1.1 该动力学试验方法包括实验室风化程序( 1. )增强特定质量的固体材料样品在水浸出中的反应产物传输，以及( 2. )测量风化产物的大量释放速率。可溶性风化产物通过每周进行和收集的固定体积水浸出进行动员。分析渗滤液样品的pH值、碱度/酸度、比电导、硫酸盐和其他选定的分析物。 1.1.1 该试验方法旨在满足采矿废石和矿石的动力学试验监管要求，这些废石和矿物的尺寸可通过6.3 mm（0.25 in.）的泰勒筛。 1.1.2 该方法的实验室间试验仅限于矿山废石。将该试验方法应用于冶金加工废物（例如尾矿）不在试验方法的范围内。 1.2 该试验方法是对最初为采矿废物开发的实验室风化程序的修改 ( 1. 3. ) . 2. 然而，在气体氧化与水浸出是污染物迁移的重要机制的情况下，它可能具有有用的应用。 1.3 该试验方法要求对特征良好的固体材料样品（重量至少为1000 g） 以及所得渗滤液的收集和化学特性。测试持续时间由用户的测试目标决定。请参阅指南 D8187 . 3. 1.4 如上所述，该试验方法可能不适用于某些含有塑料、聚合物或精炼金属的材料。这些材料可能抵抗传统的颗粒尺寸减小方法。 1.5 此外，该试验方法尚未测试其对有机物质和挥发性物质的适用性。 1.6 本试验方法不旨在提供与现场固体材料产生的实际渗滤液相同的渗滤液，也不旨在生产用作工程设计唯一依据的渗滤液。 1.7 该试验方法并非旨在模拟特定地点的浸出条件。尚未证明可以模拟实际的处置场浸出条件。此外，该试验并不是为了产生与固相样品化学平衡的废水而设计的。 1.8 本试验方法旨在描述对固体材料进行实验室风化的程序。它并没有描述可能与其应用相关的所有类型的采样和分析要求。 1.9 以国际单位制表示的数值应视为标准。本标准不包括其他计量单位。 1.9.1 例外 括号中给出的值仅供参考。 1.10 本标准并不旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的使用者有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 1.11 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认的标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 5.1 实验室风化程序将生成可用于以下方面的数据:( 1. )确定固体材料是否会产生酸性、碱性或中性流出物( 2. )识别流出物中的溶质，所述溶质代表在特定时间段内形成的溶解风化产物( 3. )确定溶质释放的质量，以及( 4. )确定在严格控制的试验条件下溶质释放（从固体释放到流出物中）的速率。 5.2 实验室风化程序产生的数据可用于实现以下目标: ( 1. )确定排水质量的变化作为单个矿山岩石岩性内成分变化（例如硫化铁和碳酸钙+碳酸镁含量）的函数( 2. )在保持排水pH值的同时，测定可被样品中和的酸的量 ≥ 6.0，在试验条件下( 3. )估计矿山岩石风化率，以帮助预测矿山岩石的环境行为，以及( 4. )确定矿山岩石风化率，以帮助进行特定场地动力学试验的实验设计。 5.3 实验室风化程序提供了有利于固体材料成分氧化的条件，并增强了所产生的每周流出物中包含的风化反应产物的运输。这是通过控制固体材料样品暴露于诸如反应环境温度和水和氧的施加速率之类的环境参数来实现的。 5.4 由于有效去除反应产物对于在该过程中跟踪矿物溶解速率至关重要，因此实验室浸出体积每单位质量的岩石很大，以促进从矿山岩石样品中冲洗风化反应产物。实验室动力学试验与现场试验的比较表明，在实验室风化试验中，单位重量和单位时间内，矿物溶解产生的反应产物会持续释放 ( 9 ) 例如，据报道，在金属矿山岩石的实验室试验中观察到的硫酸盐释放速率是德卢斯杂岩小规模现场试验桩的3至8倍 ( 10 ) ，是太古代绿岩岩石小型现场试验桩的2到20倍 ( 11 ) 当将实验室速率与从操作废石堆测得的现场速率进行比较时，预计会有更大的增长。 5.5 程序选项A和选项B的基本假设: 5.5.1 选项A-- 在每周循环的干空气和湿空气部分期间，通过样品泵送的过量空气降低了氧化反应速率受到低氧浓度限制的可能性。每周用低离子强度的水浸出有助于去除前一周风化循环中产生的可浸出矿物溶解产物。每周循环的三天干燥空气部分的目的是在不完全干燥样品的情况下，蒸发每周浸出后残留在样品孔隙中的一些水。因此，样品饱和度降低，空气流动增强。在循环的干燥空气部分期间，与在更饱和的浸出条件下的氧气扩散速率相比，氧气通过样品的扩散速率可以增加几个数量级。这种在接近干燥条件下扩散速率的增加有助于促进诸如硫化铁之类的成分的氧化。 此外，三天干燥空气的蒸发增加了孔隙水阳离子/阴离子浓度，也可能导致酸度增加（例如，通过增加先前氧化的硫化铁产生的氢离子的浓度）。酸生成量的增加将促进额外样品成分的溶解。随着蒸发的继续，剩余的水可能会相对于某些矿物相变得过饱和，从而导致它们沉淀。当重新溶解时，一些沉淀的矿物是潜在的酸性来源（例如，黑云母、FeSO 4. ·7小时 2. O；和黄钾铁矾，K 2. Fe 6. （哦） 12 （所以 4. ) 4. ). 与孔隙水质量随时间减少的三天干燥空气相比，每周循环的湿（饱和）空气部分有助于保持样品中孔隙水质量相对恒定 ( 12 ). 这可能有助于促进风化产物（例如，再溶解的沉淀产物）在剩余孔隙水中的一些扩散，而不会使样品完全饱和并对氧气扩散产生不利影响。 注1: 在理想化条件下（即在空气和水中无限稀释），公布的空气中氧气扩散率比水中高出五个数量级（0.178厘米 2. s –1 而2.5×10 –5 厘米 2. s –1 在0和25 分别为°C） ( 13 ) . 5.5.2 选项B-- 与选项A相反，选项B方案不包括在每周循环期间向湿度传感器引入干空气或湿空气。相反，选项B要求在每周500或1000 mL浸出后的六天内，通过将细胞储存在环境控制的外壳中，将温度和相对湿度保持在恒定范围内。因此，氧气是通过环境空气的扩散（可能是平流）而不是通过泵送输送到细胞的。因为它缺乏干燥空气循环，所以在每周循环期间，选项B样品中保留的间隙水比选项a样品中更多。此外，在每周干燥期间，选项B的间隙含水量比选项A的间隙含氧量更恒定- 空气循环。此外，与方案A相比，方案B的间隙含水量在试验过程中变化较小 ( 14 ) . 5.6 该试验方法已在金属矿山废物上进行，以对其产生酸性、碱性或中性废水的倾向进行分类，并测量从废物中浸出的选定无机成分的浓度 ( 2. , 3. , 14- 16 ) . 注2: 迄今为止，这种方法的实验室间试验仅限于矿山废石。该方法尚未测试其对冶金加工废物的适用性。尽管该方法已被一些从业者应用于精细研磨的冶金加工废物，如尾矿，但这些材料未包括在该方法的实验室间测试中。因此，可能需要对该方法进行修改，以处理与细磨材料相关的问题，这将使该方法不适合细磨材料的动力学测试。 精细研磨材料的动力学测试，请参考《测试方法》附录中的生物产酸电位法 E1915 或监管管辖区接受的其他动力学方法。 5.7 以下是可对计划的每周、半月或每月收集的流出物进行分析的参数示例（参见 11.5.2 建议的污水收集频率）: 5.7.1 pH、Eh（氧化/还原电位）和电导率（见试验方法 D1293 , D1498 和 D1125 分别用于指导）； 5.7.2 碱度/酸度（见试验方法 D1067 用于指导）； 5.7.3 阳离子和阴离子浓度； 5.7.4 金属和微量金属浓度。 5.8 该试验方法中使用的一个假设是，每个浸出液的pH值反映了间隙水与固体材料在特定实验室条件下的产酸能力或酸中和能力或两者的渐进相互作用。 5.9 该试验方法产生的浸出液可同时测定主要成分和次要成分。