Advertisement

Rapid measurements of 235U fission product isotope ratios using an online, high-pressure ion chromatography inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry protocol with comparison to isotopic depletion models

  • Emilie K. Fenske
  • Benjamin D. RoachEmail author
  • David C. Glasgow
  • Ralph H. Ilgner
  • Joseph M. Giaquinto
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

An automated online separation–direct analysis method, RAPID (rapid analysis of post-irradiation debris), has been developed for the measurement of the concentration and isotopic composition of over 40 elements down to the low-picogram level. Here we discuss the application of RAPID to irradiated highly-enriched uranium, demonstrating that it has the sensitivity required to achieve precise, low-level analyses of non-natural isotopes, even in the presence of a bulk uranium matrix. Isotopic ratios have been successfully measured at the low-picogram level, and the accuracy of these ratios was confirmed using an isotopic depletion and decay modeling software to within 1–2%.

Keywords

Ion chromatography Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry Irradiation Rapid isotope analysis Nuclear material 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This submission has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract No. DE AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for the U.S. Government purposes. This work was sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). This manuscript has been authored in part by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy (DOE). 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).

References

  1. 1.
    Hofmann S (2003) Chapter 1: properties and syntheses of superheavy elements. In: Schädel M (ed) The chemistry of superheavy elements. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roberto JB, Alexander CW, Boll RA et al (2015) Actinide targets for the synthesis of super-heavy elements. Nucl Phys A 944:99–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keegan E, Kristo MJ, Toole K et al (2016) Nuclear forensics: scientific analysis supporting law enforcement and nuclear security investigations. Anal Chem 88:1496–1505.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gauld IC, Giaquinto JM, Delashmitt JS et al (2016) Re-evaluation of spent nuclear fuel assay data for the Three Mile Island unit 1 reactor and application to code validation. Ann Nucl Energy 87:267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.08.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilas G, Gauld IC, Radulescu G (2012) Validation of new depletion capabilities and ENDF/B-VII data libraries in SCALE. Ann Nucl Energy 46:43–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2012.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cantrel L, Cousin F, Bosland L et al (2014) ASTEC V2 severe accident integral code: fission product modelling and validation. Nucl Eng Des 272:195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tait JC, Gauld I, Kerr AH (1995) Validation of the ORIGEN-S code for predicting radionuclide inventories in used CANDU fuel. J Nucl Mater 223:109–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3115(94)00683-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casoli P, Authier N, Laurec J et al (2012) Measurements of actinide-fission product yields in Caliban and prospero metallic core reactor fission-neutron fields. J ASTM Int 9:104018.  https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI104018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chadwick MB, Kawano T, Barr DW et al (2010) Fission product yields from fission spectrum n+239Pu for ENDF/B-VII.1. Nucl Data Sheets 111:2923–2964.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2010.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shinohara N, Kohno N, Nakahara Y et al (2003) Validation of minor actinide cross sections by studying samples irradiated for 492 days at the dounreay prototype fast reactor—I: radiochemical analysis. Nucl Sci Eng 144:115–128.  https://doi.org/10.13182/NSE03-A2347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bolles RC, Ballou NE (1959) Calculated activities and abundances of U235 fission products. Nucl Sci Eng 5:156–185.  https://doi.org/10.13182/NSE59-A25574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tipnis SV, Campbell JM, Couchell GP et al (1998) Yields of short-lived fission products produced following 235U thermal neutron fission. Phys Rev C 58:905–915.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.58.905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metz LA, Payne RF, Friese JI et al (2009) Experimental measurements of short-lived fission products from uranium, neptunium, plutonium and americium. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 282:373–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-009-0225-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dayman K, Biegalski S, Haas D (2015) Determination of short-lived fission product yields with gamma spectrometry. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 305:213–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-015-3993-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finn EC, Metz L, Greenwood L et al (2015) Cumulative fission yields of short-lived isotopes under natural-abundance-boron-carbide-moderated neutron spectrum. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 306:79–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-015-4085-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knowles J, Skutnik S, Glasgow D, Kapsimalis R (2016) A generalized method for characterization of 235U and 239Pu content using short-lived fission product gamma spectroscopy. