Granulometric Analysis: Radionuclide Activity, Uranium, Thorium & Potassium

  • Thread starter Thread starter hariprasath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
AI Thread Summary
Determining particle size is crucial for accurately estimating the activity of radionuclides like uranium, thorium, and potassium, as it influences shielding effectiveness against alpha and beta radiation. The composition of minerals, particularly the proportions of uranium and thorium, affects the assay results, making particle size and mineral content significant in evaluating ore deposits. While there is no unique relationship between minerals like zinc, copper, manganese, and iron with radionuclides, geological and geographical factors play a role in their distribution. For instance, certain sedimentary uranium deposits show a correlation with iron and manganese minerals due to weathering processes. Understanding these relationships aids in identifying economically viable deposits of radionuclides.
hariprasath
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
why do we need to determine the particle size while estimating the activity of radionuclides?
is there any relation between the particle size (sand, silt and clay) and primordial radionuclide?
will the content of uranium, thorium and potassium rely on particle sizes?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
hariprasath said:
why do we need to determine the particle size while estimating the activity of radionuclides?
is there any relation between the particle size (sand, silt and clay) and primordial radionuclide?
will the content of uranium, thorium and potassium rely on particle sizes?
Is one referring to ores? Particle size and composition are important with respect to shielding of alpha and beta activity, and alpha more so than beta. The composition, i.e., the proportion that is U or Th in the mineral is also important with respect to obtaining a correct assay. U and Th ores represent a variety of compositions with varying levels of U or Th compounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore

With respect to economics, one wishes to identify deposits that have the highest concentration of U or Th. This is also the motivation for any of the economically important elements, e.g., Au, Ag, REE, Pt, Rh, Co, Fe, Cr, Ni, Zr, . . . . .
 
thanks for the reply,
do there exists any relation between the minerals (Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe) that is found in the sediments with that of radionuclides (U, Th, K)?
 
hariprasath said:
thanks for the reply,
do there exists any relation between the minerals (Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe) that is found in the sediments with that of radionuclides (U, Th, K)?
There does not appear to be a specific or unique relationship, but rather, it is geologically or geographically dependent. For example, vanadium occurs in about 152 minerals, which could include various iron ores, but it is also a byproduct of certain uranium ores.

There is an example of uranium with Fe and Mn minerals, "The Ningyo-Toge uranium deposit is one of the typical sedimentary uranium deposits in Japan. In general, during weathering, U is removed from the basal granite through underground water. The underground water in this area is rich in U, and has a comparatively high concentration of Fe and Mn." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0009254187901367

See page 275 in http://www.minsocam.org/msa/OpenAccess_publications/Craig_Vaughan/Craig_Vaughan_Chptr_10.pdf
The text discusses URANIUM-VANADIUM-COPPER ORES ASSOCIATED WITH SANDSTONES AND UNCONFORMITY-TYPE URANIUM DEPOSITS

One can also research Monazite and its distribution.
 
thank you for the answer sir, the link i went through is also useful in clarifying the doubts.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top