{"title":"模拟孔隙尺度地球化学过程的微连续体方法","authors":"C. Steefel, L. Beckingham, G. Landrot","doi":"10.2138/RMG.2015.80.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent profusion of microscopic characterization methods applicable to Earth Science materials, many of which are described in this volume (Anovitz and Cole 2015, this volume; Noiriel 2015, this volume), suggests that we now have an unprecedented new ability to consider geochemical processes at the pore scale. These new capabilities offer the potential for a paradigm shift in the Earth Sciences that will allow us to understand and ultimately quantify such enigmas as the apparent discrepancy between laboratory and field rates (White and Brantley 2003) and the impact of geochemical reactions on the transport properties of subsurface materials (Steefel and Lasaga 1990, 1994; Steefel and Lichtner 1994; Xie et al. 2015). It has only gradually become apparent that many geochemical investigations of Earth materials have suffered (perhaps inadvertently) from the assumption of bulk or continuum behavior, leading to volume averaging of properties and processes that really need to be considered at the individual grain or pore scale. For example, a relationship between reaction-induced porosity and permeability change can perhaps be developed based on bulk samples, but ultimately a mechanistic understanding and robust predictive capability of the associated geochemical and physical processes will require a pore-scale view. The question still arises: Do we need pore-scale characterization and models in geochemistry and mineralogy? The laboratory–field rate discrepancy (or enigma) is a good example of where a pore-scale understanding may provide insights not easily achievable with bulk characterization and models. If the reasons for this apparent discrepancy between laboratory and field rates cannot be explained, then it appears unlikely that scientifically defensible and quantitative models for a number of important Earth Science applications ranging from chemical weathering and its effects on atmospheric CO2, to subsurface carbon sequestration, to nuclear waste storage, to contaminant remediation and transport, …","PeriodicalId":49624,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry","volume":"2 1","pages":"217-246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"90","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Micro-Continuum Approaches for Modeling Pore-Scale Geochemical Processes\",\"authors\":\"C. Steefel, L. Beckingham, G. Landrot\",\"doi\":\"10.2138/RMG.2015.80.07\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The recent profusion of microscopic characterization methods applicable to Earth Science materials, many of which are described in this volume (Anovitz and Cole 2015, this volume; Noiriel 2015, this volume), suggests that we now have an unprecedented new ability to consider geochemical processes at the pore scale. These new capabilities offer the potential for a paradigm shift in the Earth Sciences that will allow us to understand and ultimately quantify such enigmas as the apparent discrepancy between laboratory and field rates (White and Brantley 2003) and the impact of geochemical reactions on the transport properties of subsurface materials (Steefel and Lasaga 1990, 1994; Steefel and Lichtner 1994; Xie et al. 2015). It has only gradually become apparent that many geochemical investigations of Earth materials have suffered (perhaps inadvertently) from the assumption of bulk or continuum behavior, leading to volume averaging of properties and processes that really need to be considered at the individual grain or pore scale. For example, a relationship between reaction-induced porosity and permeability change can perhaps be developed based on bulk samples, but ultimately a mechanistic understanding and robust predictive capability of the associated geochemical and physical processes will require a pore-scale view. The question still arises: Do we need pore-scale characterization and models in geochemistry and mineralogy? The laboratory–field rate discrepancy (or enigma) is a good example of where a pore-scale understanding may provide insights not easily achievable with bulk characterization and models. If the reasons for this apparent discrepancy between laboratory and field rates cannot be explained, then it appears unlikely that scientifically defensible and quantitative models for a number of important Earth Science applications ranging from chemical weathering and its effects on atmospheric CO2, to subsurface carbon sequestration, to nuclear waste storage, to contaminant remediation and transport, …\",\"PeriodicalId\":49624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"217-246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"90\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2138/RMG.2015.80.07\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Earth and Planetary Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2138/RMG.2015.80.07","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Earth and Planetary Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 90
摘要
最近大量适用于地球科学材料的微观表征方法,其中许多都在本卷中描述(Anovitz和Cole 2015,本卷;Noiriel 2015,本卷),表明我们现在有了前所未有的新能力来考虑孔隙尺度上的地球化学过程。这些新能力为地球科学的范式转变提供了潜力,这将使我们能够理解并最终量化诸如实验室和现场速率之间的明显差异(White和Brantley 2003)以及地球化学反应对地下物质输运性质的影响(stefel和Lasaga 1990,1994;stefel and Lichtner 1994;Xie et al. 2015)。只有逐渐变得明显的是,许多地球物质的地球化学研究都受到(也许是无意中)假设体积或连续行为的影响,导致了真正需要在单个颗粒或孔隙尺度上考虑的性质和过程的体积平均。例如,反应引起的孔隙度和渗透率变化之间的关系也许可以基于大量样品来开发,但最终对相关地球化学和物理过程的机理理解和强大的预测能力将需要孔隙尺度的观点。问题仍然存在:我们是否需要地球化学和矿物学中的孔隙尺度表征和模型?实验室现场的速率差异(或谜)是一个很好的例子,说明孔隙尺度的理解可能提供不容易通过体表征和模型实现的见解。如果不能解释实验室和现场速率之间这种明显差异的原因,那么似乎不太可能为许多重要的地球科学应用建立科学上站住脚的定量模型,这些应用包括化学风化及其对大气二氧化碳的影响、地下碳封存、核废料储存、污染物补救和运输……
Micro-Continuum Approaches for Modeling Pore-Scale Geochemical Processes
The recent profusion of microscopic characterization methods applicable to Earth Science materials, many of which are described in this volume (Anovitz and Cole 2015, this volume; Noiriel 2015, this volume), suggests that we now have an unprecedented new ability to consider geochemical processes at the pore scale. These new capabilities offer the potential for a paradigm shift in the Earth Sciences that will allow us to understand and ultimately quantify such enigmas as the apparent discrepancy between laboratory and field rates (White and Brantley 2003) and the impact of geochemical reactions on the transport properties of subsurface materials (Steefel and Lasaga 1990, 1994; Steefel and Lichtner 1994; Xie et al. 2015). It has only gradually become apparent that many geochemical investigations of Earth materials have suffered (perhaps inadvertently) from the assumption of bulk or continuum behavior, leading to volume averaging of properties and processes that really need to be considered at the individual grain or pore scale. For example, a relationship between reaction-induced porosity and permeability change can perhaps be developed based on bulk samples, but ultimately a mechanistic understanding and robust predictive capability of the associated geochemical and physical processes will require a pore-scale view. The question still arises: Do we need pore-scale characterization and models in geochemistry and mineralogy? The laboratory–field rate discrepancy (or enigma) is a good example of where a pore-scale understanding may provide insights not easily achievable with bulk characterization and models. If the reasons for this apparent discrepancy between laboratory and field rates cannot be explained, then it appears unlikely that scientifically defensible and quantitative models for a number of important Earth Science applications ranging from chemical weathering and its effects on atmospheric CO2, to subsurface carbon sequestration, to nuclear waste storage, to contaminant remediation and transport, …
期刊介绍:
RiMG is a series of multi-authored, soft-bound volumes containing concise reviews of the literature and advances in theoretical and/or applied mineralogy, crystallography, petrology, and geochemistry. The content of each volume consists of fully developed text which can be used for self-study, research, or as a text-book for graduate-level courses. RiMG volumes are typically produced in conjunction with a short course but can also be published without a short course. The series is jointly published by the Mineralogical Society of America (MSA) and the Geochemical Society.