重要的是，在样品收集、过滤、保存、储存和处理过程中应采取预防措施，以防止可能的样品污染或通过吸附或沉淀改变成分浓度。 5.10 浸出技术、浸出水添加速率、液固比和设备尺寸可能不适用于所有类型的固体材料。 5.11 在选项A和选项B协议之间已经观察到显著的差异: 5.11.1 与选项B相比，选项A在每周浸出之间固体材料样品中的保水性变化更大；对于方案A，平均持水量的标准偏差范围为20到60 % 平均值的；据报道，方案B的可比价值低于9 % ( 14 ). 5.11.2 选项B电池中更大的保水性可能有利于镁的溶解和随后的酸中和- 含矿物；增加的保留可以促进酸性反应产物从硫化铁矿物向含镁矿物的传输 ( 14 ) . 5.11.3 方案A和方案B方案下同一样品的硫酸盐质量释放比较表明，方案之间的保水性变化导致硫酸盐浓度没有显著差异 ( 14 ) 这表明选项B增加的保水性并没有将氧气扩散限制到硫化物矿物氧化速率降低的程度 ( 14 ) 然而，含有7个以上的样品 % 硫尚未进行可比较的方案A和方案B方案研究。 注3: 测试中的产品示例包括以下内容:( 1. )出水pH、酸度/碱度和比电导；( 2. )单个溶质的累积质量释放；和 3. )单个溶质的释放速率（例如，μg硫酸盐/g固体材料样品/周的平均释放量）。 消耗估计NP所需的溶解时间和随后的产酸持续时间可以使用项目中产生的值进行估计( 2. 和 3. 在上面 ( 15 ) .

1.1 This kinetic test method covers a laboratory weathering procedure that ( 1 ) enhances reaction-product transport in the aqueous leach of a solid material sample of specified mass, and ( 2 ) measures rates of weathering-product mass release. Soluble weathering products are mobilized by a fixed-volume aqueous leach that is performed and collected weekly. Leachate samples are analyzed for pH, alkalinity/acidity, specific conductance, sulfate, and other selected analytes. 1.1.1 This test method is intended for use to meet kinetic testing regulatory requirements for mining waste rock and ores sized to pass a 6.3 mm (0.25 in.) Tyler screen. 1.1.2 Interlaboratory testing of this method has been confined to mine waste rock. Application of this test method to metallurgical processing waste (for example, mill tailings) is outside the scope of the test method. 1.2 This test method is a modification of a laboratory weathering procedure developed originally for mining wastes ( 1- 3 ) . 2 However, it may have useful application wherever gaseous oxidation coupled with aqueous leaching are important mechanisms for contaminant mobility. 1.3 This test method calls for the weekly leaching of a well-characterized solid material sample (weighing at least 1000 g) with water of specified purity, and the collection and chemical characterization of the resulting leachate. Test duration is determined by the user’s objectives of the test. See Guide D8187 . 3 1.4 As described, this test method may not be suitable for some materials containing plastics, polymers, or refined metals. These materials may be resistant to traditional particle size reduction methods. 1.5 Additionally, this test method has not been tested for applicability to organic substances and volatile matter. 1.6 This test method is not intended to provide leachates that are identical to the actual leachate produced from a solid material in the field or to produce leachates to be used as the sole basis of engineering design. 1.7 This test method is not intended to simulate site-specific leaching conditions. It has not been demonstrated to simulate actual disposal site leaching conditions. Furthermore, the test is not designed to produce effluents that are in chemical equilibrium with the solid phase sample. 1.8 This test method is intended to describe the procedure for performing the laboratory weathering of solid materials. It does not describe all types of sampling and analytical requirements that may be associated with its application. 