Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 318, Issue 1, pp 685–694 | Cite as

Trace impurity analysis in uranium oxide via hybrid quantification techniques—gravimetric standard addition and isotope dilution mass spectrometry

  • Kayron T. Rogers
  • Joseph Giaquinto
  • Richard M. Essex
  • Shalina C. Metzger
  • Brian W. Ticknor
  • Cole R. Hexel
Article

Abstract

Measurement methods for the analysis of trace impurities in uranium materials, essential in nuclear fuel production and nuclear forensics, are continuously improving. Analytical methods were developed with the goal of lowering uncertainties of next generation certified uranium oxide reference materials for trace impurity concentrations. Through addition of a traceable standard directly into the sample, gravimetric standard addition and isotope dilution followed by analysis on an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer can achieve lower uncertainties. Results for 28 impurities in CRM 124-1 and 124-6 from NBL Program Office were used for validation of accuracy and comparisons of uncertainties.

Keywords

Trace impurities Uranium Gravimetric Standard addition Isotope dilution IDMS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Radioactive work requires many controls to ensure personnel and environment safety, and for that we thank Lisa Duncan, Mike Hensley and Micah Ely. The authors would like to thank Jeff Morrison as the program manager. This work is supported by the the Department of Homeland Security at the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-000R22725. The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary material

10967_2018_6106_MOESM1_ESM.docx (110 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 110 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    ASTM International (2016) Standard specification for nuclear-grade, sinterable uranium dioxide powder. ASTM C753-16aGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM International (2015) Standard specification for uranium hexafluoride for enrichment. ASTM C787-15Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM International (2015) Standard specification for nuclear-grade uranyl nitrate solution or crystals. ASTM C788-03Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM International (2017) Standard specification for sintered (uranium–plutonium) dioxide pellets for light water reactors. ASTM C833-17Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM International (2013) Standard specification for uranium ore concentrate. ASTM C967-13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM International (2016) Standard specification for uranium oxides with a 235U content of less than 5% for dissolution prior to conversion to nuclear-grade uranium dioxide. ASTM C1334-05Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moody KJ, Hutcheon ID, Grant PM (2005) Nuclear forensic analysis. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Varga Z, Wallenius M, Mayer K, Meppen M (2011) Analysis of uranium ore concentrates for origin assessment. Proc Radiochim Acta 1:1–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keegan E, Wallenius M, Mayer K, Varga Z, Rasmussen G (2012) Attribution of uranium ore concentrates using elemental and anionic data. Appl Geochem 27:1600–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varga Z, Krajkó J, Peńkin M, Novák M, Eke Z, Wallenius M, Mayer K (2017) Identification of uranium signatures relevant for nuclear safeguards and forensics. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 312:639–654CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inn KGW, Johnson CM Jr, Oldham W, Jerome S, Tandon L, Schaaff T, Jones R, Mackney D, MacKill P, Palmer B, Smith D, LaMont S, Griggs J (2012) The urgent requirement for new radioanalytical certified reference materials for nuclear safeguards, forensics, and consequence management. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 296:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    New Brunswick Laboratory (1983) Provisional certificate of analysis, CRM No. 124(1-7)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bürger S, Mathew KJ, Mason P, Narayanan U (2009) Reference materials characterized for impurities in uranium matrices: an overview and re-evaluation of the NBL CRM 124 series. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 279(2):659–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahan C, Bonchin S, Figg D, Gerth D, Collier C (2000) Chromatographic extraction of plutonium and inorganic impurity analysis using ICP-MS and ICP-AES. J Anal At Spectrom 15:929–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montoa DP, Manard BT, Xu N (2016) Novel sample introduction system to reduce ICP-OES sample size for plutonium metal trace impurity determination. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 307:2009–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Satyanarayana K, Durani S (2010) Separation and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometric (ICP-OES) determination of trace impuriites in nuclear grade uranium oxide. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 285:659–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wylie E, Manard BT, Quarles CD Jr, Meyers L, Xu N (2018) An automated micro-separation system for the chromatographic removal of uranium matrix for trace element analysis by ICP-OES. Talanta.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2018.06.063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oliveira Junior OP, Sarkis JES (2002) Determination of impurities in uranium oxide by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) by the matrix matching method. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 254(3):519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASTM International (2010) Standard test method for determination of impurities in nuclear grade uranium compounds by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. ASTM C1287-10Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Organization for Standardization (2010) Nuclear technology—nuclear fuels—procedures for the measurement of elemental impurities in uranium- and plutonium-based materials by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, ISO 26062:2010(E)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fassett JD (1988) Inorganic trace analysis by isotope dilution mass spectrometry—new frontiers. J Res Nat Bur Stand 93:417–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sargent M, Harrington C, Harte R (2002) Guidelines for achieveing high accuracy in isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS). The Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kelly WR, MacDonald BS, Guthrie WF (2008) Gravimetric approach to the standard addition method in instrumental analysis. 1. Anal Chem 80:6154–6158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hauswaldt AL, Rienitz O, Jährling R, Fischer N, Schiel D, Labarraque G, Magnusson B (2012) Uncertainty of standard addition experiments: a novel approach to include the uncertainty associated with the standard in the model equation. Accred Qual Assur 17:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASTM International (2013) Standard practice for removal of uranium or plutonium, or both, for impurity assay in uranium or plutonium materials. ASTM C1647-13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boulyga SF, Cunningham JA, Macsik Z, Hiess J, Peńkin MV, Walsh SJ (2017) Development. Validation and verification of an ICP-MS procedure for a multi-element analysis of uranium ore concentrates 32:2226–2237Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Analytical Methods Committee, AMCTB No. 74 (2016) z-Scores and other scores in chemical proficiency testing—their meanings, and some common misconceptions. Anal Methods 8:5553–5555CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kayron T. Rogers
    • 1
  • Joseph Giaquinto
    • 1
  • Richard M. Essex
    • 2
  • Shalina C. Metzger
    • 1
  • Brian W. Ticknor
    • 1
  • Cole R. Hexel
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations