Derivation of the sensitivity coefficients of radiolysis species by direct perturbation: A temperature dependence perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18686/cest668Keywords:
perturbation , radiolysis , Gvalues , SMR (small modular reactor) , sensitivity coefficients , negative temperature coefficientAbstract
Exposure of aqueous materials, including biological tissues (60–70% water), to ionizing radiation induces water radiolysis, generating reactive species such as e− aq, OH, H, and molecular products. The yields depend on radiation quality (here, mixed α, β, and γ fields), dose rate, temperature, primary radiolytic yield, and solution composition. This study hypothesizes that the yield of each radiolysis product is governed by its temperature sensitivity. The objective is to derive temperature-dependent sensitivity coefficients using direct perturbation theory and to determine the minimum temperature change required to produce a measurable change in yield . This analysis is directly relevant to Hydrogen Energy Generation (HEG) systems, where plant efficiency depends on hydrogen yields, and . The results show that sensitivity coefficients depend on intrinsic molecular properties, including bond order, bond angle, ionic charge, and molecular mass. The study further demonstrates that coupling nuclear and hydrogen production systems is technically feasible and economically viable. However, hydrogen exhibits a negative temperature coefficient; increasing temperature reduces hydrogen yield. While this decreases production efficiency, it enhances safety by lowering the risk of explosive hydrogen accumulation at elevated temperatures.
References
1. Baxter C, Loudon R. Radiation pressure and the photon momentum in dielectrics. Journal of Modern Optics. 2010; 57(10): 830–842. doi: 10.1080/09500340.2010.487948
2. Mansuripur M. Radiation pressure and the linear momentum of the electromagnetic field in magnetic media. Optics Express. 2007; 15(21): 13502. doi: 10.1364/OE.15.013502
3. Gordon JP. Radiation Forces and Momenta in Dielectric Media. Physical Review A. 1973; 8(1): 14–21. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.8.14
4. Buehler M, Cobos D, Dunne K. Dielectric Constant and Osmotic Potential from Ion-Dipole Polarization Measurements of KCl- and NaCl-doped Aqueous Solutions. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electromagnetic Wave Interaction with Water and Moist Substances (ISEMA 2011); May 31–June 3 2011; Kansas City, MI, USA. Available online: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/7/C621/2013/tcd-7-C621-2013-supplement.pdf
5. Kirkegaard P, Bjergbakke E, Olsen JV. CHEMSIMUL: A Chemical Kinetics Software Packge. Danmarks Tekniske Universitet; 2008. Available online: https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/6278806/ris-r-1630.pdf
6. Leotlela MJ. Correlation between the Storage Pattern of Spent Fuel Casks and the Neutron Multiplication Factor. Journal of Energy and Power Technology. 2025; 07(04): 1–62. doi: 10.21926/jept.2504018
7. Broudic V, Muzeau B, Jégou C, et al. Application of chemiluminescence to the study of alpha, beta and gamma radiolyses of water. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Advances For Future Nuclear Fuel Cycles; 21–25 June 2004; Nîmes, France. Available online: https://inis.iaea.org/records/vx3tt-40a43/files/36010990.pdf
8. Domnanich KA, Severin GW. A Model for Radiolysis in a Flowing-Water Target during High-Intensity Proton Irradiation. ACS Omega. 2022; 7(29): 25860–25873. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c03540
9. Macdonald DD, Engelhardt GR, Petrov A. A Critical Review of Radiolysis Issues in Water-Cooled Fission and Fusion Reactors: Part I, Assessment of Radiolysis Models. Corrosion and Materials Degradation. 2022; 3(3): 470–535. doi: 10.3390/cmd3030028
10. Elliot AJ, Chenier MP, Ouellette DC. g -Values for γ-irradiated water as a function of temperature. Canadian Journal of Chemistry. 1990; 68(5): 712–719. doi: 10.1139/v90-111
11. Sunaryo GR, Katsumura Y, Shirai I, et al. Radiolysis of water at elevated temperatures—I. Irradiation with gamma-rays and fast neutrons at room temperature. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 1994; 44(3): 273–280. doi: 10.1016/0969-806X(94)90005-1
12. Islam MM, Lertnaisat P, Meesungnoen J, et al. Monte Carlo track chemistry simulations of the radiolysis of water induced by the recoil ions of the 10B(n,α)7 Li nuclear reaction. 1. Calculation of the yields of primary species up to 350 °C. RSC Advances. 2017; 7(18): 10782–10790. doi: 10.1039/C6RA28586D
13. Avery P, Ludowieg H, Autschbach J, et al. Extended Hückel Calculations on Solids Using the Avogadro Molecular Editor and Visualizer. Journal of Chemical Education. 2018; 95(2): 331–337. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00698
