Advertisement

Detection of sulfur in soil samples using 2.5 MeV neutron activation

  • A. A. NaqviEmail author
  • F. Z. Khiari
  • T. Al-Abdallah
  • F. A. Liadi
  • M. Raashid
  • A. A. Isab
Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Sulfur concentrations in soil samples containing 4.4–13.47 wt% sulphur were measured in neutron inelastic scattering using dc beams of 2.5 MeV neutrons from a DD neutron generator. The measurements were carried out using 2230 keV prompt gamma rays from sulfur using a CeBr3 detector. The minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of sulfur was 0.68 ± 0.21 wt%. The present MDC value is about one-fifth of an earlier reported value of 3.50 wt% for 3.2 MeV neutron beams. This study has shown an improvement in the sulfur MDC achieved using 2.5 MeV neutron beam.

Keywords

Sulfur contaminated soil samples CeBr3 detector 2.5 MeV neutron activation Portable neutron generator-based activation setup Minimum detectable concentration Measurements of sulfur 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The support provided by the Departments of Physics and Chemistry, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, is acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Chichester DL, Simpson JD, Lemchak M (2007) Advanced compact accelerator neutron generator technology for active neutron interrogation field work. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 271:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lindstrom RM (2018) Nuclear analysis at NBS and NIST. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 318(3):1465–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falahat S, Köble T, Schumann O, Waring C, Watt G (2012) Development of a surface scanning soil analysis instrument. Appl Radiat Isot 70(7):1107–1109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naqvi AA, Al-Matouq FA, Khiari FZ, Isab AA, Raashid M, Khateeb-ur-Rehman AA (2013) Hydrogen, carbon and oxygen determination in proxy material samples using a LaBr 3: Ce detector. Appl Radiat Isot 78:145–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naqvi AA, Khiari FZ, Liadi FA, Khateeb-ur-Rehman AA, Raashid MA, Isab AA (2016) Moisture effect in prompt gamma measurements from soil samples. Appl Radiat Isot 115:61–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naqvi AA, Khiari FZ, Liadi FA, Khateeb-ur-Rehman AA, Raashid MA, Isab AA (2018) Neutron moderation effects in phc-contaminated soil samples. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 315(3):475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dokhale PA, Csikai J, Oláh L (2001) Investigations on neutron-induced prompt gamma ray analysis of bulk samples. Appl Radiat Isot 54:967–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wielopolski L, Chatterjee A, Mitra S, Lal R (2011) In situ determination of Soil carbon pool by inelastic neutron scattering: comparison with dry combustion. Geoderma 160:394–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naqvi AA, Al-Anezi MS, Kalakada Z, Isab AA, Raashid M, Al Matouq FA, Khateeb-ur-Rehman AA, Khiari FZ, Garwan MA, Al-Amoudi OSB, Maslehuddin M (2011) Detection efficiency of low levels of boron and cadmium with a LaBr 3: Ce scintillation detector. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 665:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naqvi AA, Khiari FZ, Liadi FA, Khateeb-ur-Rehman AA, Isab AA (2016) Performance tests of a large volume cerium tribromide (Cebr3) scintillation detector. Appl Radiat Isot 114:50–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barchuk IF, Pasechnik MV, Tsybul’ko IA (1958) γ-Ray spectra excited in inelastic scattering of fast neutrons on manganese, aluminum, iron. copper, tin, and antimony. Sov J At Energy 4(2):175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiggins AH, Habbani FI (1976) Prompt gamma-ray analysis using 3.29 MeV neutron inelastic scattering. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 27:689–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scherrer VE, Allison BA, Faust WR (1954) Gamma radiation from interaction of 3.2-Mev neutrons with various materials. Phys Rev 96(2):386–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stehn JR, Goldberg MD, Magurno BA, Wiener-Chasman R (1964) Brookhaven National Laboratory.; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Sigma Center Report, Brookhaven National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Choi HD, Firestone RB, Lindstrom RM, Molnar GL, Mughabghab SF, Paviotti-Corcuera R, Revay Zs, Trkov A, Zhou CM (2006) Database of prompt gamma-rays from slow neutron capture for elemental analysis. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carn SA, Krueger AJ, Krotkov NA, Yang K, Levelt PF (2007) Sulfur dioxide emissions from Peruvian copper smelters detected by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument. Geophys Res Lett 34:L09801.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006gl029020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dudka S, Adriano DC (1997) Environmental impacts of metal ore mining and processing: a review. J Environ Qual 26(3):590–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown KA (1982) Sulphur in the environment: a review. Environ Pollut Ser B Chem Phys 3(1):47–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hao J, Wang S, Liu B, He K (2001) Plotting of acid rain and sulfur dioxide pollution control zones and integrated control planning in China. Water Air Soil Pollut 130(1–4):259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cazzaniga C, Nocente M, Tardocchi M, Croci G, Giacomelli L, Angelone M, Pillon M, Villari S, Weller A, Petrizzi L, Gorini G, ASDEX Upgrade Team, JET-EFDA Contributors (2013) Response of LaBr3(Ce) scintillators to 2.5 MeV fusion neutrons. Rev Sci Instrum 84:123505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quarati FGA, Dorenbos P, van der Biezen J, Owens A, Selle M, Parthier L, Schotanus P (2013) Scintillation and detection characteristics of high-sensitivity CeBr 3 gamma-ray spectrometers. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res A729:596–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Choi HD, Firestone RB, Lindstrom RM, Molnar GL, Mughabghab SF, Paviotti-Corcuera R, Revay Zs, Trkov A, Zhou CM (2006) Database of prompt gamma-rays from slow neutron capture for elemental analysis. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Linde DA, Day RB (1961) Studies of gamma rays from neutron inelastic scattering. Ann Phys 12:485–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gedcke DA (2001) How counting statistics controls detection limits and peak precision. ORTEC Application Notes AN59.www.ortec-online.com. Accessed 27 May 2019

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations