土壤中总α、总β放射性检测方法的比较

doi:10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2023.03.005

中国辐射卫生

2023, Vol. 32

Issue (3): 245-249 DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2023.03.005

论著

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

土壤中总α、总β放射性检测方法的比较

熊强¹, 葛潇^1,2, 闫琳琳^1,2, 陈飞¹, 张震¹

1. 国家卫生健康委职业安全卫生研究中心，北京 102308;
2. 南华大学衡阳医学院公共卫生学院，湖南衡阳 421001

Comparison of methods for determination of gross α and gross β radioactivity in soil

XIONG Qiang¹, GE Xiao^1,2, YAN Linlin^1,2, CHEN Fei¹, ZHANG Zhen¹

1. National Center for Occupational Safety and Health, National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China, Beijing 102308 China;
2. School of Public Health, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang 421001 China

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (477 KB) HTML ( )
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的为了提高土壤中总α、总β放射性检测水平，建立快速、准确的土壤放射性分析方法，为制定土壤中总α、总β放射性分析标准方法提供依据。方法结合土壤中核素浸取方法和低本底α、β测量仪样品源制备方法，建立了浸取浓缩法用以检测土壤中总α、总β放射性水平，同时使用直接铺样检测了相同土壤中总α、总β放射性水平，比较两种方法的优缺点，提出土壤总α、总β放射性检测的合理方案。结果直接铺样法检测的土壤总α、总β放射性水平分别为0.47 Bq/g和0.85 Bq/g，最小探测下限分别为0.04 Bq/g和0.02 Bq/g；浸取浓缩法所测土壤中总α、总β放射性水平分别为0.32 Bq/g和0.29 Bq/g，最小探测下限分别为0.02 Bq/g和0.01 Bq/g。结论比较不同检测方法及其结果可以看出，直接铺样法操作更简单，检测结果更准确；而浸取浓缩法操作复杂，分析结果的不确定度相对较大，探测下限更低。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	熊强
	葛潇
	闫琳琳
	陈飞
	张震

关键词 ：土壤, 总α、总β, 直接铺样法, 浸取浓缩法

收稿日期: 2022-12-03

PACS:

X591

基金资助:环境放射性研究网络中心国际合作项目（ERANI-21-18）；天津市自然科学基金重点项目（19JCZDJC40500）

通讯作者: 陈飞,E-mail:chenf_irm@126.com E-mail: chenf_irm@126.com

作者简介: 熊强(1993-),男,湖北孝昌人,实习研究员,从事放射卫生工作。E-mail:304639809@qq.com

引用本文:

熊强, 葛潇, 闫琳琳, 陈飞, 张震. 土壤中总α、总β放射性检测方法的比较[J]. 中国辐射卫生, 2023, 32(3): 245-249.
XIONG Qiang, GE Xiao, YAN Linlin, CHEN Fei, ZHANG Zhen. Comparison of methods for determination of gross α and gross β radioactivity in soil. Chinese Journal of Radiological Health, 2023, 32(3): 245-249.

链接本文:

http://www.zgfsws.com/CN/10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2023.03.005 或 http://www.zgfsws.com/CN/Y2023/V32/I3/245

