EMSL-LV-0539-34
THE INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY OF RANGE PLANTS GROWN ON PLUTONIUM
CONTAMINATED SOILS AS DETERMINED WITH GRAZING CATTLE
March 1980
Prepared under
Memorandum of Understanding
No. EY-76-A-08-0539
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United
States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department
of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied,
or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency thereof.
AVAILABLE FROM THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161
PRICE: PAPER COPY$ MICROFICHES
-------
EMSL-LV-0539-34
THE INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY OF RANGE PLANTS GROWN ON PLUTONIUM
CONTAMINATED SOILS AS DETERMINED WITH GRAZING CATTLE
by
V. R. Bohman and C. Blincoe
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Contract No. 68-03-0247
D. D. Smith
Project Officer
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Prepared under
Memorandum of Understanding
No. EY-76-A-08-0539
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
-------
ABSTRACT
Area 13 is one of several areas of the Nevada Test Site contaminated with
transuranics. Cattle were grazed on the area to study the botanical and
chemical composition of the forage, the digestibility of range plants as
selected by range cattle, and the intake of plutonium and americium by grazing
cattle.
The botanical and chemical composition of the diet of cattle grazing on
Plutonium-contaminated range was determined. The major portion of the diet
was browse plants which were high in fiber and ash but low in energy. Daily
feed intake of the grazing animals was also determined so that the amount of
nuclides ingested daily could be ascertained. Cattle generally consumed over
2 kilograms per 100 kilograms body weight of dry matter daily which resulted
in a daily intake of 3,600 to 6,600 picocuries of plutonium-238, 85,000 to
400,000 picocuries of plutonium-239, and 11,000 to 31,000 picocuries of
americium-241. The soil ingested by range cattle constituted the principal
source of ingested plutonium and americium. This is not unexpected as
plutonium oxide is one of the least soluble substances known and the range
studied is one of very limited rainfall. As expected, the forage from an
"inner" compound was contaminated to a greater extent than the range plants
from an "outer" compound.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract i i
List of Figures and Tables iv
Introduction 1
Methodology 2
Data Calculation 4
Error 5
Botanical and Chemical Composition and Intake of Range Forage 5
Plutonium and Americium Intake of Grazing Cattle 6
Plant Radioactivity 6
Rumen Contents 7
Ingested Radioactivity 7
Discussion 7
Summa ry , 8
Literature Cited 24
Appendix 27
m
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Pa9e
1 Botanical composition of diet of grazing range cattle 9
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Analytical error 10
2 Botanical composition of range forage selected by rumen
fistulated steers grazing on area 13 of the Nevada Test Site 11
3 The chemical composition of forage selected by rumen fistulated
steers (in percent) 12
4 Composition of selected hand-sampled plants during intake and
digestion trial, (dry basis) Area 13 13
5 Digestibility and intake of range forage 14
6 Radioactivity of hand-selected range plants 15
7 Radioactivity of range forage sampled by rumen fistulated cattle.... 18
8 Measured radioactivity ingested 21
9 Calculated radioactivity ingested 22
10 Average measured daily intake of radioactivity 23
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
Area 13 is one of several areas on the Nevada Test Site contaminated with
plutonium and americium. The contamination of Area 13 resulted from Project
57 which consisted of one safety test in 1957 (Dunaway and White 1974). This
area was isolated by fencing (400 hectares). Within this area, the most
heavily contaminated area was further fenced to form an inner compound (100
hectares). These isolated areas have been restricted from all vehicular use
or grazing by domestic animals since contamination. This area has been
extensively studied and reports have been published of the plutonium and
americium in the soil, plants and small mammals of the area (Dunaway and
White, 1974; White and Dunaway, 1975, 1976, 1978; White, Dunaway and Wireman,
1977). Area 13 soil survey and contamination maps have been published by
Leavitt in 1974 and 1978 by Gilbert Eberhardt in 1974.
With the slow decay of plutonium and related nuclides, and since this area
was fenced, an opportunity was provided to graze the area with experimental
livestock and measure the intake and digestibility of desert range forage by
these animals and also to measure the intake of residual plutonium and other
contaminants by grazing livestock.
The isotopes selected for study were plutonium-238, plutonium-239 and
americium-241. All are alpha-particle emitting nuclides with half-lives
between 86 and 24,000 years. Americium-241 arose from beta-decay of
plutonium-241 which has a half-life of 13 years. Based on isotope equilibrium
calculations, one would expect the maxiumum americium-241 levels to occur
approximately 65 years after the initial plutonium contamination.
Plutonium and americium can enter grazing cattle either by inhalation of
dust or by ingestion. An insignificant portion may also enter through cuts
and other abrasions in the skin. Ingestion would include both the nuclides
contained within the grazed plants and with any soil adhering to the plants
and consumed at the same time. Soil data indicate that the greatest
concentration of plutonium in Area 13 is contained in the coarse silt fraction
(20- to 53-micron diameter) of the soil and in a somewhat larger particle-size
fraction of blown sand in the area (Tamura 1974). This soil plutonium is
present as plutonium dioxide (Pu02). Plutonium dioxide is one of the least
soluble compounds known, and americium oxide is only somewhat more soluble.
Plutonium and americium exhibit appreciable solubility in artificial rumen
fluids (Barth and Mullen 1974; Barth 1978) indicating that it can be absorbed
by ruminants. Plutonium and americium have been reported in tissues of cattle
grazing Area 13 (Smith 1974, 1979; Smith, Barth, and Patzer 1976).
The first part of this report deals with methodology. The second part
reports on the dry matter intake, botanical and chemical composition of the
-------
grazed forage, and the dry matter digestibility of range plants at various
seasons of the year on a qualitative as well as quantitative basis as selected
by grazing cattle. The third part deals with the qualitative and quantitative
intake of plutonium and americium by grazing range cattle.
METHODOLOGY
Four rumen-fistulated cattle were used to sample native forage grown on
plutonium-contaminated range from July 1973 to January 1975 according to the
procedure described by Lesperance et al. (1960a, 1960b). This procedure
involves complete removal of the contents of the rumen and reticulum of cattle
adapted to grazing the experimental area, allowing the animals to graze for 15
minutes to 2 hours (depending on forage density), removal of the grazed forage
from the rumen and reticulum, then replacing the original rumen contents
within the animal. A rumen solid and a rumen liquid sample were collected
separately. The rumen liquid sample consisted almost entirely of saliva. If
the next sampling period were soon, the animal was allowed to graze the
experimental range until again utilized for sampling. If the interval before
the next sampling were extended, the animal was kept elsewhere until 1 to 2
weeks prior to sampling and then returned to the experimental pasture. The
dates of sample collections from 16 fistulated steers were:
Period I - June 28 to July 2, 1974
Period II - October 1 to October 5, 1974
Period III - January 17 to January 21, 1975
Rumen samples were also collected from resident cattle of the study area that
were sacrificed on the following dates:
Nos. 2, 8, 12 and 3 - September 25, 1973
Nos. 1, 4 and 6 - July 9, 1974
Nos. 5, 13 and 15 - January 29, 1975
Forage and fecal samples were taken three times during the sampling
period, according to the procedure outlined by Conner et al. (1963) for
digestion and feed intake studies utilizing fecal grab samples. These
procedures were as follows: Fistula samples for forage evaluation were
obtained, as described earlier, one day prior to beginning of fecal sample
collections and the second and fourth day of fecal collection. A group of
fistulated cattle was used as forage samplers, and a second group of cattle
was used for the digestion studies. Starting one week prior to the initiation
of fecal collections, 5 grams of powdered chromic oxide, hand-packaged in
filter paper, was administered morning and evening to the animals on the
digestion trials. The chromic oxide, an external indicator, is used to
measure fecal excretion, and was analyzed according to the procedure of Bolin
et al. (1952) as modified by Connor et al. (1963). Fecal grab samples were
obtained twice daily for 6 consecutive days from the same animals for the
intake and digestibility studies.