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip 833:38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tshiashala MDA (2005) Instrumental neutron activation analysis in geochemistry: emphasis on spectral and uranium fission product interferences. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 265:511–514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-005-0857-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landsberger S, Simsons A (1987) Quantification of uranium, thorium and gadolinium spectral interferences in instrumental neutron activation analysis of samarium. Chem Geol 62:223–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(87)90087-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Röllin S, Kopatjtic Z, Wernli B, Magyar B (1996) Determination of lanthanides and actinides in uranium materials by high-performance liquid chromatography with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 739:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epov V, Evans R, Zheng J et al (2007) Rapid fingerprinting of 239Pu and 240Pu in environmental samples with high U levels using on-line ion chromatography coupled with high-sensitivity quadrupole ICP-MS detection. J Anal Atom Spectrom 22:1131–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B704901C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hann S, Prohaska T, Köllensperger G et al (2000) Separation of spectral and non-spectral interferences by on-line high performance ion chromatography inductively coupled plasma sector field mass spectrometry (HPIC-ICP-SFMS) for accurate determination of 234U, 235U, 238U and 232Th in industrial ores. J Anal Atom Spectrom 15:721–725.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B001076F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bürger S, Riciputi LR, Bostick DA et al (2009) Isotope ratio analysis of actinides, fission products, and geolocators by high-efficiency multi-collector thermal ionization mass spectrometry. Int J Mass Spectrom 286:70–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2009.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Almon AC, Kinard WF, Dewberry RA et al (1991) Multimodal separation of alkali, alkaline earth, transition, post-transition, lanthanide, and actinide metal cations in waste sludge (U). In: Symposium for ion chromatography in the power industry, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bruzzoniti MC, Cavalli S, Mangia A et al (2003) Ion chromatography with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, a powerful analytical tool for complex matrices Estimation of Pt and Pd in environmental samples. J Chromatogr A 997:51–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(03)00547-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Epov V, Lariviere D, Reiber K et al (2004) Extraction and determination of Cs in natural waters by ICP-MS after ion exchange separation. J Anal Atom Spectrom 19:1225–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1039/B403013C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Betti M, Menichetti L, Moreno JM, Fuoco R (2000) A preliminary study for the determination of long-lived radionuclides (second transition group 4-d) in environmental samples by ion chromatography inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (IC-ICP-MS). Microchem J 67:285–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-265X(00)00074-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Betti M (1997) Use of ion chromatography for the determination of fission products and actinides in nuclear applications. J Chromatogr A 789:369–379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(97)00784-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith M, Farmer O, Reeves J, Koppenaal D (1995) Radionuclide detection by ion-chromatography and on-line ICP/MS and beta detection: fission product rare earth element measurements. J Radioanal Nucl Chem Artic 194:7–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02037607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alonso JIG, Sena F, Arbore P et al (1995) Determination of fission products and actinides in spent nuclear fuels by isotope dilution ion chromatography inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J Anal At Spectrom 10:381.  https://doi.org/10.1039/ja9951000381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Röllin S, Eklund UB, Spahiu K (2001) Separation of actinide redox species with cation exchange chromatography and its application to the analysis of spent fuel leaching solutions. Radiochim Acta 89:757–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolf SF, Bowers DL, Cunnane JC (2005) Analysis of high burnup spent nuclear fuel by ICP-MS. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 263:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Snow M, Morrison S, Clark S et al (2017) 237Np analytical method using 239Np tracers and application to a contaminated nuclear disposal facility. J Env Radioact 172:89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karasinski J, Bulska E, Wojciechowski M et al (2017) High precision direct analysis of magnesium isotope ratio by ion chromatography/multicollector-ICPMS using wet and dry plasma conditions. Talanta 165:64–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2016.12.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    García-Ruiz S, Moldovan M, García Alonso JI (2008) Measurement of strontium isotope ratios by MC-ICP-MS after on-line Rb–Sr ion chromatography separation. J Anal At Spectrom 23:84–93.  https://doi.org/10.1039/b708936h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karasinski J, Bulska E, Wojciechowski M et al (2016) On-line separation of strontium from a matrix and determination of the 87Sr/86Sr ratio by ion chromatography/multicollector-ICPMS. J Anal At Spectrom 31:1459–1463.