[1] Yan LJ, Le QV, Sonne C, et al. Phytoremediation of radionuclides in soil, sediments and water[J]. J Hazard Mater, 2021, 407: 124771. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124771
[2] Gupta DK, Chatterjee S, Datta S, et al. Radionuclides: accumulation and transport in plants[M]//Gunther FA, de Voogt P. Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology volume 241. Cham: Springer, 2017: 139-160. DOI: 10.1007/398_2016_7.
[3] Mollah AS. Radionuclide uptake from soil to plants: influence of soil classification[M]//Gupta DK, Walther C. Radionuclide contamination and remediation through plants. Cham: Springer. 2014: 55-89. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07665-2_3.
[4] 朱伟寿, 雷淑钦, 李仲修, 等. 新疆某铀矿山周边食品放射性核素监测与分析[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2021,30(5):546-550. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2021.05.004
Zhu WS, Lei SQ, Li ZX, et al. Monitoring and analysis of food radionuclides around a uranium mine in Xinjiang[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2021, 30(5): 546-550. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2021.05.004
[5] 付熙明, 袁龙, 孙全富. 日本福岛事故10周年剂量与健康效应评估[J]. 中国辐射卫生,2021,30(6):732-738. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2021.06.014
Fu XM, Yuan L, Sun QF. An assessment of the radiation dose and health effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan over the past 10 years[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2021, 30(6): 732-738. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2021.06.014
[6] Aliyu AS, Ibrahim U, Akpa CT, et al. Health and ecological hazards due to natural radioactivity in soil from mining areas of Nasarawa State, Nigeria[J]. Isotopes Environ Health Stud, 2015, 51(3): 448-468. DOI: 10.1080/10256016.2015.1026339
[7] Scherb H, Hayashi K. Spatiotemporal association of low birth weight with Cs-137 deposition at the prefecture level in Japan after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents: an analytical-ecologic epidemiological study[J]. Environ Health, 2020, 19(1): 82. DOI: 10.1186/s12940-020-00630-w
[8] Mangano JJ, Sherman JD. Elevated in vivo strontium-90 from nuclear weapons test fallout among cancer decedents: a case-control study of deciduous teeth[J]. Int J Health Serv, 2011, 41(1): 137-158. DOI: 10.2190/HS.41.1.j
[9] Fakhri Y, Sarafraz M, Pilevar Z, et al. The concentration and health risk assessment of radionuclides in the muscle of tuna fish: a worldwide systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Chemosphere, 2022, 289: 133149. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133149
[10] Belyaeva O, Pyuskyulyan K, Movsisyan N, et al. Natural radioactivity in urban soils of mining centers in Armenia: dose rate and risk assessment[J]. Chemosphere, 2019, 225: 859-870. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.057
[11] 陈玉珅, 雒潇, 陈妹. 昌江核电站周围环境土壤放射性本底调查[J]. 中国热带医学,2016,16(10):974-977. DOI: 10.13604/j.cnki.46-1064/r.2016.10.07
Chen YS, Luo X, Chen M. Survey of radioactive background in soil around Changjiang Nuclear Power Station[J]. China Trop Med, 2016, 16(10): 974-977. DOI: 10.13604/j.cnki.46-1064/r.2016.10.07
[12] 国家国防科技工业局. EJ/T 1035—2011 土壤中锶-90的分析方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011.
State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence. EJ/T 1035—2011 Analytical method for strontium-90 in soil[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2011.
[13] 中华人民共和国卫生部, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB/T 5750.13—2006 生活饮用水标准检验方法放射性指标[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2006.
Ministry of Health of the Prople's Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China. GB/T 5750.13—2006 Standard examination methods for drinking water—Radiological parameters[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2006.
[14] Bugai D, Smith J, Hoque MA. Solid-liquid distribution coefficients (Kd-s) of geological deposits at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant site with respect to Sr, Cs and Pu radionuclides: a short review[J]. Chemosphere, 2020, 242: 125175. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125175
[15] 李冰, 陈莹莹, 余少青, 等. 福岛第一核电站事故后放射性废液的泄漏/排放及辐射影响评估[J]. 辐射防护,2012,32(6):336-347
Li B, Chen YY, Yu SQ, et al. Post-accident leakage and discharge of radioactive waste liquid at fukushima Dai-ichi NPP and its envriomental impacts[J]. Radiat Prot, 2012, 32(6): 336-347
[16] 蒋岚, 吴桂标, 张家俊. 我国相关标准水样总α、总β放射性分析方法应用中存在的问题及应对[J]. 辐射防护通讯,2019,39(3):33-36. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-6356.2019.03.007
Jiang L, Wu GB, Zhang JJ. Problems and countermeasures in the application of water sample gross α and gross β radioactivity analysis methods in China's relevant stardards[J]. Radiat Prot Bull, 2019, 39(3): 33-36. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-6356.2019.03.007