14. Zeebe RE. Oxygen isotope fractionation between water and the aqueous hydroxide ion. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2020; 289: 182–195. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.08.025
15. Mungan CE, Lasinski A. Motion of an electric dipole in a static electromanetic field. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education (LAJPE) 2008; 2(3). Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26568536_Motion_of_an_electric_dipole_in_a_static_electromagnetic_field_Latin-American_Journal_of_Physics_Education
16. Denisov ET, Tumanov VE. Estimation of the bond dissociation energies from the kinetic characteristics of liquid-phase radical reactions. Russian Chemical Reviews. 2005; 74(9): 825–858. doi: 10.1070/RC2005v074n09ABEH001177
17. Leotlela MJ. Radiolysis of water by α- and β-particles from spent nuclear fuel. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2024; 216: 111361. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111361
18. Leotlela MJ, Hadebe ND, Petr I, et al. Prediction of dose rates around the interim spent fuel storage facility. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2021; 180: 109171. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2020.109171
19. Lendvay G. On the correlation of bond order and bond length. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM. 2000; 501–502: 389–393. doi: 10.1016/S0166-1280(99)00449-2
20. Santosh KC, Abolfath R. Towards the Ionizing Radiation Induced Bond Dissociation Mechanism in Oxygen, Water, Guanine and DNA Fragmentation: A Density Functional Theory Simulation. Preprint. 2022. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1666450/v1
21. Plante I. A Monte–Carlo step-by-step simulation code of the non-homogeneous chemistry of the radiolysis of water and aqueous solutions. Part I: theoretical framework and implementation. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2011; 50(3): 389–403. doi: 10.1007/s00411-011-0367-8
22. Uehara S, Nikjoo H. Monte Carlo Simulation of Water Radiolysis for Low-energy Charged Particles. Journal of Radiation Research. 2006; 47(1): 69–81. doi: 10.1269/jrr.47.69
23. Dong X, Oganov AR, Cui H, et al. Electronegativity and chemical hardness of elements under pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022; 119(10): e2117416119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117416119
24. Von Szentpály L. Theorems and rules connecting bond energy and bond order with electronegativity equalization and hardness maximization. Theoretical Chemistry Accounts. 2020; 139(3): 54. doi: 10.1007/s00214-020-2569-0
25. Kaya S, Putz MV. Atoms-In-Molecules’ Faces of Chemical Hardness by Conceptual Density Functional Theory. Molecules. 2022; 27(24): 8825. doi: 10.3390/molecules27248825
26. Reddy RR, Viswanath R. Bond dissociation energies and bond orders for some astrophysical molecules. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy. 1989; 10(2): 157–160. doi: 10.1007/BF02719312
27. Gierszal KP, Davis JG, Hands MD, et al. π-Hydrogen Bonding in Liquid Water. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 2011; 2(22): 2930–2933. doi: 10.1021/jz201373e
28. Vrba J, Rayimbaev J, Stuchlik Z, et al. Charged particles motion and quasiperiodic oscillation in Simpson–Visser spacetime in the presence of external magnetic fields. The European Physical Journal C. 2023; 83(9): 854. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12023-7
29. Kopytov GF, Martynov AA, Akintsov NS. The motion of a charged particle in the field by a frequency-modulated electromagnetic wave. Nanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics. 2015; 661–671. doi: 10.17586/2220-8054-2015-6-5-661-671
30. Xu W. An Explanation of the Interactions Between Waves and Electrons: Discussion of Electromagnetic Fields. 2018; doi: 10.31219/osf.io/8wste
31. Griffiths DJ. Introduction to Electrodynamics. Pearson; 2013.
32. Giancoli DC. Physics for Scientist and Engineers. Prentice Hall; 1998. Available online: https://archive.org/details/physicsforscient0000gian
33. Yakovlev VP. Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves by Dipole Molecules. SOVIET PHYSICS JETP. 1968; 26(3). Available online: https://jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_026_03_0592.pdf
34. Nir S, Adams S, Rein R. Polarizability calculations on water, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The Journal of Chemical Physics. 1973; 59(6): 3341–3355. doi: 10.1063/1.1680478
35. Luis-Hita J, Sáenz JJ, Marqués MI. Active Motion Induced by Random Electromagnetic Fields. ACS Photonics. 2022; 9(3): 1008–1014. doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.1c01906
36. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity. Scientific Reports. 2015; 5(1): 14914. doi: 10.1038/srep14914
37. Mueller DE, Rearden BT. Sensitivity Coefficient Generation For Burnup Credit Cask Model using TSUNAMI-3D. In: Proceedings of the 2005 NCSD Topical Meeting; 19-22 September 2005; Knoxville, TN, USA.
