Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 311, Issue 1, pp 719–726 | Cite as

Determination of 210Pb by direct gamma-ray spectrometry, beta counting via 210Bi and alpha-particle spectrometry via 210Po in coal, slag and ash samples from thermal power plant

  • Bojan ŠešlakEmail author
  • Ivana Vukanac
  • Aleksandar Kandić
  • Mirjana Đurašević
  • Milić Erić
  • Aleksandar Jevremović
  • Ljudmila Benedik
Article

Abstract

In order to compare three different techniques and estimate radiological impact, activity concentration of 210Pb in coal, slag and ash samples from thermal power plant “Nikola Tesla”, Serbia, were measured, and results are presented in this study. Determination of 210Pb was carried out in three ways: using HPGe gamma spectrometer and via in-growth of 210Po and 210Bi by alpha-particle spectrometry and proportional counting, respectively. The results obtained for three different techniques were compared. Statistical analysis and comparison of methods were carried out by combination of Z score and χ 2 statistical tests. Tests results, as well as values of measured activities concentrations obtained by alpha and gamma spectrometry, showed that gamma spectrometry is a valid alternative to time-consuming alpha spectrometry for low level activity measurements of 210Pb. This remark is also valid even for gamma spectrometers with poor efficiency in low energy region.

Keywords

210Pb 210Po 210Bi Alpha-particle spectrometry Gamma-ray spectrometry Beta counting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by Serbian Ministry of education, science and Technological Development (Project number 171018) and through bilateral project between Serbia (Project number 451-03-3095/2014-09/15) and Slovenia (BI-RS/14-15-011).

References

  1. 1.
    EPS,“Elektroprivreda Srbije” public enterprise (2014) Technical annual report, Belgrade http://www.eps.rs/Lat/FolderDocs.aspx?list=Tehnicki%20Izvestaji
  2. 2.
    Benedik L, Vreček P (2001) Determination of 210Pb and 210Po in environmental samples. Acta Chim Slov 48:199–213Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vreček P, Benedik L (2003) 210Pb and 210Po in fossil fuel combustion at the Šoštanj thermal power plant (Slovenia). Czech J Phys 53:A51–A55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belivermis M, Klhc O, Cayir A, Coskun M, Coskun M (2016) Assessment of 210Po and 210Pb in lichen, moss and soil around Can coal-fired power plant, Turkey. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 307(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonczyk M (2013) A determination of the concentration level of lead 210Pb isotope in solid sample s for the assessment of radiation risk occurring in coal mines. J Sust Min 12(2):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seiler R, Wiemels J (2012) Occurrence of 210Po and biological effects of low-level exposure: the need for research. Environ Health Perspect 120(9):1230–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haninger T, Winkler R, Roth P, Trautmannsheimer M, Wahl W (2000) Indoor air as an important source for 210Pb accumulation in man. Radiat Prot Dosim 87(3):187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    CMI (Czech Metrological Institute) (2005) Radioactive standard solutions, ER 25, ER X PragueGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vukanac I, Djurašević M, Kandić A, Novković D, Nadjerdj L, Milošević Z (2008) Experimental determination of the HPGe spectrometer efficiency curve. Appl Radiat Isot 66:792–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Debertin K and Schötzig U (1990) Bedeutung von Summationskorrektionen bei der Gammastrahlen-Spektrometrie mit Germaniumdetektoren, PTB-Bericht PTB-Ra-24, Braunschweig, ISSN 0341-6747, ISBN 3-89429-010-2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rožmarić M, Rogić M, Benedik L, Štrok M, Barišić D, Ivšić A (2012) 210Po and 210Pb activity concentrations in Mytilus galloprovincialis from Croatian Adriatic coast with the related dose assessment to the coastal population. Chemosphere 87:1295–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vajda N, La Rosa J, Zeisler R, Danesi P, Gy Kis-Benedek (1997) A novel technique for the simultaneous determination of 210Pb and 210Po using a crown ether. J Environ Radioact 37:355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IAEA, Technical reports series No. 419 (2003) Extent of environmental contamination by naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technological options for mitigation. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ViennaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper M (2005) Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in Australian industries—review of current inventories and future generation. EnviroRad Services Pty.Ltd. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/norm/cooper_norm.pdf
  15. 15.
    Kanji G (2006) 100 statistical tests. The Cromwell Press Ltd, TrowbridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saïdou Bochud F, Laedermann J, Njock K, Froidevaux P (2008) A comparison of alpha and gamma spectrometry for environmental natural radioactivity surveys. Appl Radiat Isot 66:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin R (1971) Statistics for Physicists. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bojan Šešlak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ivana Vukanac
    • 1
  • Aleksandar Kandić
    • 1
  • Mirjana Đurašević
    • 1
  • Milić Erić
    • 1
  • Aleksandar Jevremović
    • 1
  • Ljudmila Benedik
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear Sciences “Vinča”University of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Jožef Štefan InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations