 M Fe(II)
solution during extended gamma irradiation in presence of different
organic additivesaTotal absorbed dose till the complete decay of
the used amount of additivebPercent taken as a measure of actual
protection
Conclusions
Organic acids, aldehydes and alcohols can effectively protect divalent
iron ions against oxidation under the effect of continued gamma
irradiation.The extent of protection depends on the type and amount of the additives
used.Protection could be attributed to the competition reactions of the
divalent iron ions and organic additive for the oxidizing radicals, formed
during water radiolysis.