The extraction of uranyl from acidic (HNO(3)) aqueous solutions toward an ionic liquid phase, C(1)-C(4)-imTf(2)N (1-methyl,3-butylimidazolium Tf(2)N), has been investigated as a function of initial acid concentration and ligand concentration for two different extracting moieties: a classical malonamide, N,N'-dimethyl-N,N'-dibutylmalonamide (DMDBMA) and a functionalized IL composed of the Tf(2)N(-) anion and an imidazolium cation on which a malonamide pattern has been grafted (FIL-MA). The extraction mechanism, as demonstrated through the influence of added C(1)-C(4)-imCl or added LiTf(2)N in the aqueous phase, is slightly different between the DMDBMA and FIL-MA extracting agents. Modeling of the extraction data evidences a double extraction mechanism, with cation exchange of UO(2)(2+)versus 2 H(+) for DMDBMA or versus C(1)-C(4) -im(+) and H(+) for FIL-MA at low acidic values, and through anion exchange of [UO(2)(NO(3))(3)](-)versus Tf(2)N(-) for both ligands at high HNO(3) concentrations. The FIL-MA molecule is more efficient than its classical DMDBMA parent.

We present new results on the liquid-liquid extraction of uranium (VI) from a nitric acid aqueous phase into a tri-n-butyl phosphate/1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (TBP/[C4 mim][Tf2 N]) phase. The individual solubilities of the ionic-liquid ions in the upper part of the biphasic system are measured over the whole acidic range and as a function of the TBP concentration. New insights into the extraction mechanism are obtained through the in situ characterization of the extracted uranyl complexes by coupling UV/Vis and extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectroscopy. We propose a chemical model to explain uranium (VI) extraction that describes the data through a fit of the uranyl distribution ratio DU . In this model, at low acid concentrations uranium (VI) is extracted as the cationic complex [UO2 (TBP)2 ](2+) , by an exchange with one proton and one C4 mim(+) . At high acid concentrations, the extraction proceeds through a cationic exchange between [UO2 (NO3 )(HNO3 )(TBP)2 ](+) and one C4 mim(+) . As a consequence of this mechanism, the variation of DU as a function of TBP concentration depends on the C4 mim(+) concentration in the aqueous phase. This explains why noninteger values are often derived by analysis of DU versus [TBP] plots to determine the number of TBP molecules involved in the extraction of uranyl in an ionic-liquid phase.

The solubilities of C1C4im(+) and Tf2N(-) in nitric aqueous phases have been measured for several ligand types and concentrations (0.04 M tributylphosphine oxide, 0.05 M N,N'-dimethyl-N,N'-dibutylmalonamide, 0.10 M 1-methyl-3-[4-(dibutylphosphinoyl)butyl]-3H-imidazol-1-ium bis(trifluoromethylsulphonyl)imidate, and 1.1 M N,N-dihexyloctanamide). The data evidence a significant difference between the solubilities of the cations and anions of the ionic liquid as a consequence of several ion-exchange and/or ion-pairing mechanisms involving all ions present in the system as well as the protonation/nitric-extraction ability of the ligand.