Ce,
nee — ge enter
|
CHAPTER 2
GROSS ACTIVITY IN PLANTS, WATER AND SOIL
PROCEDURES
.
With the exception cf water samples, the samples were prepared for
analysis by the procedures described in the previous report? which consisted of ashing biolovzical samples and counting zoil samples as received.
Water specimens were reduced to the smallest possible volume consistent with maintainicns the salts in solution. An aliquot of the concentrate was placed on 3 ,;ianchet and heated to dryness under an infrared
e
’
tt the nigie cell
Plant specimens were packaged and shipped in individual plastic bags,
soils in stainless stee! ore tubes, and water samples in l-liter polyethylene bottles.
‘
ae ed vs
Ep ee ee”
een OF ope
TW me
<
at
«eh 1h
ee
ede DR veneer. aL
On ARrn tg Mahe deg
tat A i ee eg,
sarates
,
ATRE A tee a A RR —y PRR REE ce, * Pig EeeS geese HET re
AAT ge meme
seem ce BS oe be
wore RNTEa eet fea ee ne ore
t
ooo.
lamp prior to counti:.:,,
After the mcuntiny, the samples were beta-counted ina gas flow proportional counter a: 1..3 per ceat geometry a; deterrained witha Sr??-y%
standard mounted «1 jumirnum, Gros: ga um? measurements were
made ina well sciati.iatica counter with a counting efficiency of
4
‘
‘
:
|
43 per cent for a Co” standard.
}
Gamma dose rates cf the islands a: 3 fi above ground were determined
tee ie ales.
with AN/PDR 27C survey meter between ebruary 7 and 14, 1956.
;
-
i
cee gg ene
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plants
t
{
The gross beta activity of the plum. specimens analyzed is recorded
in Table 2.1 according to the island from which the Se was recovered,
The data were corrected for the counting efficiency of Sr?® and presented
+
~- 3 f
aeons a rcag
Ere Faas wees
Bi ee
ae een
s
anna
=
icTy
eaepeetame eat
S
~
rh
.
we
phe th Lae.
7
‘.
™~
+
teat oe
0
es rere}
Smeg eg te
.
“
”
om,
tr
9
.
. os
2g eS
3
i
.
*
i
oo
a
ni
2
ae
fap:
1.
ws
z
fe
%
Meee
a
ar
os
SPST