Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 314, Issue 3, pp 2585–2590 | Cite as

Effects of urban debris material on the extraction chromatographic separation of strontium—part I: steel

  • Derek R. McLain
  • Victoria Amato
  • Ralf Sudowe


An incident involving a radiation dispersal device (RDD) would most likely occur in an urban or metropolitan area. However, the majority of radiochemical separation schemes available have been developed for environmental samples that are not necessarily representative of those found in an urban environment. 90Sr is one of the possible radioisotopes that could be used in an RDD. It is therefore important to find efficient and accurate ways to separate it from debris in the area of deployment. This research demonstrates that the presence of steel in dissolved samples shows no appreciable interference with extraction chromatographic separations. Instead, it indicates that the separation could actually be improved by the presence of the steel constituents.


Extraction chromatography Strontium Steel Interference effects RDD Quantification 



This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number, 2012-DN-130-NF0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.


  1. 1.
    Andersson KG, Mikkelsen T, Astrup P, Thykier-Nielsen S, Jacobson LH et al (2009) Requirements for estimation of doses from contaminants dispersed by a ‘Dirty Bomb’ explosion in an Urban Area. J Environ Radioactiv 100:1005–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elcock D, Klemic GA, Taboas AL (2004) Establishing remediation levels in response to a radiological dispersal event (or “Dirty Bomb”). Environ Sci Technol 38(9):2505–2512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frost RM (2005) Dirty bombs: radiological dispersal and emission devices. Adelphi Papers 45(378):75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parra RR, Medina VF, Conca JL (2009) The use of fixatives for response to a radiation dispersal devise attack—a review of the current (2009) state-of-the-art. J Environ Radioactiv 100(11):923–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grigoriev A, Katashev A (2012) RTG disposal program in Russia: status of RTG decommissioning activities. Kurchatov Institute, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) (2001) Human health fact sheet: strontium. ANL, Argonne, ILGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ATSDR (2004) Toxological profile for strontium, 2004th edn. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Driver CJ (1994) Ecotoxicity literature review of selected Hanford site contaminants. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, RichlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vajda N, Kim C-K (2010) Determination of radiostrontium isotopes: a review of analytical methodology. Appl Radiat Isot 68:2306–2326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EPA (2014) Rapid method for sodium hydroxide fusion of concrete and brick matrices prior to Am, Pu, Sr, Ra, and U Analyses for environmental remediation following radiological incidents, Montgomery, ALGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maxwell SL (2006) Rapid column extraction method for actinides and 89/90Sr in water samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 267(3):537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maxwell SL, Culligan BK (2009) Rapid separation method for emergency water and urine samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 279(3):901–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maxwell SL, Culligan BK (2010) Rapid separation of actinides and radiostrontium in vegetation samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 286:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maxwell SL, Faison DM (2008) Rapid column extraction method for actinides and strontium in fish and other animal tissue samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 275(3):605–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mellado J, Llauradó M, Rauret G (2001) Determination of Pu, Am, U, Th and Sr in marine sediment by extraction chromatography. Anal Chim Acta 443(1):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spry N, Parry S, Jerome S (2000) The development of a sequential method for the determination of actinides and 90Sr in power station effluent using extraction chromatography. Appl Radiat Isot 53(1–2):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maxwell SL, Culligan B, Hutchison JB, Utsey RC, Sudowe R et al (2017) Rapid method to determine 89/90Sr in steel samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bell T (2016) Steel grades: what are the different types of steel?Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    eFunda (2016) Steels in general. Accessed 22 Sept 2016
  20. 20.
    Horwitz EP, Chiarizia R, Dietz ML (1992) A novel strontium-selective extraction chromatographic resin. Solv Extr Ion Exch 10(2):313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wulfsberg G (2000) Inorganic chemistry. University Science Books, Sausalito, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    NIST (1981) Standard reference material 14f: carbon steel. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    NIST (1981) Standard reference material 123c: AISI 248 stainless steel. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    NIST (2001) Standard reference material 361: AISI 4340 steel. National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    NIST (2012) Standard reference material 160b: AISI 316 stainless steel. National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    NIST (2013) Standard reference material 368: AISI 1211 steel. National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Braun T, Ghersini G (1975) Extraction chromatography, vol 2. Elselvier Scientific Pub. Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek R. McLain
    • 1
    • 2
  • Victoria Amato
    • 1
  • Ralf Sudowe
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Argonne National LaboratoryLemontUSA
  3. 3.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations