Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Urine Sample Results
Back | Up | Next

Click here for thousands of PDF manuals

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home

   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Logistics
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
   
   

 



DOE-STD-1136-2004
Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities
Chest-wall thickness has a significant impact on chest counting. Corrections are commonly made
using a height-to-weight ratio or ultrasonic methods (Kruchten and Anderson 1990).
Corrections may be required to address apparent detection in one tissue resulting from photon
crossfire from another tissue. For example, chest counting is performed primarily to estimate activity in the
lung. Yet, there is substantial bone over the lungs (rib cage, sternum) and behind the lungs (vertebrae).
Plutonium and uranium are both bone-seeking radionuclides which will deposit on those bone surfaces and
can interfere with chest counting. It is possible for a person having a systemic burden of uranium from a
wound in the finger to manifest a positive chest count from material translocated to the skeleton, axillary
lymph nodes, or liver (Carbaugh et al. 1989; Graham and Kirkham 1983; Jeffries and Gunston 1986).
Interpreting such a chest count as a lung burden can render dose estimates somewhat inaccurate.
When comparing in vivo measurements made over many years, it is important to make sure that the
measurements are, in fact, comparable. One consideration is to make sure that corrections have been
consistently applied to all similar measurements. It is not unusual for measurement systems to be replaced
or to change the algorithms used for calculating results over time. Step changes in data can occur and
should be addressed in monitoring long-term detectable trends (Carbaugh et al. 1988).
In vivo wound counting for uranium is usually one facet of special bioassay. While a portable alpha
survey meter may show if surface contamination is present at the wound site or contamination of the
wounding object, alpha detectors are not capable of measuring imbedded activity or activity masked by
blood or serum. Thus, uranium facilities should have available a wound counter utilizing a thin sodium
iodide or semi-conductor (e.g., planar germanium) detector. Such detectors are capable of measuring the
low-energy photons emitted from uranium. The ability to accurately quantify wound activity is highly
variable, depending on the calibration of the equipment and how deeply imbedded material is in the
wound. If the object causing a wound and blood smears taken at the time of a wound show no detectable
activity, then a wound count also showing no detectable activity is probably sufficient to rule out an intake.
If the wounding object or the blood smears show detectable activity, special urine samples should be
obtained regardless of the wound count result. In this latter circumstance, lack of detectable activity on a
wound count could be attributable to deeply imbedded material at the wound site or to rapid transportation
of material from the wound to the systemic compartment.
5.7.2 Urine Sample Results
Detection of uranium activity in a routine or special urine sample using commonly available
radiochemical measurement techniques should be investigated as a potential intake. A data review
should be made to determine if the sample result was correctly determined, and batch QC sample data
should be verified.
If the result is near the Lc, it is possible that statistical fluctuation of the measurement process could
account for the apparent detection. Recounting the final sample preparation once or twice can be a helpful
technique to verify a result or classify it as a false-positive. If the first recount also detects the analyte, it
can be concluded that the sample does contain the analyte (the likelihood of two consecutive false
positives at a 5% type I error per measurement is 0.0025, or 0.25%.) If the first recount does not detect the
analyte, a second recount can be performed as a tie -breaker.
5-32


Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business