4.8 Article

Uranium 238U/235U Isotope Ratios as Indicators of Reduction: Results from an in situ Biostimulation Experiment at Rifle, Colorado, USA

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 15, Pages 5927-5933

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es100643v

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF [EAR-0732481]
  2. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231, DE-FC02ER63446]
  3. Department of Energy [DE-AC06-76RLO 1830]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The attenuation of groundwater contamination via chemical reaction is traditionally evaluated by monitoring contaminant concentration through time. However, this method can be confounded by common transport processes (e.g., dilution, sorption). Isotopic techniques bypass the limits of concentration methods, and so may provide improved accuracy in determining the extent of reaction. We apply measurements of U-238/U-735 to a U bioremediation field experiment at the Rifle Integrated Field Research Challenge Site in Rifle, Colorado. An array of monitoring and injection wells was installed on a 100 m(2) plot where U(VI) contamination was present in the groundwater. Acetate-amended groundwater was injected along an up-gradient gallery to encourage the growth of dissimilatory metal reducing bacteria (e.g., Geobacter species). During amendment, U concentration dropped by an order of magnitude in the experiment plot We measured U-238/U-235 in samples from one monitoring well by MC-ICP-MS using a double isotope tracer method. A significant similar to 1.00 parts per thousand decrease in W-238/U-235 occurred in the groundwater as U(VI) concentration decreased. The relationship between U-238/U-235 and concentration corresponds approximately to a Rayleigh distillation curve with an effective fractionation factor (alpha) of 1.00046. We attribute the observed U isotope fractionation to a nuclear field shift effect during enzymatic reduction of U(VI)((aq)) to U(IV)((s)).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available