-------
Internal indicators, i.e., indigestible, measurable components of the
diet, are used with grazing animals to determine the digestibility of the
diet. Lignin has been used extensively for this purpose. The lignin content
of forage samples collected by fistulated cattle are consistently higher than
the lignin content of forage consumed (Lesperance et al. 1974). A regression
equation has been developed from the composition of forage samples fed to
rumen fistulated cattle and forage samples collected though fistulas as
described earlier which permits a correction for this change (Connor et al.
1963).
Samples for botanical composition were collected by the Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV) and summarized in this
report. Other analyses were completed according to Association of Official
Analytical Chemists (AOAC 1975) methods.
Individual range plants were collected from both the inner and outer
compound while the digestion and intake studies were underway. These samples
were limited to the current years growth of each plant.
The fresh plant samples and rumen contents were dried to remove surface
moisture and split into two subsamples of equal size. One subsample ("as
received") was subjected to no further treatment. The other subsample was
washed with petroleum ether (40-70°C boiling range) until essentially no
further adhering material could be removed (Dye 1962). The solvent was
filtered and residual solvent was evaporated from both the plant material
("washed") and the removed soil ("soil"). The "as received" and "washed"
subsamples were dried at 70°C in a mechanical convection oven to less than 10
percent moisture content, ground in a Wiley mill , and mixed thoroughly. Total
moisture was determined on these samples by standard procedure 7.008 (AOAC
1975). Samples of the "as received" and "washed" plant material and the
entire "soil" fraction were ashed for 16 hours at 550°C. The entire ash from
the "washed" samples was forwarded to EMSL-LV for radioassay. The major
portion of the ash from the "soil" fraction was also sent for radioassay. The
sample number key is given in Appendix Table 1. Details on the sample weights
are given in Appendix Table 2.
As an indicator of soil remaining on the washed plant material, titanium
was determined on the "as received" and the "washed" samples (Mitchell 1960).
Titanium is present in soils in reasonably large concentrations and is present
in quite small concentrations in plants. The soil concentration is about
10,000 times that of plants. Thus the amount of titanium in a sample of plant
material is indicative of the amount of soil contamination of the sample. In
these studies, a comparison of the titanium contained in plant samples as
received by the laboratory ("as received" samples) and that after the washing
procedure outlined above ("washed" samples) indicated the efficiency of the
washing processes. A correction for the plutonium and americium remaining in
the soil contaminating the washed samples was made. A colorimetric analytical
procedure was used (Yoe and Armstrong 1947; Clark 1968). Some studies of the
titanium analytical procedures were made. Samples and standards were prepared
by wet digestion and fusion with sodium carbonate. Since identical results
-------
were obtained, the simpler wet digestion procedure was used. Studies were
also made of optimum development time and the standard curve stability.
Five samples of the "rumen liquid" were analyzed for titanium and gross
alpha radioactivity. Very small amounts of titanium (19 ± 16 micrograms per
collection) and no detectable alpha radioactivity were found. This confirmed
our procedure of not assaying the "rumen liquid" samples. Transuranic
elements are reported in rumen liquid (Smith, Barth, and Patzer 1976). It
should be pointed out that the "rumen liquid" sample analyzed here is that
liquid accumulated during the time the fistulated animals were sampling the
range. Since the normal rumen contents were removed prior to this sampling,
this "rumen liquid" consisted largely of saliva. This is markedly different
from normal, in vivo, rumen liquid in that it would (a) have a much lower
microorganism content, and (b) it would not have been in prolonged contact
with the ingested feed and especially with remasticated rumen contents. For
these reasons its content of compounds likely to complex metals, such as
tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates, would be quite low. It is not
surprising that the "rumen liquid" analyzed in these studies would not contain
transuranic elements whereas the rumen liquid from normally functional
ruminants would.
Data Calculation: The radioactivity per unit weight (dry basis) was first
calculated. The radioactivity "in" and "on" the samples was calculated using
the titanium analysis to correct for soil remaining after washing the samples.
The radioactivity "in" the sample was that measured in the washed sample less
the correction for unremoved soil (Mitchell 1960). This unremoved
radioactivity was calculated by three methods:
(a) By the ratio of the titanium in the "as received" sample to that in
the "washed" sample. This used no average values and three data
points per calculation.
(b) By using an average value for the titanium in the soil (24,000
micrograms per gram ash) and two data points per calculation.
(c) By using an average ratio of radioactivity to titanium for each
nuclide and only one data point per calculation.
The results of all three calcuations were tabulated. Method "a" was
considered to be more reliable since it used only data and no average values,
however agreement between two calculated values was required. The value
reported was selected as follows: If there was agreement between method "a"
and one of the other methods ("b" or "c"), the results from methods "a" were
used. If there was agreement between methods "b" and "c", but the results
were markedly different from those with method "a", the results from method
"b" were used. In approximately two-thirds of the samples the value from
calculation method "a" was reported. The radioactivity "on" the sample was
the sum of that measured in the soil removed by washing and the soil still
remaining on the plant. An example of this calculation is given as Appendix
Table 3.
-------
Other calculations, including statistical analysis of d^ata, were by
standard methods. All calculations were made by digital computers.
Error: The over-all analytical error for the various procedures is given
in Table 1. In all cases, the standard deviation of analysis was estimated
from presumably blind duplicate sample analyses (Youden 1951). In the case of
the plutonium and americium assay, duplicates were derived both from the same
original sample prior to ashing and from the same ashed sample. These
standard deviations were of the same order of magnitude.
BOTANICAL AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND INTAKE OF RANGE FORAGE
The botanical composition of range forage selected by fistulated steers
grazing on Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site is given in Table 2 and illustrated
in Figure 1. Details are given in Appendix Table 4. The plant cover in Area
13 is predominantly browse. When grass is available, cattle select grass as
the main component of their diet. As grass disappeared from the environment,
a higher proportion of browse was then consumed. Forbs, nongrass annuals, did
not consitute a major portion of the animal's diet at any time, although they
have in other studies (Smith et al. 1968) on different areas of the Nevada
Test Site at times. Since this portion of Area 13 had been restricted from
grazing by domestic livestock for some period of time, more grass was
available at the beginning of the grazing period than later. Since animals
were restricted to a relatively small area of desert range, the variation in
grass and forb consumption was not as great as noticed in other studies of
desert range areas (Connor et al. 1963; Smith et al. 1968; Bohman and
Lesperance 1967). Some examples of grass intake by range cattle are
illustrated by location: NTS, 22 to 100 percent (Smith et al. 1968); Delamar
Valley, Lincoln Co., Nevada, 0 to 85 percent, Elko Co., Nevada, 60 to 80
percent (Connor et al. 1963). In the current study, the grass present in the
diet varied from 0 to 64 percent depending on the month sampled.
The chemical composition of forage selected by fistulated steers grazing
on Area 13 on the Nevada Test Site is given in Table 3. Details are given in
Appendix Table 5. The ash content of range forage (11.9 to 14.9 percent) is
consistently higher than harvested hays (7 to 10 percent). This reflects not
only mineral incorporated into plant tissues but also soil materials that
adhere to the surface of the plant. This has been noticed in other studies on
Nevada ranges which reported 11 to 22 percent ash (Connor et al. 1963; Smith
et al. 1968)- The protein content of the diet did not vary as much as
expected considering the variation in the plant species ingested. Animals
graze very selectively (Bohman and Lesperance 1967) and thus the chemical
composition of the diet shows much less variation than the botanical
composition. The total protein content of the diet generally increases when
the plant is rapidly growing (May 1974) and is lowest on desert ranges when
the plants are dry and mature (September 1973; October 1974). Except when
plant growth is modified by non-seasonal rains, these trends in composition
are usually seasonal.
