Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Scintillation Detection Efficiencies of Depleted Uranium (DU) in Wounds

  • Published:
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three tissue-equivalent cylindrical wound phantoms with varying activities of DU metal imbedded at varying depths were used to compare the efficiencies of a bismuth germinate (BGO) detector, a sodium iodide (NaI), and two identical wound probes with smaller sodium iodide crystals. Our results show that the BGO detector had the highest efficiency (1.0·10-3) and the lowest minimum detectable activity (MDA = 5.8 kBq) for the shallow depth DU phantom, relative to the other detectors. The BGO detector also had the highest peak efficiencies (1.7·10-3 and 5.8·10-4) and the lowest MDAs (3.5 and 10.0 kBq) for the medium and deep phantoms, respectively. Other detectors' performance data are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. B. Altshuler, B. Pasternek, Health Phys., 9 (1963) 293.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), Assessment of the Risks from Imbedded Fragments of Depleted Uranium, Technical Report 93–1, Bethesda, 1993.

  3. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), Protocol for Monitoring Gulf War Veterans with Imbedded Fragments of Depleted Uranium, Technical Report 93–2, Bethesda, 1993.

  4. Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Used by the U.S. Army, Summary Report to Congress, Atlanta, 1994.

  5. Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Used in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, Atlanta, 1995.

  6. Bureau of Radiological Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Radiological Health Handbook, Revised ed. January 1970, Rockville, 1970, p. 120.

  7. A. King, L. M. Scott, J. L. Disney, Health Phys., 34 (1977) 112.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. F. Knoll, Radiation detection and measurement, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1979, pp. 234, 306, 322.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. C. Olsen, Depleted uranium wound calibration phantom for United States Army TMDE activity, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Washington, Contract #PNL21603: 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. E. Palmer, G. A. Rieksts, Health Phys., 47 (1984) 569, 577.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. B. Spitz, R. L. Buschbom, G. A. Rieksts, H. E. Palmer, Health Phys., 49 (1985) 1085.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. Toohey et al., Health Phys., 60(Sup. 1) (1991) 7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bioenvironmental Engineering Services, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, 84056, USA

    S. Z. Chandler

  2. Department of Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1673, USA

    S. A. Ibrahim

  3. Department of Natural Sciences, Clayton State College, Morrow, Georgia, 30260, USA

    J. G. Campbell

Authors
  1. S. Z. Chandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. A. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. G. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chandler, S.Z., Ibrahim, S.A. & Campbell, J.G. Comparison of Scintillation Detection Efficiencies of Depleted Uranium (DU) in Wounds. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 243, 451–457 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016034300588

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016034300588

Keywords

Search

Navigation