Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 298, Issue 2, pp 1417–1420 | Cite as

A study of the extraction of plutonium from planchets by Aridus–ICP–SFMS



Two extraction processes of plutonium (Pu) on planchets from alpha spectrometry (AS) have been evaluated by inductively coupled plasma sector field mass spectrometry with a desolvator system (Aridus–ICP–SFMS). The samples were traced with known concentrations of 239Pu (1.2 × 103 fg) and 242Pu (2 × 103 fg) followed by an electrodeposition in planchets, according to the Hallstadius method. The processes of extraction were carried out with 50 mL of 0.36 mol L−1 HNO3 every 30 min up to 180 min in a glass beaker at 60 °C. The first process was on a hotplate and the second used an ultrasonic system. Finally, samples were evaporated to dryness, and resuspended in 10 mL of 0.72 mol L−1 HNO3 for evaluation. The results showed that at 120 min, a ~70 % recovery of 239Pu and a ~80 % recovery of 242Pu in both processes were obtained. The average recoveries of 239Pu and 242Pu at 180 min using the hotplate in plate were 93.4 ± 4.6 and 93.7 ± 4.2 % respectively, and with the ultrasonic system were 96.0 ± 4.3 and 98.2 ± 1.0 % respectively. In conclusion, both processes are suitable for Pu extraction, and Aridus–ICP–SFMS is an essential technique for the reassessments and quantification of Pu. In addition, procedural blanks spiked with 1 × 102 fg mL−1 U were prepared for each process, in order to study the contribution of the 238U on the background signal at m/z = 239, which was 0.5 ± 0.2 cps, indicating that the contribution of 238U on the 239Pu signal was negligible. Furthermore, this methodology can be applied to sample planchets with environmental, food, biological and nuclear origin, and thereby to avoid repetitive analysis when Pu concentration determined by AS are under minimum detectable activities.


Plutonium Planchets Acid extraction Ardius–ICP–SFMS AS 


  1. 1.
    Xiao-gui F, Qian-ge H (2009) Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A 609:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vajda N, Kim C-K (2010) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 283:203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desideri D, Feduzi L, Meli MA, Roselli C (2011) Microchem J 97:264–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thakur P, Ballard S, Conca JL (2011) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 287:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bürger S, Riciputi LR, Bostick DA, Turgeon S, McBay EH, Lavelle M (2009) Int J Mass Spectrom 286:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jakopic R, Richter S, Kühn H, Aregbe Y (2010) J Anal At Spectrom 25:815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pointurier F, Pottin A-C, Hémet P, Hubert A (2011) Spectrochim Acta Part B 66:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hernández-Mendoza H, Chamizo E, Delgado A, García-León M, Yllera A (2012) Radiat Prot Dosim 152:296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thakur P, Ballard S, Nelson R (2012) J Environ Monit 14:1604–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raeder S, Hakimi A, Stobener N, Trautmann N, Wendt K (2012) Anal Bioanal Chem 404:2163–2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pointurier F, Hubert A, Faur A-L, Hémet P, Pottin A-C (2011) J Anal At Spectrom 26:1474–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ketterer ME, Szechenyi SC (2008) Spectrochim Acta Part B 63:719–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hallstadius L (1984) Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res 223:266–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de QuímicaInstituto Nacional de Investigaciones NuclearesMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Departamento de Medio Ambiente, Centro de Investigaciones EnergéticasMedioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations