Inorg. Chem. 2002, 41, 2316−2318
Low-Temperature Synthesis of Uranium Tetraboride by Solid-State
Metathesis Reactions
,†
Anthony J. Lupinetti,* Julie L. Fife,‡ Eduardo Garcia,† Peter K. Dorhout,§ and Kent D. Abney†
Nuclear Materials Technology DiVision (NMT-2), Mail Stop E511, and Chemistry DiVision,
Isotope and Nuclear Chemistry Group (C-INC), Mail Stop J514, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, and Department of Chemistry, Colorado State UniVersity,
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Received October 25, 2001
A novel synthesis of uranium tetraboride (UB ) by solid-state
metathesis reaction is demonstrated. This approach significantly
lowers the temperature required to synthesize this material to e850
been synthesized at lower temperatures but require the use
4
of molten plutonium (800 °C), which is extremely corrosive,4
or the use of PuH3 (900 °C).5 Plutonium borides are known
to be refractory, but other properties such as chemical
behavior and stability have not been evaluated. In contrast,
°C. When UCl4 is reacted with 2 equiv of MgB at 850 °C,
2
crystalline UB is formed. Powder X-ray diffraction and ICP-AES
4
6,7
many transition metal and lanthanide borides, such as ZrB2
data support the reduction of UCl4 to UCl3 as the initial step in the
and LaB6,8 have been extensively studied and have been used
as refractory materials and corrosion-resistant coatings. It is
therefore expected that some actinide-boride phases will also
be corrosion resistant.
reaction. The UB product is purified by washing with water.
4
The Department of Energy strategy for plutonium has
shifted focus within the past decade from production and
recycling to stabilization and disposal. This change results
from the reduction in the nuclear stockpile and the ac-
companying need for plutonium disposition. Today’s strategy
uses plutonium oxide as the optimum intermediate (i.e., <50-
year) storage form, even though Haschke reported that PuO2
slowly reacts with moisture to form hydrogen, causing
numerous safety and storage concerns.1 Our work focuses
on the preparation of actinide borides as an alternative
intermediate storage form for actinide elements. These
materials would offer the prospect of highly refractory boride
phases of plutonium and other actinides that are stable to
moisture, are highly compact, and will have many of the
desired nonproliferation physical characteristics (e.g., chemi-
cal inertness and stability to radiolytic decay).
During the past two decades significant advances have
been made in the low-temperature synthesis of highly
refractory materials.9,10 New methods, such as molecular
precursors, preceramic polymers, chemical vapor deposition,
sol-gel and hydrothermal syntheses, low-temperature molten
salts, self-propagating high-temperature synthesis (SHS), and
solid-state metathesis reactions (SSM), virtually eliminate
the problems associated with slow solid-state diffusion by
mixing the constituents of the ceramic at a molecular level.
SHS and SSM methods have been used successfully to
synthesize transition metal borides, nitrides, and oxides and
actinide oxides and nitrides at low to moderate tempera-
tures.11,12,13 The key to low-temperature synthesis is identi-
fication of suitable precursors that lead to ceramic materials
having the desired physical characteristics described above.
Our approach focuses on the use of solid-state metathesis
reactions for the production of new actinide boride materials,
specifically uranium borides as proof of concept for pluto-
The area of actinide borides is underdeveloped, in part
due to the high temperatures required to produce these
materials.2 The total list of known binary thorium- and
uranium-boride phases includes only ThB4, ThB6, ThB66,
UB2, UB4, and UB12, with little information reported on their
chemical properties.3 In contrast, plutonium borides have
(3) Katz, J. J.; Seaborg, G. T.; Morss, L. R. The Chemistry of the Actinide
Elements; Chapman and Hall: New York, 1986; pp 56, 280, 317 for
Th, U, and Pu, respectively.
(4) Eick, H. A. Inorg. Chem. 1965, 4, 1237.
(5) Skavdahl, R. E.; Chikilla, T. D.; McNeilly, C. E. Trans. Am. Nucl.
Soc. 1964, 7, 403.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
(6) Su, K.; Sneddon, L. G. Chem. Mater. 1993, 5, 1659.
(7) Rao, L.; Gillan, G.; Kaner, R. B. J. Mater. Res. 1995, 10, 353.
(8) Kher, S. S.; Spencer, J. T. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 1998, 59, 1343.
(9) Wynne, K. J.; Rice, R. W. Annu. ReV. Mater. Sci. 1984, 14, 297.
(10) Rice, R. W. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 1983, 62, 889.
(11) Gillan, E. G.; Kaner, R. B. Chem. Mater. 1996, 8, 333.
(12) Parkin, I. P.; Fitzmaurice, J. C. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 1994, 13, 1185.
(13) Parkin, I. P.; Fitzmaurice, J. C. New J. Chem. 1994, 18, 825.
† Nuclear Materials Technology Division (NMT-2), Mail Stop E511, Los
Alamos National Laboratory.
‡ Chemistry Division, Isotope and Nuclear Chemistry Group (C-INC),
Mail Stop J514, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
§ Colorado State University.
(1) Haschke, J. M.; Allen, T. H.; Morales, L. A. Science 2000, 287, 285.
(2) Eick, H. A.; Mulford, R. N. R. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1969, 31, 371.
2316 Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 41, No. 9, 2002
10.1021/ic015607a CCC: $22.00 © 2002 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 04/05/2002