Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry; January 2009; v. 70;1; p. 1-46; DOI: 10.2138/rmg.2009.70.1
© 2009 Mineralogical Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oelkers, E. H.
Right arrow Articles by Pokrovski, G. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Thermodynamic Databases for Water-Rock Interaction

Eric H. Oelkers, Pascale Bénézeth and Gleb S. Pokrovski

Géochimie et Biogeochime Experimentale, LMTG, CNRS-UPS-OMP UMR5563, 14 Avenue Edouard Belin, 31400 Toulouse, FRANCE, oelkers@lmtg.obs-mip.fr

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.


    INTRODUCTION
 
The creation of thermodynamic databases may be one of the greatest advances in the field of geochemistry of the past century. These databases facilitate creation of phase diagrams describing which mineral phases are stable as a function of temperature and pressure, enabling detailed interpretation of metamorphic systems (e.g., Essene 1982; Spear and Cheney 1989; Zaho et al. 2000). The versatility of these databases provide insight into the fate and consequences of subsurface storage of radioactive waste (e.g., van der Lee and De Windt 2001; Lichtner et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2008), toxic waste (e.g., Glynn and Brown 1996; Steefel et al. 2005), and CO2 (e.g., Knauss et al. 2005; Oelkers and Schott 2005; Oelkers and Cole 2008; Oelkers et al. 2008).

The impressive utility of thermodynamic databases has lead to their incorporation into ‘user-friendly’ chemical speciation, reactive path, and reactive transport computer codes including EQ3 (Wolery 1983), PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999), and CHESS (van der Lee et al. 2002) allowing rapid calculation of mineral solubility and solute speciation in a variety of geochemical systems. A selected list of chemical speciation codes is provided in Table 1Go. These codes differ is ease of use, but all accurately solve for the equilibrium assemblages of minerals and aqueous species, and mineral solubilities within the limits of their thermodynamics databases. The quality of the results of each of these codes is directly related to the quality of these databases.


View this table:



 
Table 1. Selected computer codes enabling calculation of equilibrium constants, chemical speciation, and/or mineral solubility.
 
Geochemical modeling codes such as those listed in Table 1Go have advantages and disadvantages. On one hand these computer algorithms allow calculation or prediction of the equilibrium state and/or the evolution . . . [Full Text of this Article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Reviews in Mineralogy and GeochemistryHome page
C. Zhu
Geochemical Modeling of Reaction Paths and Geochemical Reaction Networks
Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, January 1, 2009; 70(1): 533 - 569.
[Full Text] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Mineralogical Society of America