-------
The composition of selected hand-sampled plants harvested during the
intake and digestion trials is shown in Table 4. Grass species were fairly
mature when harvested hence their low protein and high fiber content. Browse
was consistently higher in lignin as compared with annual species. Forbs and
grasses were heavily utilized at sampling and the residual material was short
and heavily contaminated with soil material and consequently has a high
mineral content.
The digestibility and intake of range forage are shown in Table 5. In
this current study, it ranged from 34.0 to 44.4 percent. The digestibility is
low but is comparable to other studies where greater feed selection was
possible. In other similar range studies in Southern Nevada, Connor et al.
(1963) found that the dry matter digestibility ranged from 39.7 to 42.7
percent. Smith et al. (1968) at the NTS found that dry matter digestibility
was 43.6 to 62.5 percent. Browse is far less digestible than grass and during
the time that the digestion trials occurred, cattle were consuming browse
almost exclusively. The digestibility of Northern Nevada range varied during
the summer from 47 to 61 percent on predominantly grass type range. The feed
intake was higher than expected for poor quality range, but quite normal for
grazing animals on pasture. Animals probably attempted to compensate for the
low nutritive value of the forage by greater consumption.
PLUTONIUM AND AMERICIUM INTAKE OF GRAZING CATTLE
Plant Radioactivity: Table 6 summarizes the data on the radioactivity of
range plants collected from the study area. Sample and analysis numbers are
given in Appendix Table 1 and detailed data are presented in Appendix Table 2.
Samples were taken from two levels of contamination, the "inner" compound
being more severely contaminated than the "outer" area. Plant samples from
the "inner" area averaged about thirty times more radioactivity than samples
from the "outer" area. No time trends were apparent, but none would be
expected because of the long half-life of the nuclides studied. Table 6 also
gives the partitioning of the radioactivity between that as external
contamination on the plant and that contained within the plant. For the
purposes of Table 6, negative calculated values of radioactivity within the
plant were reported as zero. The mean and standard deviation for each nuclide
in plants, considering both positive and negative calculated values were:
Plutonium-238 -0.08 ± 0.54 pCi/g (dry basis)
Plutonium-239 31 ± 12
Americium-241 3 ± 3
Except for plutonium-239 the average radioactivity contained within the range
plants was insignificantly different from zero. This was also reflected in
similar data from rumen contents. Since the plant uptake of plutonium
isotopes would depend on the chemical properties of plutonium rather than on
the isotope, one cannot draw conclusions from the above table about the uptake
of plutonium by desert plants.
-------
Tible 6 also compares the measurement of total radioactivity in the "as
recei /ed" sample ("measured") with that calculated by the sum of the
radioactivity "in" and "on" the sample. The agreement is generally quite good
and a paired t-test indicates no significant difference between the two
methods of ascertaining the total radioactivity of the "as received" sample.
Rumen Contents: The concentration of radioactivity in the rumen contents
of the test animals is summarized in Table 7 and the total ingested
radionuclides in Table 8. As was the case with the plant samples, essentially
all o- the plutonium and americium ingested by the experimental animals was
ingested as surface contamination and as soil rather than being contained
within the plant matter. A somewhat larger proportion of the americium was
found within the ingested plant material. Again, if the calculated negative
values are included; the mean value for the radioactivity contained within the
plant material is not significantly different from zero.
Ingested Radioactivity: The measured radioactivity ingested is given in
Table 8 as the radioactivity in the total rumen content. The fistula samples
(Animals 707, 729, 761 and 774) were the sum of collections on three
consecutive days. The other samples were the rumen contents collected from
sacrificed animals. Table 9 gives the estimated radioactivity ingested based
on the plant analyses (Table 6) and the botanical composition of the rumen
ingesta (Table 2). The two methods of estimating the radioactivity ingested
were compared using a paired t-test. Considering all data, there were no
statistically significant differences between methods although the intake
calculated from feed composition tended to be higher than that directly
measured. Table 10 gives the average daily intake of the three nuclides by
cattle. This was based on the daily forage intake (Table 5) and on the
measured radioactivity per unit weight of the rumen contents of the
rumen-fistulated animals (Table 8).
DISCUSSION
The cattle in this study were grazing Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site.
This is a rather poor, very dry desert range. Grass disappeared from the diet
as grass became unavailable due to continued grazing. Dry matter
digestibility was rather low but the animals compensated by increasing dry
matter intake.
The transuranics consumed by the cattle were largely consumed as soil
associated with their diet. This was reflected both by studies of the plants
consumed and by studies of the rumen contents. The diet was high in ash
reflecting surface contamination of the plants with soil. Soil had been noted
in the digestive tract of animals grazing this area and it was estimated that
cattle grazing this range consumed 0.25 to 0.5 kg of soil per day (Smith
1979).
-------
Plants grown under irrigated, greenhouse conditions on soils from Area 13
take up the transuranics (Au et al. 1977). These studies were with non-native
species under irrigated conditions. The native species on this range are
rather deep rooted, drawing water and nutrients from considerable depth
(Robertson, Blincoe and Torell 1972). Transuranic contamination is largely
confined to the upper portion of the soils in Area 13 (Gilbert and Eberhardt
1974). It is thus not surprising that this study found only minimal
concentrations of the transuranics within the desert flora consumed by grazing
cattle.
The quantities of plutonium and americium ingested by grazing cattle were
determined both from measurements on the ingesta and from measurements on the
range plants. The two methods gave substantial agreement. How much of the
ingested radioactivity was assimilated by the cattle was not addressed by this
study. Plutonium and americium are reported in the tissues from cattle
grazing Area 13 (Smith 1979). Plutonium and americium are also reported to be
very poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract even when ingested in a
soluble form (Stanley, Bretthauer and Sutton 1975 and Sutton et al. 1978).
Since the insoluble oxides in glass-like particles were ingested by grazing
cattle (Tamura 1974) one would anticipate minimal assimilation of the ingested
transuranics.
SUMMARY
The botanical and chemical composition of the diet of cattle grazing on
plutonium-contaminated range was determined. The major portion of the diet
was browse plants which were high in fiber and ash but low in energy. Daily
feed intake of the grazing animals was also determined so that the amount of
nuclides ingested daily could be ascertained. Cattle generally consumed over
2 kg/100 kg body weight of dry matter daily which resulted in a daily intake
of 3.6 x 103 to 6.6 x 103 pCi 238Pu, 8.5 x 104 to 4 x 105 pCi 239Pu, and
1.1 x l(T to 3.1 x 104 pCi 2LflAm. The soil ingested by range cattle
constituted the principal and possibly only source of ingested plutonium and
americium. This is not unexpected as plutonium oxide is one of the least
soluble substances known and the range studied is one of very limited
rainfall. As expected, the forage from the "inner" compound was contaminated
to a greater extent than the range plants from the "outer" compound.
-------
%100
60
\
A
June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
1973 1974
Figure 1. Botanical composition of diet of grazing range cattle,
1975
-------
TABLE 1. ANALYTICAL ERROR
Statistic
Pu-238 Pu-239 Am-241 Moisture Titanium
Chemical analyses:
n
Standard deviation
of % composition
Standard deviation
of % error
Radiochemical analyses*:
20 20
±0.42 ±0.0079
±8.0
±7.0
n
Standard deviation
of pCi/g ash
Standard deviation
of % error
Overall**:
n
Standard deviation
of pCi/g ash
Standard deviation
of % error
7 7
±2.1 ±74
±57 ±54
15 15
±2.7 ±88
±35 ±30
7
±35
±45
14
±14
±40
* All steps subsequent to forwarding the ash to EMSL-LV for radiochemical
analysis
** Includes all analytical errors
n Number of duplicate-pairs used for statistical analysis
10
-------
TABLE 2. BOTANICAL COMPOSITION OF RANGE FORAGE SELECTED BY RUMEN-FISTULATED STEERS
GRAZING ON AREA 13 OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE*
Percent
Plant Species
Grasses:
Hi 1 aria jamesii
Oryzopsis hymenoides
Sitanion jubatuni
Stipa speciosa
Sporobolus spp.
unidentified
Total
Forbs:
Salsola paulsenii
Sphaeralcea ambigua
Eriogonum spp.