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6JA00109B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang G, Tazoe H, Yamada M (2016) Rapid determination of 135Cs and precise 135Cs/137Cs atomic ratio in environmental samples by single-column chromatography coupled to triple-quadrupole inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 908:177–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2015.12.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Puzas A, Genys P, Remeikis V, Druteikienė R (2015) Challenges in preparing soil samples and performing a reliable plutonium isotopic analysis by ICP-MS. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 303:751–759.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-014-3411-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liao H, Zheng J, Wu F et al (2008) Determination of plutonium isotopes in freshwater lake sediments by sector-field ICP-MS after separation using ion-exchange chromatography. Appl Radiat Isot 66:1138–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2008.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guéguen F, Isnard H, Nonell A et al (2015) Neodymium isotope ratio measurements by LC-MC-ICPMS for nuclear applications: investigation of isotopic fractionation and mass bias correction. J Anal At Spectrom 30:443–452.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ja00361f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gourgiotis A, Isnard H, Nonell A et al (2013) Bk and Cf chromatographic separation and 249Bk/248Cm and 249Cf/248Cm elemental ratios determination by inductively coupled plasma quadrupole mass spectrometry. Talanta 106:39–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2012.11.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bourgeois M, Isnard H, Gourgiotis A et al (2011) Sm isotope composition and Sm/Eu ratio determination in an irradiated 15Eu sample by ion exchange chromatography-quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry combined with double spike isotope dilution technique. J Anal Atom Spectrom 26:1660–1666.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C1JA10070J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Michalski R, Jabłonska M, Szopa S et al (2011) Application of ion chromatography with ICP-MS or MS detection to the determination of selected halides and metal/metalloids species. Crit Rev Anal Chem 41:133–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408347.2011.559438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Winter C, Seubert A (2016) Usability of online-coupling ion exchange chromatography ICP-AES/-MS for the determination of trivalent metal complex species under acidic conditions. J Anal At Spectrom 31:1262–1268.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ja00480b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roach BD, Hexel CR, Giaquinto JM (2017) ORNL TM-2017-694: Demonstration of a rapid HPLC-ICPMS direct coupling technique using IDMS project report part IGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roach BD, Glasgow DC, Fenske EK et al (2017) ORNL TM-2017-697: demonstration of a rapid HPLC-ICPMS direct coupling technique using IDMS project report part IIGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Roach BD, Fenske EK, Ilgner RH et al (2019) Development of a fast and efficient analytical technique for the isotopic analysis of fission and actinide elements in environmental matrices. J Chromatogr A. 1587:155-165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2018.12.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gauld IC, Radulescu G, Ilas G et al (2011) Isotopic depletion and decay methods and analysis capabilities in SCALE. Nucl Technol 174:169–195.  https://doi.org/10.13182/NT11-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eppich G, Knight K, Timothy J-H et al (2014) Constraints on fallout melt glass formation from a near-surface nuclear test. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 302:593–609.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-014-3293-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hanson S, Pollington A, Waidmann C et al (2016) Measurements of extinct fission products in nuclear bomb debris: determination of the yield of the Trinity nuclear test 70 y later. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:8104–8108.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602792113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    ORNL high flux isotope reactor. https://neutrons.ornl.gov/hfir. Accessed 24 Aug 2017
  51. 51.
    Rearden BT (2018) Oak Ridge National Laboratory SCALE website. https://www.ornl.gov/scale/overview. Accessed 10 Aug 2017
  52. 52.
    Reilly D, Ensslin N, Smith H Jr, Kreiner S (1991) Passive nondestructive assay of nuclear materials. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Laboratory BN National Nuclear Data Center. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/. Accessed 7 March 2018
  54. 54.
    Lide DR (2004) CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 84th edn. CRC Press LLC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rider BF, Ruiz C, Peterson JP Jr, Smith FR (1967) GEAP-5355, C-32-MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTERS, TID-4500, 50th edn. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4497118
  56. 56.
    Meija J (2012) Calibration of isotope amount ratios by analysis of isotope mixtures. Anal Bioanal Chem 403:2071–2076.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-5785-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Nuclear SecurityUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations