Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11681/37175
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hanrui.-
dc.contributor.authorLarson, Steven L.-
dc.contributor.authorBallard, John H.-
dc.contributor.authorKnotek-Smith, Heather M.-
dc.contributor.authorWaggoner, Charles A.-
dc.contributor.authorUnz, Ronald James, 1983--
dc.contributor.authorLi, Jiangxia-
dc.contributor.authorJin, Decheng-
dc.contributor.authorHan, Fengxiang X.-
dc.contributor.authorArslan, Zikrien_US
dc.contributor.authorMcComb, Jackeline-
dc.contributor.authorProctor, Georgio-
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-25T14:21:27Z-
dc.date.available2020-06-25T14:21:27Z-
dc.date.issued2020-05-
dc.identifier.govdocERDC/EL MP-20-1-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11681/37175-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/37175-
dc.descriptionMiscellaneous Paper-
dc.description.abstractDepleted uranium armor penetrating munitions are used on testing and training ranges leading to elevated concentrations of U in range soils. To prevent exposure on secure areas contaminated with depleted uranium (DU) hotspots, easy and rapid screening methods are needed. This study explores the feasibility of field portable X-ray fluorescence (FPXRF) spectrometry as a fast screening tool for locating hotspots of DU in the field. Direct comparisons of results were made for U concentrations in soil obtained using a FPXRF spectrometry and measurement of U using ICP-MS after acid digestion. The environmental samples included both field range contaminated soils collected at a munition testing facility and soils spiked with uranium dioxide, uranium trioxide and uranyl nitrate. Using U concentrations measured with ICP-MS from split samples, FPXRF operating procedures and conditions such as analysis time, soil moisture content, sample amount, and sample packing factors were optimized. Results showed that the FPXRF technique yielded similar U concentrations as ICPMS measurements after acid digestion in both standard soil (NIST) samples and DU contaminated range soils. In field contaminated soils, U values with FPXRF were 88.8% of the measurements with ICPMS with a significant correlation (R2: 0.98, n=8). Sample preparation affected the uranium concentration measurements made with FPXRF in the laboratory and in the field. A loose packing of the samples in the sample containers, higher sample occupancy as well as low soil moisture yielded significantly high U concentrations by 4-5%, 15-50% and 43%, respectively. The measured soil U concentrations were not affected by the variation of the sample analysis time. This study suggests that FPXRF is a promising fast screening tool for field DU hotspots as well as detection/location of penetrators in the fields that can increase the ability to rapidly and inexpensively manage DU on ranges and help ensure sustainable use of DU munitions on testing and training ranges.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States. Army. Corps of Engineers.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAbstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DU Soil Samples from a Shooting Range ......................................................... 5 2.2 Spiked Soil Samples .......................................................................................... 5 2.3 Standard Soils/Reference Soils ........................................................................ 5 2.4 Reagents ............................................................................................................ 5 2.5 Soil Digestion for ICP MS................................................................................... 6 2.6 Soil Preparation for FPXRF in laboratory .......................................................... 6 2.7 Direct Measurement of U in Soils and DU Penetrators in Range Fields with FPXRF ........................................................................................................ 6 3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Detection limits, Precision and Accuracy ......................................................... 7 3.2 FPXRF measurements of U in DU contaminated soils .................................... 8 3.3 Effects of Sample Preparation on FPXRF Measurements .............................. 8 3.4 Field application of FPXRF .............................................................................. 10 4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 11 References ............................................................................................................................. 12 Report Documentation Page-
dc.format.extent20 pages / 484.58 kB-
dc.format.mediumPDF/A-
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEnvironmental Laboratory (U.S.)en_US
dc.publisherEngineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)-
dc.relation.ispartofseriesMiscellaneous Paper (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/EL MP-20-1-
dc.rightsApproved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited-
dc.sourceThis Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat-
dc.subjectDepleted uraniumen_US
dc.subjectICP-MSen_US
dc.subjectFPXRFen_US
dc.subjectRadioactiveen_US
dc.subjectContaminated soilen_US
dc.titleRapid screening for uranium in soils using field portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometer : a comparative studyen_US
dc.typeReporten_US
Appears in Collections:Miscellaneous Paper

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ERDC-EL MP-20-1.pdf484.58 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open