Chaenactis spp.
Chenopodium spp.
Malacothrix spp.
Ambrosia acanthi carpa
Phlox spp.
Gilia spp.
unidentified
Total
Browse (shrubs):
Eurotia lanata
Atriplex canescens
At ri pi ex conferti folia
Lycium andersonii
Suadea spp.
unidentified
Total
CO CO
CM CJ>
IO l-~
4
60
T**
64
T
T
T
2
2
26
8
34
28
32
T
60
4
T
T
4
21
15
T
36
CO
00
CO
10
19
T
29
T
T
T
1
1
14
55
T
69
co
LO
5?
12
T
T
12
T
T
T
2
2
31
55
T
86
CO
r*-
i— i
O
I— 1
13
1
1
15
1
1
2
20
62
1
83
CO
r-.
U3
t— t
r-H
41
2
43
2
T
1
1
5
45
5
2
53
o
~^.
CM
1
1
1
3
4
1
T
T
1
6
82
3
2
4
91
of
5/21/74
T
6
40
1
1
47
2
1
5
2
4
T
T
3
17
26
2
1
4
3
36
Total Forage at
6/28/74
1
8
7
1
17
12
T
1
15
34
4
T
28
2
68
6/30/74
2
2
6
5
T
1
16
1
4
2
1
1
9
26
9
32
5
3
75
OJ
1 —
1
3
T
4
16
T
T
3
19
49
6
5
14
3
77
^
CO
29
2
31
T
T
1
1
54
4
2
8
68
Various
l-H
O
T
0
1
1
2
33
2
58
5
98
10/3/74
2
2
1
1
2
21
2
63
10
96
Sampling Dates
10/5/74
T
0
2
2
23
4
68
3
98
«* LO
LO P-.
^-» <— 1
<-> --»
9 1
9 1
2
1
T 1
3 1
50 12
T
38 86
88 98
LO
-^
r-H
1
1
T
2
1
1
T
2
3
1
92
T
96
LO
^
CM
8
4
1
13
1
T
1
2
36
7
42
85
LO
^»
cy>
CM
-~.
11
3
1
15
3
1
4
31
12
30
1
7
81
LO
CM
t— 4
CO
8
1
2
11
2
T
1
3
40
42
4
86
* These data were collected by EMSL-LV.
** T indicates trace amount - lower than 1 percent.
-------
TABLE 3. THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FORAGE SELECTED BY RUMEN
FISTULATED STEERS (in percent)
Date
07-10-73
08-08-73
09-05-73
10-01-73
11-06-73
02-20-74
05-24-74
06-28 to
07-02-74
08-07-74
10-01 to
10-05-74
01-17 to
01-21-74
Ash
Dry
Basis
13.99
14.91
15.44
13.65
12.72
11.92
14.86
13.02
12.76
11.54
14.33
Organic
Matter Protein
Dry
Basis
86.01
85.09
84.56
86.35
87.28
88.08
85.14
86.98
87.27
88.46
85.67
Dry
Basis
8.85
7.86
6.20
7.44
7.91
7.60
11.21
8.83
8.64
6.92
7.72
Ash
Free
10.29
9.24
7.33
8.62
9.06
8.63
13.17
10.15
9.90
7.82
9.01
Acid
Detergent Fiber
Dry
Basis
40.18
40.76
41.72
40.57
40.30
41.30
37.27
37.95
39.80
42.37
43.90
Ash
Free
46.72
47.90
49.34
46.98
46.17
46.89
43.77
43.63
45.61
47.90
51.24
Lignin
Dry
Basis
9.19
9.29
9.15
12.91
12.01
14.56
9.96
10.46
13.11
13.87
15.35
Ash
Free
10.68
10.92
10.82
14.95
13.76
16.53
11.41
12.03
15.02
15.68
17.92
12
-------
TABLE 4. COMPOSITION OF SELECTED HAND-SAMPLED PLANTS DURING INTAKE
AND DIGESTION TRIAL, (DRY BASIS) AREA 13
Percent of Dry Matter
Date
and
Location
07-02-74
Outer
Compound
Inner
Compound
10-08-74
Outer
Compound
Inner
Compound
01-20-75
Outer
Compound
Species
Russian thistle
(Salsola paulsenii)
Gall eta grass
(Hilaria jamesii)
Indian rice grass
(Oryzopsis hymenoides)
Four-wing saltbush
(Atriplex canescens)
White sage
(Eurotia lanata)
Four-wing saltbush
White sage •<
Russian thistle
Grass spp.
White sage
Russian thistle
Grass spp.
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Grass spp.
Bud sage
(Artemesia spinescens)
Four-wing saltbush
Protein
9.74
10.41
5.28
7.13
8.15
6.86
7.35
6.97
5.48
8.70
7.34
3.29
8.66
7.15
7.92
7.84
8.47
Acid
Detergent
Fiber
19.47
42.13
39.61
29.04
38.25
27.26
34.61
51.76
53.96
41.68
32.69
61.19
30.36
40.15
45.19
47.83
32.66
Lignin
3.01
4.10
4.84
11.22
12.64
11.09
9.07
2.85
6.68
14.49
3.04
5.08
12.42
15.45
5.73
15.91
13.30
Ash
23.76
24.21
12.79
19.95
6.81
20.84
9.73
56.39
29.94
10.30
34.11
43.73
16.47
7.30
19.62
14.87
12.68
(continued)
13
-------
TABLE 4. (Continued)
Percent of Dry Matter
Date
and
Location
Inner
Compound
Species
White sage
Grass spp.
Bud sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Protein
7.77
5.39
8.05
8.65
7.74
Acid
Detergent
Fiber
42.29
50.14
48.04
31.93
42.30
Lignin
17.46
6.37
15.25
13.27
16.91
Ash
5.80
22.23
16.96
13.13
6.35
TABLE 5. DIGESTIBILITY AND INTAKE OF RANGE FORAGE
Measurement
Dry matter digestibility, %a
Dry matter intake, kg dailyb
Cattle weight, kg
Intake, % of body weight
I
40.1
7.32
311
2.35
Periods
II
34.0
9.00
337
2.67
III
44.4
8.23
334
2.46
aDry matter (D.M.) digestibility =
inn
lignin feces
\ ( % P.M. in feces )
/ \% D.M. in feed /
where % lignin in feed is corrected for sample processing according to the
following equation (Conner et al. 1963)
corrected lignin value = 3.63 + 0.405 (lignin in samples)
Fecal dry matter output, g = amount of Cr20, fed -
% Cr203 in fecal grab sample
t>Drv matter intake - 100 fecal weight, dry basis
Dry matter intake - % dry ^tter indigestibility
14
-------
TABLE 6. RADIOACTIVITY OF HAND-SELECTED RANGE PLANTS*
pCi/g (d.b.)t
Nuclide Period Sample
No.
'38Pu I 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
II 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
III 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
239Pu I 01
02
03
04
05
Area* Species
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
Russian thistle
Galleta grass
Indian rice grass
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Indian rice grass
Gal leta grass
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Undetermined
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Russian thistle
Grass
Bud sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Grass
Bud sage
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Russian thistle
Galleta grass
Indian rice grass
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
ON
0.14
0.32
0.11
0.38
0.19
(T)
15.