1.9 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard. 1.9.1 Exception— The values given in parentheses are for information only. 1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. ====== Significance And Use ====== 5.1 The laboratory weathering procedure will generate data that can be used to: ( 1 ) determine whether a solid material will produce an acidic, alkaline, or neutral effluent, ( 2 ) identify solutes in the effluent that represent dissolved weathering products formed during a specified period of time, ( 3 ) determine the mass of solute release, and ( 4 ) determine the rate at which solutes are released (from the solids into the effluent) under the closely controlled conditions of the test. 5.2 Data generated by the laboratory weathering procedure can be used to address the following objectives: ( 1 ) determine the variation of drainage quality as a function of compositional variations (for example, iron sulfide and calcium+magnesium carbonate contents) within individual mine-rock lithologies, ( 2 ) determine the amount of acid that can be neutralized by the sample while maintaining drainage pH ≥ 6.0 under the conditions of the test, ( 3 ) estimate mine-rock weathering rates to aid in predicting the environmental behavior of mine rock, and ( 4 ) determine mine-rock weathering rates to aid in experimental design of site-specific kinetic tests. 5.3 The laboratory weathering procedure provides conditions conducive to oxidation of solid material constituents and enhances the transport of weathering reaction products contained in the resulting weekly effluent. This is accomplished by controlling the exposure of the solid material sample to such environmental parameters as reaction environment temperature and application rate of water and oxygen. 5.4 Because efficient removal of reaction products is vital to track mineral dissolution rates during the procedure, laboratory leach volumes are large per unit mass of rock to promote the rinsing of weathering reaction products from the mine-rock sample. A comparison of laboratory kinetic tests with field tests has shown that more reaction products from mineral dissolution are consistently released per unit weight and unit time in laboratory weathering tests ( 9 ) . For example, sulfate release rates observed in laboratory tests of metal-mine rock have been reported to be 3 to 8 times those for small-scale field test piles of Duluth Complex rock ( 10 ) , and from 2 to 20 times those for small-scale field test piles of Archean greenstone rock ( 11 ) . A greater increase is anticipated when laboratory rates are compared with field rates measured from operational waste-rock piles. 5.5 Fundamental assumptions governing Options A and B of the procedure: 5.5.1 Option A— An excess amount of air pumped up through the sample during the dry- and wet-air portions of the weekly cycle reduces the potential for oxidation reaction rates being limited by low oxygen concentrations. Weekly leaches with low-ionic-strength water promote the removal of leachable mineral dissolution products produced from the previous week's weathering cycle. The purpose of the three-day dry-air portion of the weekly cycle is to evaporate some of the water that remains in the pores of the sample after the weekly leach without totally drying out the sample. Consequently, sample saturation is reduced and air flow is enhanced. During the dry-air portion of the cycle, the oxygen diffusion rate through the sample may increase several