Re: Personal Air Samplers

[Elizabeth Brackett <ebracket@freenet.columbus.oh.us>]

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, James G. Barnes wrote:

> Dear Bates,
> 
> Regarding personal air samplers:
> 
> > 1.  Is this a credible/sound approach?
> 
> Yes.  The "powers that be" have always promoted lapel sampling as the only 
> "legitimate" breathing zone air sample.  Because Pu is such a pain for routine 
> bioassay schedules, a BZA triggered approach is probably the safest way to go.  
> I wouldn't drop routinely scheduled bioassays completely, however.

I would also agree that BZAs are a great supplement to a Pu monitoring
program because it's so difficult to detect in bioassay samples. However,
contrary to another posting on this topic, DOE srongly discourages the use
of BZA results for internal dose assessments so bioassay is still
required.  In addition to the sampling after a potential intake based on
the BZA results, a routine program may still be warranted to detect those
intakes that might be missed by the BZA.  This could happen if an intake
occurred by ingestion rather than inhalation (e.g., wiping a contaminated
hand on the mouth) or if there were a problem with the BZA.  I've also
seen a case where the worker disconnected the hose on the BZA because it
got in his way (and of course, it would have gone unreported if it hadn't
been for the release of radioactive material that contaminated the
individual to significant levels). 

There is an ANSI standard for plutonium internal dosimetry programs
underway at this time.  Unfortunately, we haven't been making great
progress so it's probably still a few years from publication (if not
longer, judging from my previous experience with these documents!)

Liz Brackett
Internal Dosimetry Consultant
ebracket@freenet.columbus.oh.us