6.5
2.2
1.0
0.15
0.31
0.22
0.046
0.35
1.1
1.8
0.31
4.4
2.9
0.17
0.17
0.014
0.31
2.0
0.52
0.41
5.5
4.5
4.1
1.1
5.4
2.7
IN
0.06
0
0.09
0
0
12.
39.
3.6
0
0.15
0.10
0
0.11
0
3.4
0
0
0
0.30
0.80
0.02
0.25
0.02
4.5
0.95
0.17
1.6
0
5.5
1.6
0
3.1
TOTAL
Sum Measured
0.20
0.32
0.20
0.38
0.19
27.
46.
5.8
1.0
0.30
0.41
0.22
0.16
0.35
4.5
1.8
0.31
4.4
3.2
0.97
0.19
0.26
0.33
6.5
1.00
0.58
7.1
4.5
9.6
2.7
5.4
5.8
0.20
0.27
0.20
0.20
0.16
27.
46.
5.8
0.94
0.30
0.41
0.082
0.16
0.48
4.5
2.4
0.28
4.2
3.3
0.98
0.18
0.26
0.34
6.6
1.00
0.58
7.1
3.8
9.6
2.7
7.1
5.8
(continued)
15
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
pCi/q
Nuclide Period Sample
No.
06
07
08
09
10
II 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
III 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
2<(1Am I 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Area* Species
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
Indian rice grass
Galleta grass
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Undetermined
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Russian thistle
Grass
Bud sage
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Grass
Bud sage
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Russian thistle
Galleta grass
Indian rice grass
Four-wing saltbush
White sage
Indian rice grass
Gal leta grass
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
ON
(T)
530.
260.
44
20
8
0
3
0
11
20
110
7
120
96
7
5
0
3
78
2
9
220
0
1
0
2
1
.
•
.2
.74
.5
.17
-
.
.3
.
•
.3
.2
.64
.8
9
.2
.7
•
.75
.7
.75
.4
.1
IN
430
140
200
9
2
1
52
4
17
20
5
3
190
38
5
59
0
0
•
.
.2
0
.4
0
.2
0
"o
.5
0
•
9
0
.7
.3
a
.
.9
•
0
.61
0
0
.14
fd.b.h
TOTAL
Sum Measured
960
400
240
2
8
3
3
1
11
72
110
12
120
110
27
5
6
7
270
40
16
280
0
2
1
2
1
•
.
.9
.2
.1
.5
.5
•
.
.
.
•
^
.2
.3
.1
.
.
.
•
.75
.3
.75
.4
.2
960
400
250
30
7
3
1
1
12
73
89
12
120
110
27
4
6
7
270
40
16
280
0
2
0
1
1
•
.
•
.2
.2
.7
.5
•
.
.
.
•
m
.8
.3
.1
.
.
.
•
.64
.3
.59
.4
.3
(T)
68
27
27
1
%
%
m
.7
79
5
m
.4
0
1.8
32
27
3
2
.
.*5
.3
33
25
3
1
.
.*5
.5
(continued)
16
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
Nuclide Period Sample
No.
II 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
III 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Area* Species
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
White sage
Russian thistle
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
Undetermined
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Russian thistle
Grass
Bud sage
Four wing saltbush
White sage
Grass
Bud sage
White sage
Four-wing saltbush
Grass
ON
2.3
0.10
0.92
1.2
1.6
1.4
18.
1.4
12.
6.5
0.65
0.39
0.12
0.58
11.
0.52
12.
15.
pCi/g (d.b
•)t
IN TOTAL
Sum Measured
0 0.83
0.73 0.92
0 1.4
0.19 1.6
0
14. 15.
0 18.
1.1 2.5
1.7 14.
4.8 11.
3.4 4.1
0.25 0.64
0.90 1.0
0.63 1.2
7.3 18.
9.4 10.
0 12.
10. 25.
0.83
0.55
1.4
1.7
15.
15.
2.5
14.
11.
4.1
0.64
1.0
1.2
18.
10.
8.
26.
Notes:
T - Data Missing - Sample lost
* - "0" = Outer area; "I" = Inner area
t - Picocurie per gram dry basis
* All data expressed to two significant figures
17
-------
TABLE 7. RADIOACTIVITY OF RANGE FORAGE SAMPLED BY RUMEN FISTULATED CATTLE
(pCi/g (d.b.)
Nuclide Period Animal
No.
i3SPu I 707
729
761
774
II 707
729
761
774
III 707
729
761
744
I 1
4
6
III 5
13
15
'73 2
3
8
12
239Pu I 707
729
761
774
II 707
729
761
774
ON
0.62
0.33
0.99
1.52
0.66
0.60
1.10
0.51
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.49
1.22
.91
2.32
0.16
1.53
0.027
1.77
1.85
0.073
2.73
49.
74.
40.
54.
13.
20.
63.
21.
IN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.008
0
0.117
0
0
0.095
2.59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
Total
0.62
0.33
0.99
1.52
0.66
0.60
1.10
0.58
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.49
1.22
.91
2.32
0.17
1.53
0.14
1.77
1.85
0.17
5.32
49.
74.
40,
54.
13.
20.
63.
23.
(continued)
18
-------
TABLE 7. (Continued)
Nuclide Period Animal
No.
Ill 707
729
761
774
I 1
4
6
III 5
13
15
'73 2
3
8
12
2"lAin I 707
729
761
774
II 707
729
761
774
III 707
729
761
774
I 1
4
6
ON
11.
6.9
9.9
10.
31.
2.4
76.
6.2
68.
2.8
55.
29.
2.1
5.8
2.2
4.3
2.7
7.6
2.0
1.8
1.4
0.92
0.89
0.17
2.1
0.57
4.8
2.5
10.0
(pCi/g (d.b.)
IN
1.0
1.4
0
0
0
6.2
0
0
0
4.3
0
0
3.4
17.
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
1.1
0.44
0.34
0.35
0.27
0
0
0
Total
12.
8.3
9.9
10.
31.
8.6
76.
6.2
68.
7.1
55.
29.
5.5
23.
2.2
4.3
2.7
7.6
2.0
1.8
4.2
2.0
1.3
0.51
2.5
0.84
4.8
2.5
10.0
(continued)
19
-------
TABLE 7. (Continued)
Nuclide Period Animal
No.
Ill 5
13
15
'73 2
3
8
12
ON
0.40
3.8
1.2
8.5
1.9
0.21
0.67
(pCi/g (d.b.
IN
0.18
0
0.68
1.6
0
.46
1.0
)
Total
0.58
3.83
1.9
10.
1.9
0.67
1.7
ON - Radioactivity on particles adhered to the plant
IN - Radioactivity of plant materials
20
-------
TABLE 8. MEASURED RADIOACTIVITY INGESTED
Period
I
II
III
III
'73
Animal
No.
707
729
761
774
1
4
6
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
5
13
15
2
3
8
12
«»Pu
850
4100
3400
7300
59
88
57
550
1000
8400
1200
410
630
470
400
120
30
45
240
160
64
130
pCi/Sampl ing
•••Pu
39000
17000
120000
220000
2400
2800
910
16000
41000
33000
51000
17000
18000
16000
9400
1600
1800
1900
8300
3200
2400
1500
2ltlAm
2400
4500
7000
19000
82
200
90
820
3500
8200
7600
160
410
1500
860
230
290
240
270
370
160
200
21
-------
TABLE 9. CALCULATED RADIOACTIVITY INGESTED
Period Animal
No.
