145
i greater than those ovtained Ly the more conventional total alpna
mathod.

This difference arises because equation 1 is only an approximation.

ing observed differences batnacn

the cencentraticns computed using the rapid

or conventional techniques and the spectrcmetric mathods are more rancor.
These later differences inay arise from some combination of four main
factors.

The first is that alpha emitters other than those measured chemically
are present in these contaminated sediments.
Tne second is that because the milligram sized aliquots of the
suspended ground-up sediments enalized are probably slightly inhomogeneously contaminated, deviations in the sample count rate which arise
from unrepresentative sample aliquceting cannot be averaged out as was
the case for the Eravo Crater "standard" samcle.
Third, white the ccncentration fractionation in fcur samples was
found to be constant for plutonium, fractionation of the other radioisotopes was not evaluated.
The last factor is that of the errors inherent in the determination
of the range of the alpha particles needed for calculations in the second
method.

Although this problem is resolvable by empirically determining

the range of the alpha particles in each sample, as was done for the
Bravo Crater standard sample, this procedure is tedious and is a major
Probiem in the determination of the absolute concentration cf alpha
emitters in solid samples.

Select target paragraph3