Effect of feed solution composition and heat treatment conditions on the morphology of uranium oxide microspheres prepared by sol–gel process
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Uranium oxide microspheres were prepared by internal gelation process (IGP) using selected feed solution compositions. In the feed, concentration of uranium was maintained at 1.25 M and hexamethylenetetramine (HMTA)-urea to uranium mole ratio (R) was varied between 1.2 and 1.5. The gel particles obtained from each batch were heated at 250 °C in air. The samples from each batch were heated under various heat treatment conditions, such as calcination to U3O8, reduction of calcined U3O8 and direct reduction of UO3 to UO2. The effect of feed solution composition and heat treatment conditions on the morphology of the uranium oxide microspheres was studied by measuring surface area, pore size distribution, pore volume, tap density and crush strength. The details of open and closed pores on the dried and heat treated products were studied by scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Radioactive element chemistry and processing · Nuclear materials and radiation effects · Nuclear Materials and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. J.B.W. Kanj, A.J. Noothout, O. Votocik, IAEA-161, 1974, p. 185.
2. Vaidya · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1987 · 148 · 32410.1016/0022-3115(87)90026-2 ↗
3. Mathews · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1980 · 92 · 20710.1016/0022-3115(80)90104-X ↗
4. S.M. Tiegs, P.A. Haas, R.D. Spence, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL/TM-6906, 1979.
5. P.A. Hass, J.M. Begovich, A.D. Ryon, J.S. Vavruska, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL/TM-6850, 1979.
6. A.L. Lotts (compiler), USAEC report, ORNL-4901, 1973.
7. Zimmer · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1988 · 152 · 16910.1016/0022-3115(88)90323-6 ↗
8. C. Ganguly, J. Basak, V.N. Vaidya, D.D. Sood, P.R. Roy, Proc, of 2nd Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Perbroke, October 1–5, 1989, p. 104.
9. Ganguly · Nucl. Technol. · 1986 · 73 · 8410.13182/NT86-A16204 ↗
10. Ganguly · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1991 · 178 · 17910.1016/0022-3115(91)90384-J ↗
11. Ganguly · Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. · 1986 · 52 · 44
12. Ganguly · Metals Mater. Process. · 1980 · 1 · 253
13. Suryanarayana · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1996 · 230 · 14010.1016/0022-3115(96)00162-6 ↗
14. R. Forthmann, H. Nickel, A. Naomidis, W. Burck, Jul-655-RW-KFA-Julich Report, 1970.
15. Forthmann · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1977 · 64 · 27510.1016/0022-3115(77)90079-4 ↗
16. Brunauer · J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 1938 · 60 · 30910.1021/ja01269a023 ↗
17. Thomson · Philos. Mag. · 1871 · 42 · 44810.1080/14786447108640606 ↗
18. Barrett · J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 1951 · 73 · 37310.1021/ja01145a126 ↗
19. Horvath · J. Chem. Eng. · 1983 · 166 · 47010.1252/jcej.16.470 ↗
20. N. Kumar, Y.R. Bamankar, K.T. Pillai, S.K. Mukerjee, V.N. Vaidya, V. Venugopal, Indian Nuclear Society Annual Conference (INSAC 2003), IGCAR, Chennai, India, 2003, A-16.
21. Brunaeur · J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 1940 · 62 · 172310.1021/ja01864a025 ↗
22. Collins · Radiochim. Acta · 1987 · 42 · 12110.1524/ract.1987.42.3.121 ↗
23. Pai · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2004 · 325 · 15910.1016/j.jnucmat.2003.11.010 ↗
24. de Boer · 1958
25. Lloyd · J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. · 1976 · 38 · 11410.1016/0022-1902(76)80237-0 ↗
26. Y.R. Bamankar, N. Kumar, K.T. Pillai, S.K. Mukerjee, V.N. Vaidya, Nuclear and Radiochemistry Symposium, NUCAR 2005, Amritsar, India, 2005, p. 269.
27. Dell · Trans. Faraday Soc. · 1962 · 58 · 48510.1039/TF9625801590 ↗