I 707
729
761
774
1
4
6
II 707
729
761
774
III 707
729
761
774
5
13
15
"•Pu
640
3200
1600
50000
83
65
84
550
1700
4800
375
550
720
850
631
200
140
150
pCi /Sampl ing
«»Pu
20000
10000
35000
1500000
2200
2000
2400
19000
29000
180000
7900
15000
19000
16000
17000
4800
3600
3400
'"Am
4100
21000
7900
180000
510
300
530
5100
10000
31000
2200
2300
2900
2200
2500
760
550
580
22
-------
TABLE 10. AVERAGE MEASURED DAILY INTAKE OF RADIOACTIVITY
Nuclide Period
2"Pu I
II
III
239Pu I
II
III
21tIAm I
II
III
Area*
I
0
I
0
All
I
0
I
0
All
I
0
I
0
All
pCi/day
11 100
4 700
9 900
5 500
3 600
400 000
400 000
570 000
170 000
85 000
56 000
22 000
42 000
16 000
11 000
* I = one animal in the inner area
0 = average of three animals in the outer area
All = average of all animals (distribution of animaTs between inner and
outer areas unknown for period III)
23
-------
LITERATURE CITED
A.O.A.C. 1975. Official Methods of Analysis (12th Ed.) Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists. Washington, D.C.
Au, F. H. F., V. D. Leavitt, W. F- Beckert and J. C. McFarlane. 1977.
Incorporation of transuranics into vegetables and field crops grown at the
Nevada Test Site. In: Transuranics in Desert Ecosystems. M. G. White,
P. B. Dunaway and D. L. Wireman (Eds.).U.S. Department of Energy,
Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-181.
Barth, J. 1978. The solubility of americium-241 in in vitro bovine
ruminal-gastro intestinal fluids and predicted tissue retention and milk
secretion of field-ingested americium-241. In: Selected Environmental
Plutonium Research Reports of the NAEG. M. G. White and P. B. Dunaway
(Eds.).U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-192. p. 45.
Barth, J., and A. A. Mullen. 1974. In vitro plutonium studies using the
artificial rumen and simulated abomasal and intestinal fluids. In: The
Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert Environments. P. B. Dunaway and
M. G. White (Eds.).U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations
Office, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-142. p. 143
Bohman, V. R., and A. L. Lesperance. 1967. Methodology research for range
forage evaluation. J. Animal Science 26:820.
Bolin, D. W., R. P. King and E. W. Kolsterman. 1952. A simplified method for
the determination of chronic oxide (Cr203) when used as an index
substance. Science 116:634.
Clark, R. J. H. 1968. The Chemistry of Titanium. Pergamon Press, New York.
Connor, J. M., V. R. Bohman, A. L. Lesperance and F- E. Kinsinger. 1963.
Nutritive evaluation of summer range forage with cattle. J. Animal
Science 22:961.
Dunaway, P. B., and M. G. White (Eds.). 1974. The dynamics of Plutonium
in desert environment. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations
Office, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-142.
Dye, W. B. 1962. A micronutrient survey of Nevada forage. Nevada Agr. Expt.
Sta. Tech. Bui. 227.
24
-------
Gilbert, R. 0., and L. L. Eberhardt. 1974. Statistical analysis of pi utoni urn
in soils at the Nevada Test Site - some results. _In_: The Dynamics of
Plutonium in Desert Environments. P- B. Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.).
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
NVO-142. p. 51.
Leavitt, V. D. 1974. Soil survey of five piutoniurn-contaminated areas on the
test range complex in Nevada. In: The Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert
Environments. P. B. Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.). U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-142. p. 21.
Leavitt, V. D. 1978. Soil surveys and profile descriptions of plutonium-
contaminated areas on the test range complex in Nevada, 1970-1977. In:
Selected Environmental Plutonium Research Reports of the NAEG. M. G.
White and P- B. Dunaway (Eds.).U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas,
NV. NVO-192. p. 253.
Lesperance, A. L., V. R. Bohman and D. W. Marble. 1960a. Development of
techniques for evaluating grazed forage. J. Dairy Science 43:682.
Lesperance, A. L., E. H. Jensen, V. R. Bohman and R. A. Madsen. 1960b.
Measuring selective grazing with fistulated steers. J. Dairy Science
43:1615.
Lesperance, A. L., T. M. Smith and V. R. Bohman. 1967. Influence of sample
preparation on intake and digestion. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. of
Animal Science 18:234.
Lesperance, A. L., D. C. Clanton, A. B. Nelson and C. B. Theurer. 1974.
Factors affecting the apparent chemical composition of fistula samples.
Nv. Agric. Expt. Sta. Pub. T-18. University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Mitchell, R. L. 1960. Contamination problems in soil and plant analysis.
J. Sci. Food Agric. 11:553.
Robertson, J. H., C. Blinooe and C. Torel1. 1972. Phreatic tendencies of
exotic grasses and residual species as indicated by radioisotope
absorption. J. Range Management 25:295.
Romney, E. M. and A. Wallace. 1976. Plutonium contamination of vegetation in
dusty field environments. In: Transuranics in Natural Environments.
M. G. White and P- B. Dunaway (Eds.).U. S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-178. p. 287.
Smith, D. D. 1974. Grazing studies on selected piutoniurn contaminated areas
in Nevada, lin: The Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert Environments. P. B.
Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.).U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada
Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-142. p. 151.
25
-------
Smith, D. D. 1979. Summary Report of the Grazing Studies Conducted on a
Plutonium-Contaminated Range in Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site.
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Division, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, NV. EMSL-LV-0539-24.
Smith, D. D., J. Barth and R. G. Patzer. 1976. Grazing studies on a
Plutonium-contaminated range of the Nevada Test Site. J_n: Transuranium
Nuclides in the Environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
pp. 325-335.
Smith, T. M., A. L. Lesperance, V. R. Bohman, R. A. Brechbill and K. W. Brown.
1968. Intake and digestability of forage grazed by cattle on a southern
Nevada range. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. of Animal Science 19:277.
Stanley, R. E., E. W. Bretthauer and W. W. Sutton. 1975. Absorption,
distribution and excretion of plutonium by dairy cattle. In: The
Radioecology of Plutonium and Other Transuranics in Desert Environments.
P. B. Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.).U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
NVO-153. p. 97.
Sutton, W. W., R. G. Patzer, A. A. Mullen, P. B. Hahn and G. D. Potter. 1978.
Metabolism of americium-241 in dairy animals. In: Selected Environmental
Plutonium Research Reports to the NAEG. M. G. Wh~ite and P. B. Dunaway
(Eds.). U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-192. p. 19.
Tarnura, T. 1974. Distribution and characterization of plutonium in soils
from Nevada Test Site. In: The Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert
Environments. P. B. Dunaway and M. G. White (Eds.).U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. NVO-142. p. 29.
White, M. G. and P- B. Dunaway (Eds.). 1975. The Radioecology of Plutonium
and Other Transuranics in Desert Environments. U. S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
NVO-153.
White, M. G. and P. B. Dunaway (Eds.). 1976. Transuranics in Natural
Environments. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration,
Las Vegas, NV. NVO-178.
White, M. G. and P. B. Dunaway (Eds.). 1978. Selected Environmental
Plutonium Research Reports to the NAEG. U.S. Department of Energy, Las
Vegas, NV. NVO-192.
White, M. G., P- B. Dun away and D. L. Wireman (Eds.). 1977. Transuranics in
Desert Ecosystems. U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office,
Las Vegas, NV. NVO-181.
Yoe, J. H. and A. R. Armstrong. 1947. Colorimetric determination of titanium
with disodium-1,2 dihydroxybenzene-3,5-disulfonate. Anal. Chem. 19:100.
Youden, W. J. 1951. Statistical Methods for Chemists. John Wiley, New York.
26
-------
APPENDIX
Table Page
1 Sample and analyses numbers 28
2 Sample analysis data 30
3 Sample calculation of 23ePu "in" and "on" a plant sample 35
4 Botanical composition of forage selected by rumen-fistulated
steers grazing on Area 13 of the Nevada Test Site 38
5 Chemical composition of range forage sampled by fistulated
cattl e 42
27
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 1. SAMPLE AND ANALYSES NUMBERS
Sample Numbering
UNR Numbers:
391-x-yyy-zzz
391 = Project 391
x = Sampling Period
1 = June-July 1974
2 = Sept. 1974
3 = Jan. 1975
4 = Any other
yyy = Sample Identity Number
One or two digit numbers are plant samples.