orders of magnitude as compared to its diffusion rate under more saturated conditions of the leach. This increase in the diffusion rate under near-dryness conditions helps promote the oxidation of such constituents as iron sulfide. Additionally, evaporation from the three days of dry air increases pore water cation/anion concentrations and may also cause increased acidity (for example, by increasing the concentration of hydrogen ion generated from previously oxidized iron sulfide). Increased acid generation will enhance the dissolution of additional sample constituents. As evaporation continues, the remaining water may become oversaturated with respect to some mineral phases, consequently causing them to precipitate. Some precipitated minerals are potential sources of acidity when re-dissolved (for example, melanterite, FeSO 4 ·7H 2 O; and jarosite, K 2 Fe 6 (OH) 12 (SO 4 ) 4 ). Compared to the three days of dry air where the pore-water mass decreases over time, the wet (saturated) air portion of the weekly cycle helps maintain a relatively constant mass of pore water in the sample ( 12 ). This may help promote some diffusion of weathering products (for example, re-dissolved precipitation products) in the remaining pore water without totally saturating the sample and adversely affecting oxygen diffusion. Note 1: Under idealized conditions (that is, infinite dilution in air and water), published oxygen diffusion rates in air are five orders of magnitude greater than in water (0.178 cm 2 s –1 versus 2.5 × 10 –5 cm 2 ·s –1 at 0 and 25 °C, respectively) ( 13 ) . 5.5.2 Option B— In contrast to Option A, Option B protocol does not include dry air or wet air introduction to the humidity cells during the weekly cycle. Instead, Option B requires that temperature and relative humidity be maintained within a constant range by storing the cells in an environmentally controlled enclosure during the six days following the weekly 500 or 1000 mL leach. Consequently, oxygen is delivered to the cells by diffusion (and possibly advection) of ambient air, rather than by pumping. Because it lacks a dry-air cycle, more interstitial water is retained in the Option B sample than in the Option A sample during the weekly cycle. Furthermore, the interstitial water content for Option B is more constant than that in Option A during the weekly dry-air cycle. In addition, the interstitial water content for Option B is less variable over the course of testing than that in Option A ( 14 ) . 5.6 This test method has been conducted on metal-mine wastes to classify their tendencies to produce acidic, alkaline, or neutral effluent, and to measure the concentrations of selected inorganic components leached from the waste ( 2 , 3 , 14- 16 ) . Note 2: Interlaboratory testing of this method to date has been confined to mine waste rock. The method has not been tested for applicability to metallurgical processing waste. Although the method has been applied by some practitioners to finely ground metallurgical processing wastes such as mill tailings, those materials were not included in the interlaboratory testing of the method. Consequently, modifications of this method might be necessary to deal with problems associated with finely ground materials, which would make this method as written inappropriate for kinetic testing of finely ground materials. For kinetic testing of finely ground materials, please refer to the biological acid production potential method in the appendix of Test Methods E1915 or other kinetic methods accepted by the regulatory jurisdiction. 