Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Comparison PHREEQC - EQ

A comparison of Fig. 28 and Fig. 29 shows how complicated the declaration of a mineral phase in EQ 3/6 is. Moreover, there is the problem that FORTRAN data [Pg.73]

it will be shown how a simple input file looks like with PHREEQC and EQ 3/6 (Fig. 30 and Fig. 31) simulating the dissolution of the mineral rutherfordine in a water with 1 mmol/L sodium-chloride and low sulfate concentrations (0.0001 mmol/L) under oxidizing conditions (pE = 14) at 25 °C and at a C02 partial pressure of 0.033 kPa (atmospheric concentration). [Pg.74]

TITLE solution Rutherfordine as function of C02 partial pressure  [Pg.74]

Here too, it is clearly visible that the definition of a problem is much more easily and quickly done with PHREEQC. A Windows user interface for PHREEQC, freely available by internet (http //www.geo.vu.nl/users/posv/phreeqc.html), simplifies the input even more. [Pg.74]

Overall, it seems that PHREEQC, except for the problems with high ionic strengths that require the application of PITZER equations, is the optimal program for the solution of both simple and more complex exercises and for onedimensional transport modehng with regard to user-friendliness, numerical stability, compactness and clarity of the data format as well as flexibility. It will be used for the solution of the exercises in chapter 3. The utilization of PHREEQC is presented in detail in chapter 2.2. [Pg.74]


See other pages where Comparison PHREEQC - EQ is mentioned: [Pg.73]   


SEARCH



PHREEQC

© 2024 chempedia.info