| Literature DB >> 31001521 |
Yaqi Ji1,2, Piotr M Kowalski1,2, Philip Kegler1,2, Nina Huittinen3, Nigel A Marks4, Victor L Vinograd1,2, Yulia Arinicheva1,2,5, Stefan Neumeier1,2, Dirk Bosbach1,2.
Abstract
Lanthanide phosphates (LnPO 4) are considered as a potential nuclear waste form for immobilization of Pu and minor actinides (Np, Am, and Cm). In that respect, in the recent years we have applied advanced atomistic simulation methods to investigate various properties of these materials on the atomic scale. In particular, we computed several structural, thermochemical, thermodynamic and radiation damage related parameters. From a theoretical point of view, these materials turn out to be excellent systems for testing quantum mechanics-based computational methods for strongly correlated electronic systems. On the other hand, by conducting joint atomistic modeling and experimental research, we have been able to obtain enhanced understanding of the properties of lanthanide phosphates. Here we discuss joint initiatives directed at understanding the thermodynamically driven long-term performance of these materials, including long-term stability of solid solutions with actinides and studies of structural incorporation of f elements into these materials. In particular, we discuss the maximum load of Pu into the lanthanide-phosphate monazites. We also address the importance of our results for applications of lanthanide-phosphates beyond nuclear waste applications, in particular the monazite-xenotime systems in geothermometry. For this we have derived a state-of-the-art model of monazite-xenotime solubilities. Last but not least, we discuss the advantage of usage of atomistic simulations and the modern computational facilities for understanding of behavior of nuclear waste-related materials.Entities:
Keywords: atomistic simulations; ceramics; monazite; nuclear waste management; rare-earth phosphates; solid solutions; thermodynamics; xenotime
Year: 2019 PMID: 31001521 PMCID: PMC6456693 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2019.00197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Figure 1(Left) The measured and computed Ln-O bond-length in LnPO4 compounds. (Right) The Hubbard U parameter computed for LnPO4 compounds. The data come from Blanca-Romero et al. (2014) and Beridze et al. (2016).
Figure 2The computed (blue filled squares) and measured (black filled (monazite) and open (xenotime) circles) (Ushakov et al., 2001) formation enthalpy from oxides for LnPO4 compounds. The following Ln2O3 oxides were taken into account: A-type (La-Nd), B-type (Sm), and C-type (Eu-Lu). The data comes from Beridze et al. (2016).
Figure 3The computed enthalpy difference between monazite and xenotime LnPO4 compounds. The three data series represent our ab initio calculations (black filled circles), the model of Mogilevsky (2007) (red filled squares) and the model of Mogilevsky (2007) (Equations 1, 2) assuming the ionic radius of the 9-fold coordinated transition Ln cation is 1.102Å.
The thermal conductivity in (W m−1K−1) simulated and measured for LaPO4 (monazite) and LuPO4 (xenotime).
| 4.0 | 3.6 | |
| 11.7 | 12.0 |
The references are these of:
this work,
Feng et al. (,
Du et al. (,
Ji et al. (,
Hikichi et al. (.
Figure 4The computed (blue filled squares) (Kowalski and Li, 2016; Ji et al., 2017a) and measured (black filled circles) Young's modulus for selected lanthanide phospahtes monazites and xenotimes. Red triangles represent the model used by Mogilevsky (2007).
Figure 5The variation of the standard heat capacity and standard entropy from LnPO4. The different symbols represent the computed C [filled blue cirlces (monazite) and squares (xenotime)] and measured (C) values [see Kowalski et al. (2015); Ji et al. (2017a)]. The open blue symbols represent the lattice vibration contribution to the heat capacity and entropy. The difference between the filled and open blue circles is due to the thermal excitation of 4f electrons (Schottky effect).
The Margules interaction parameters W and the difference in volumes of endmembers (ΔV) for La1−LnPO4 (Ln = Eu, Gd, Pu) monazite-type solid solutions.
| 7.6 | 5.2 | 13.4 | 6.2 | 2.5 ± 2.6 | |
| 8.4 | 6.1 | 16.5 | 8.6 | 11.4 ± 3.1 | |
| 4.3 | 2.9 | 4.0 | 1.9 |
The provided W parameters come from:
Li et al. (,
Kowalski and Li (,
Neumeier et al. (.
Figure 6The formation enthalpy from oxides of La1−xPuxPO4 solid solution compounds. The lines represent results taking Pu2O3 (dashed) and PuO2 (solid) as a reference.
Figure 7The computed maximum solubility of Y-xenotime in monazite at T = 1473K. Different sets represent our ab initio prediction (filled blue squares), prediction using Equation 5 [open blue squares, Kowalski and Li (2016)] and measurements [filled black circles, Andrehs and Heinrich (1998); Mogilevsky (2007)]. Δr is the difference in ionic radius of Ln and Y cations.