5.7 The following are examples of parameters for which the scheduled weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly collected effluent may be analyzed (see 11.5.2 for suggested effluent collection frequency): 5.7.1 pH, Eh (oxidation/reduction potential), and conductivity (see Test Methods D1293 , D1498 , and D1125 , respectively, for guidance); 5.7.2 Alkalinity/acidity values (see Test Methods D1067 for guidance); 5.7.3 Cation and anion concentrations; 5.7.4 Metals and trace metals concentrations. 5.8 An assumption used in this test method is that the pH of each of the leachates reflects the progressive interaction of the interstitial water with the acid-generating or acid-neutralizing capacity, or both, of the solid material under specified laboratory conditions. 5.9 This test method produces leachates that are amenable to the determination of both major and minor constituents. It is important that precautions be taken in sample collection, filtration, preservation, storage, and handling to prevent possible contamination of the samples or alteration of the concentrations of constituents through sorption or precipitation. 5.10 The leaching technique, rate of leach water addition, liquid-to-solid ratio, and apparatus size may not be suitable for all types of solid material. 5.11 Notable differences have been observed between Option A and Option B protocols: 5.11.1 Water retention in the solid material sample between weekly leaches is more variable for Option A than in Option B; for Option A, standard deviations from the mean water retention can range from 20 to 60 % of the mean value; comparable values for Option B have been reported at less than 9 % ( 14 ). 5.11.2 Greater water retention in Option B cells may favor dissolution of, and consequent acid neutralization by, magnesium-bearing minerals; increased retention may facilitate transport of acidic reaction products from iron-sulfide minerals to magnesium-bearing minerals ( 14 ) . 5.11.3 Comparisons of sulfate mass release from the same sample subjected to Option A and Option B protocols indicate no significant difference in sulfate concentration as a result of water-retention variation between protocols ( 14 ) . This suggests the increased water retention of Option B does not limit oxygen diffusion to the extent that sulfide mineral oxidation rates are reduced ( 14 ) . However, samples containing greater than 7 % sulfur have not as yet been subjected to comparable Option A and Option B protocol studies. Note 3: Examples of products from the test include the following: ( 1 ) effluent pH, acidity/alkalinity, and specific conductance; ( 2 ) cumulative mass release of individual solutes; and ( 3 ) release rates for individual solutes (for example, the average release of μg sulfate/g of solid material sample/week). The dissolution time required for depletion of estimated NP and the subsequent duration of acid generation can be estimated using the values generated in items ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) above ( 15 ) .