38. Broadhead BL, Rearden BT, Hopper CM, et al. Sensitivity- and Uncertainty-Based Criticality Safety Validation Techniques. Nuclear Science and Engineering. 2004; 146(3): 340–366. doi: 10.13182/NSE03-2
39. Sattonnay G, Ardois C, Corbel C, et al. Alpha-radiolysis effects on UO2 alteration in water. Journal of Nuclear Materials. 2001; 288(1): 11–19. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3115(00)00714-5
40. Jégou C, Muzeau B, Broudic V, et al. Effect of water alpha radiolysis on spent nuclear UO2 matrix alteration. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Advances for Future Nuclear Fuel Cycles Conference; 21–24 June 2004; Nimes, France. Available online: https://inis.iaea.org/records/5ynym-d9a03
41. Favorite JA, Bledsoe KC. Eigenvalue sensitivity to system dimensions. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2010; 37(4): 522–528. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2010.01.004
42. Kabakchi SA, Arkhipov OP, Lukashenko ML. Specific features of the radiolysis of water and aqueous solutions of H2 and O2 by mixed n,γ-radiation with a high portion of the neutron component. High Energy Chemistry. 2013; 47(4): 147–151. doi: 10.1134/S0018143913040061
43. Luo YR. Handbook of Bond Dissociation Energies in Organic Compounds. CRC Press; 2002. doi: 10.1201/9781420039863
44. Milovanović MR, Stanković IM, Živković JM, et al. Water: new aspect of hydrogen bonding in the solid state. IUCrJ. 2022; 9(5): 639–647. doi: 10.1107/S2052252522006728
45. Ignatov I, Mosin O. Nature of Hydrogen Bonds in Liquids and Crystals. Ice Crystals Modification and Their Physical Characterics. Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics. 2014; 4. Available online: https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JMPB/article/view/15019
46. Pearson RG. Chemical hardness and density functional theory. Journal of Chemical Sciences. 2005; 117(5): 369–377. doi: 10.1007/BF02708340
47. Formosinho SJ. Reactivity and selectivity, an intersecting-state view. Journal of the Chemical Society, Perkin Transactions 2. 1988; (6): 839. doi: 10.1039/p29880000839
48. Zhao L, Zhi M, Frenking G. The strength of a chemical bond. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 2022; 122(8): e26773. doi: 10.1002/qua.26773
49. Hamzah MO. A Comparative Study of Bond Order and Bond Length Calculations of Some Conjugated Hydrocarbons using Two Different Methods. International Journal of Advanced Research in Chemical Science. 2017; 4(3). doi: 10.20431/2349-0403.0403003
50. Merzbacher E. Quantum Mechanics. John Wiley; 1998. Available online: https://sci.mu.edu.iq/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Merzbacher-Quantum-Mechanics.pdf
51. Astrath NGC, Malacarne LC, Baesso ML, et al. Unravelling the effects of radiation forces in water. Nature Communications. 2014; 5(1): 4363. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5363
52. Li X, Zhao L, Yu J, et al. Water Splitting: From Electrode to Green Energy System. Nano-Micro Letters. 2020; 12(1): 131. doi: 10.1007/s40820-020-00469-3
53. Buchner R, Hefter GT, May PM. Dielectric Relaxation of Aqueous NaCl Solutions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A. 1999; 103(1): 1–9. doi: 10.1021/jp982977k
54. Le Caër S. Water Radiolysis: Influence of Oxide Surfaces on H2 Production under Ionizing Radiation. Water. 2011; 3(1): 235–253. doi: 10.3390/w3010235
55. Cheng YN, Haacke EM. Magnetic Moment of a Spin, Its Equation of Motion, and Precession. Current Protocols in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2001; 00(1). doi: 10.1002/0471142719.mib0101s00
56. Grenthe I, Puigdomenech I, Bruno J. The Possible Effects of Alpha and Beta Radiolysis on the Matrix Dissolution of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Royal Institute of Technology; 1983. Available online: https://skb.se/publikation/3100/TR83-02webb_OCR.pdf
57. Jawhari AH. Novel Nanomaterials for Hydrogen Production and Storage: Evaluating the Futurity of Graphene/Graphene Composites in Hydrogen Energy. Energies. 2022; 15(23): 9085. doi: 10.3390/en15239085
58. Gevantman LH. Solubility of Selected Gases in Water. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry; 1991. Available online: https://diverdi.colostate.edu/all_courses/CRC%20reference%20data/solubility%20of%20gases%20in%20water.pdf
59. Leotlela MJ, Malgas I, Taviv E. Sensitivity analysis of parameters important to nuclear criticality safety of Castor X/28F spent nuclear fuel cask. Kerntechnik. 2015; 80(5): 485–493. doi: 10.3139/124.110541
60. Butarbutar SL, Sunaryo GR, Meesungnoen J, et al. Temperature Dependence of the Primary Species Yields of Liquid Water Radiolysis by 0.8-MeV Fast Neutrons. Atom Indonesia. 2016; 42(1): 13. doi: 10.17146/aij.2016.473
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mosebetsi. J. Leotlela
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
.jpg)