Three digit numbers are rumen contents.
Bos or Be followed by one or two digit numbers are rumen
contents.
zzz = Type of Sample
Plant Samples:
AR = As Received
W = Washed plant material.
S = Soil removed by washing plant material
Rumen Samples:
RS = Rumen solids
RL = Rumen liquid
AR, W & S as above
Analysis Numbers:
wxyz
w = Sampling period
1 = June-July 1974
2 = Sept. 1974
3 = Jan. 1975
4 = Any other
x = Sampling type
1 = Plant, As received (Category not used for samples to
NERC-LV)
2 = Plant, washed
3 = Plant, Soil removed by washing
4 = Rumen Solids, As received
5 = Rumen Solids, Washed
6 = Rumen Solids, Soil removed by ashing
7 = Rumen Solids, Fraction of questionable indent!ty
(conti nued)
28
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 1. (Continued)
yz = Sample Identity Number
Plant Samples: Serial number of sample
Oz if serial number below 10
yz if serial number 10-19
2z if duplicate of sample number below 10
3z if duplicate of sample number 10-19
Rumen Solids:
Three digit sample numbers use first and last digit
number with 0 as needed
6z for duplicates of samples 7z.
Examples:
391-3-707-RSAR
Project: 391. Period: 3. Animal: 707. Sample: Rumen Solids,
As Received.
3477 (Same as 391-3-707-RSAR).
3467 (Duplicate of 3477).
29
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 2. SAMPLE ANALYSIS DATA (All data dry basis)
Sample Weights,g
Analysis Dry
Lab No. No. A* Ashed
391-1-1 AR
391-1-1 W
391-1-1 S
391-1-2 AR
391-1-2 W
391-1-2 S
391-1-3 AR
391-1-3 W
391-1-3 S
391-1-4 AR
391-1-4 W
391-1-4 WB
391-1-4 S
391-1-5 AK
391-1-5 W
391-1-5 S
to 391-1-6 AR
0 391-1-6 W
391-1-6 S
391-1-7 AR
391-1-7 W
391-1-7 S
391-1-8 AR
391-1-8 W
391-1-8 S
391-1-8 S
391-1-9 AR
391-1-9 U
391-1-9 S
391-1-10 AR
391-1-10 W
391-1-10 S
391-2-1 AR
391-2-1 W
391-2-1 S
391-2-2 AR
391-2-2 W
391-2-2 S
1201
1301
1202
1302
1203
1303
1204
1224
1304
1205
1305
1306
1207
1307
1208
1308
1328
1209
1309
1210
1310
2201
2301
2202
2302
252.
152. 103.95
186.
106. 35.37
140.
120. 47.61
400.
300. 51.27
300.
200. 52.58
160.
182.
142
82. 8.59
280.
180. 33.89
205
115 45.15
220
100 69.56
216
116 45.96
142
72 19.59
,
Total
25.75
4.775
5.63
6.255
4.37
1.07
12.14
12.47
6.185
4.20
.485
1.07
2.76
6.88
11.26
19.80
4.50
.525
12.44
.535
4.25
2.15
8.46
19.685
Ash
NERC UNR
PLANT
25.75
3.715 1.
5.63
4.28 2.
4.37
.585 .5
12.14
12.47
4.095
.260
.52 .5
2.16
4.89 2.
11.26
8.17
8.41
.305
12.44
.270 .2
4.25
1.16 1.
8.46
8.77
Hater
SAMPLES -
6.07
5.33
3.91
3.97
3.60
5.17
5.11
4.90
6.11
3.86
4.13
4.78
3.69
4.50
4.88
5.63
3.60
5.56
2.74
4.00
Ti
pg/g Dry wt
pCi/sample
238pu 239pu 2
pCi/g Ash
-ita
23SpU
»'Pu
^ 'Am
• HAND COLLECTED
110
140
660
200
200
100
200
80
140
150
770
450
270
26
130
100
400
340
110
1120,1070
12.2 126.
8.69 279.
6.84 296.
5.14 66.7
7.34 107.
<4.60 23.4
5.99 116.
2.89 182.
20.6 815.
30.08 220.
9.82 141.
11.8 468.
125. 4640.
635. 2220D.
145. 5950.
415. 16500.
370. 14900.
202. 8890.
70.3 2560.
32.6 1370.
21.1 431.
9.80 150.
4.15 228.
2.49 46.8
21.8
46.6
64.4
27.1
15.3
15.9
26.7
49.1
128.
34.5
58.6
87.2
784.
2860.
312.
2150.
640.
982.
156.
182.
36.1
19.2
64.4
14.0
<1.20 6.04 2.88
.474
2.34
1.21
1.20
1.67
<7.80
0.493
0.232
5.03
0.733
37.8
22.7
57.9
130.
115.
50.8
44.0
44.9
230.
2.62
78.2
2.31
3.58
0.294
<0.14
4.89
75.1
52.6
15.6
24.5
40.0
13.7
14.6
165.
53.4
542.
900.
2148.
4540.
528.
2020.
1772.
1976.
8393.
110.
1596.
35.3
197.
5.53
0.689
.847
12.5
11.4
L..3J
3.50
27.2
2.20
3.94
31.2
8.21
225.
168.
303.
585.
27.7
263.
133.
218.
511.
.
14.6
134.
4.52
55.5
1.65
0.328
(continueu)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 2. (Continued)
Sample Weights, g
Analysis
Lab No. No. A*
391-2-2 S
391-2-3 AR
391-2-3 W
391-2-3 S
391-2-4 AR
391-2-4 W
391-2-4 WA
391-2-4 S
391-2-5 AR
391-2-5 W
391-2-5 S
391-2-5 S
391-2-6 AR
391-2-6 W
391-2-6 S
391-2-7 AR
391-2-7 W
391-2-7 WB
391-2-7 S
391-2-8 AR
391-2-8 W
391-2-8 S
391-2-9 AR
391-2-9 H
391-2-9 S
391-2-10 AR
391-2-10 W
391-2-10 S
391-2-10 S
391-3-1 AR
391-3-1 W
391-3-1 S
391-3-2 AR
391-3-2 W
391-3-2 S
391-3-3 AR
391-3-3 W
391-3-3 WA
391-3-3 S
391-3-4 AR
391-3-4 W
2322
2203
2303
2204
2224
2304
2205
2305
2325
2206
2306
2207
2227
2307
2203
2308
2209
2309
2210
2310
2330
3201
3301
3202
3302
3203
3223
3303
3204
90
45
256
156
240.
140.
38.
23.
406.
306.
215.
115.
48.
33.
308.
208.
225
125
247.
147.
370
270
260
160
Dry
Ashed
16.00
51.35
49.78
2.10
62.20
47.24
7.96
96.14
47.15
34.45
57.42
41.64
41.26
50.88
Total
2.02
.695
8.00
5.755
4.24
7.53
20.29
.38
.465
3.06
3.72
5.245
9.07
1.715
1.94
28.41
2.95
6.37
75.21
4.215
2.655
6.29
.380
2.19
2.23
.745
6.36
Ash
NERC UHR
8.22
2.02
.365 .3
8.00
5.755
3.24 1.
7.53
9.43 2.
8.155
.38
.240
3.28 2.
9.07
.88 .9
1.94
28.41
1.945 1.
6.37
35.46 2.
35.60 2.
4.215
1.63 1.
