Re: Blood bioassay

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Re the question posed by Ed Kaplan at Brookhaven re using blood for routine
Pu bioassay.

Clearly, if the basis for the biokinetic models is correct, the blood is
representative of what is in the systemic pool -- ie the systemic
deposition.  Obviously, blood levels would be affected by chelation, but
assuming no chelation, blood shouyld be a very good indicator of systemic
deposition if the time after intake is known.  While not fully relevant to
the question asked, the most extensively studied human case was the Hanford
Am case, who was heavily chelated and showed a power function decrease in
blood levels of Am.  However, I would likely vote against a routine blood
sample for Pu assessment since the proicedure is invasive and, because of
the low levels of Pu in blood, I suspect a relatively large sample would be
required.  If it could be done with a finger stick, the picture changes.
But in any case, data are needed to support the use of blood sampling, and a
carefully constructed experimental protocol would have to be worked out.

Ron Kathren
Director, US Transuranium and Uranium Registries

VISIT THE USTUR HOME PAGE:  Just do a search on USTUR.

   

   >We are interested in the possibility of using a single blood sample,
>rather than 24-hour composite or spot urine, for plutonium bioassay.  One
>may expect less fluctuation in Pu blood content compared to urinary
>excretion.  Preliminary calculations indicate that a small volume of blood
>could represent a 24 hour composite sample.  However, the interpretation
>of blood content is unclear.  ANY INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD IS
>APPRECIATED!
>
>-- 
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>kaplan@bnl.gov
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>