Protection & Safety Deptartment, Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria.
Protection & Safety Deptartment, Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria.
Appl Radiat Isot. 2021 Feb;168:109489. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2020.109489. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
Alpha-particle spectrometry, gamma spectrometry and neutron activation analysis techniques for determination of Th and U in environmental samples have been compared. The analytical parameters studied include detection limit, accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility and surrogate recovery. The results show that neutron activation analysis technique has the best accuracy among the studied techniques; the other two techniques were assessed relative to it. The percentage difference between the three techniques results is about [-20, 20]. In addition, U and Th concentrations are generally overestimated by gamma spectrometry and alpha-particle spectrometry in all cases except Th concentration in the former technique, which is underestimated.
对用于测定环境样品中 Th 和 U 的α粒子能谱法、γ能谱法和中子活化分析技术进行了比较。所研究的分析参数包括检测限、准确度、重复性、再现性和代用回收率。结果表明，在研究的技术中，中子活化分析技术具有最佳的准确度；其他两种技术是相对于它进行评估的。三种技术结果之间的百分比差异约为[-20,20]。此外，除了前一种技术中 Th 浓度被低估外，γ能谱法和α粒子能谱法在所有情况下都普遍高估了 U 和 Th 浓度。