6.29
.215
2.19
2.23
.400 .35
6.36
Water
5.45
4.63
3.64
2.38
4.47
4.84
3.68
4.84
4.59
3.91
4.46
5.31
2.15
4.22
3.76
4.22
3.78
4.30
4.45
4.85
3.36
3.71
Ti
pg/g Dry wt
300
130
160
160
1130
340,430
109,210
130,150
180
140
120,190
60,110
470,500
250
1390,1700
400,490,450
400
520,750
860
100
130
170
1580
230
pCi/sample
238P(J
15.8
<.50
<2.92
4.29
4.91
4.95
8.37
23.6
12.6
7.84
6.40
37.1
48.6
316.
8.93
4.91
1.33
1.11
82.9
34.6
297.
180.
28.7
7.79
4.00
4.86
8.02
7.93
12.6
<2.20
9.37
239Ru 2
34.1
9.97
23.9
90.1
30.3
18.1
94.6
869.
324.
105.
232.
1610.
1820.
11500.
442.
114.
69.4
4960.
2300.
1450.
9620.
5920.
756.
332.
97.7
106..
238.
314.
161.
50.0
177.
"to
<3.26
<2.80
4.21
6.22
16.3
7.03
13.2
10.8
155.
21.6
27.8
15.4
400.
225.
1840.
93.7
21.8
21.5
660
232
261.
594.
457.
121.
29.4
14.6
29.6
44.8
30.8
9.19
33.6
pCi/g Ash
238pu
1.92
<.248
<8.00
.536
.853
1.53
1.11
2.50
1.55
20.6
26.7
12.1
13.1
96.3
.985
5.58
.686
3.91
42.6
5.43
8.38
5.06
6.81
4.78
.636
.773
37.3
3.62
5.65
<5.50
1.47
239Pu
4.15
4.85
65.5
11.3
5.25
5.59
12.6
92.2
39.7
276.
967.
526.
489.
3506
48.7
130.
35.8
175.
1183.
228
271.
166.
179.
204.
15.5
16.9
1107.
143
72.2
125.
27.8
*"*»
<.397
<.341
2.08
17.0
2.04
1.22
40.7
1.43
16.5
2.65
73.2
64.2
131.
60.5
561.
10.3
24.8
11.1
23.2
119.
41.0
16.8
12.8
28.7
18.0
2.32
138.
20.5
13.8
23.0
5.28
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 2. (Continued)
u>
ro
Sample Weights.q
Analysis
Lab No. No. A*
391-3-4 S
391-3-5 AR
391-3-5 W
391-3-5 S
391-3-6 AR
391-3-6 W
391-3-6 WA
391-3-6 S
391-3-7 AR
391-3-7 W
391-3-7 WA
391-3-7 S
391-3-8 AR
391-3-8 W
391-3-8 S
3304
3205
3305
3206
3206
3306
3207
3227
3307
3208
3308
270
170
328
228
270
170
165
100
Dry
Ashed
72.78
40.65
40.31
50.32
31.54
26.62
Total
4.86
7.27
4.25
2.90
2.01
.53
5.52
3.525
.300
3.05
9.19
pCi/sample
Ash Water Ti
NERC UNR % yg/g Dry wt 238Pu
3.83
7.27
3.24
2.90
2.01
.32
5.52
3.525
.155
3.05
7.17
1.0
3.63
4.30
1.
4.21
4.04
.21
3.49
3.66
.15
3.57
4.25
2.
730
650
180
130
90
80
760
300
17.7
390.
120.
52.7
22.3
<5.75
18.8
10.1
16.2
55.9
366.
239Pu 21tlAn,
423.
16080.
4600.
2020.
1020.
121.
535.
468.
386.
2140.
15000.
64.4
910.
640.
378.
366.
29.0
106.
86.
40.0
305.
1030.
pCi/g Ash
238pu
4.26
53.7
37.0
25.2
11.1
<18.0
3.41
2.82
105.
18.3
51.0
239Pu
110.
2212.
1419.
967.
507.
378
96.9
133.
2490.
720.
2092.
Am
16.8
125.
198.
181.
182.
90.6
19.2
24.4
258.
100.
144.
RUMEN CONTENTS
391-1-Bos 1 ASAR
391-1-Bos 1 RSW
391-1-Bos 1 RSS
391-1-Bos 4 RSAR
391-1-Bos 4 RSW
391-1-Bos 4 RSS
391-1-Bos 6 RSAR
391-1-Bos 6 RSW
391-1-Bos 6 RSS
391-3-Bos 5 RSAR
391-3-Bos 5 RSW
391-3-Bos 5 RSS
391-4-Bos 2 RSAR
391-4-Bos 2 RSW
391-4-Bos 2 RSS
391-4-Bos 3 RSAR
391-4-Bos 3 RSIJ
391-4-Bos 3 RSS
391-4-Bos 8 RSAR
391-4-Bos 8 RSW
391-4-Bos 8 RSS
391-4-Bos 12 RSAR
391-4-Bos 12 RSW
391-4-Bos 12 RSS
391-2-Bc 15 RSAR
1401
1501
1601
1701
1404
1504
1406
1506
1606
3405
3505
3605
4402
4502
4602
4403
4503
4603
4408
4508
4608
4412
4512
4612
2415
2350
1998
2590
3440
3000
2550
2300
2100
2370
127.81
127.91
101.17
113.19
132.54
131.53
72.74
81.37
16.88
130.66
1 29 .03
26.06
35.58
41.98
59.40
47.19
129.20
137.71
5.91
7.41
102.86
9.715
9.15
2.24
1.16
9.43
8.705
5.94
6.27
1.93
9.23
8.13
2.53
3.40
3.42
2.71
7.10
5.06
2.406
13.38
12.46
3.715
.665
.74
.900
8.15
1.24
.655
1.00
1.525
.1.74
1.400
2.68
.44
.540
8.15
4.70
7.06
1.
0.5
6.80
7.49
6.59
7.01
.9
5.64
7.17
3.17
5.31
1.
3.59
4.96
1.
4.61
5.68
1.
3.49
.3 5.72
.4
5.98
190
310
170
180
180
180
110
110
120
120,190
210
240,200
150
200,320
180,170
220
20.2
26.6
4.21
7.43
36.4
23.7
9.95
19.6
26.3
28.8
6.71
<1.93
17.5
32.8
28.8
23.0
3.72
14.0
22.7
15.4
<0.86
2.35
1.33
7.57
12.2
802.
600.
263
93.2
1170
854.
160.
560.
870.
373.
280.
79.7
617.
1320.
941.
473.
240.
179.
838.
486.
12.1
26.1
83.8
19.
528.
27.9
112.
46.4
15.4
82.0
166.
15.8
72.1
115.
55.4
54.1
5.50
20.1
252.
65.3
54.5
65.3
21.8
57.5
74.3
3.82
3.54
5.54
7 2.25
64.0
2.08
2.91
3.40
11.3
3.86
2.72
1.68
3.13
26.3
3.12
.825
<1.27
5.15
9.59
16.6
3.24
.735
10.0
1.70
1.24
<0.32
3.53
3.02
14.0
1.50
82.6
65.5
212
142
124.0
98.1
26.9
89.3
870.
40.4
34.4
52.3
181.
386.
541.
66.6
47.6
128.
62.6
39.00
4.51
39.2
190.
36.5
64.8
2.87
12.2
37.4
23.5
8.70
19.1
2.66
11.5
115.
6.00
6.65
3.59
5.91
73.7
37.5
7.68
12.9
15.6
4.30
5.89
1.43
5.32
12.6
4.17
7.85
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 2.
oo
OJ
Lab Mo.
Analysis
No. A*
391-2-Bc 15 RSW
391-2-Bc 15 RSS
391-2-Bc 13 RSAR
391-3-Bc 13 RSW
391-3-Bc 13 RSS
2515
2615
4533 2380.
3513
3613
Sample Weights, g
Dry Ash
Ashed Total NERC UNR
128.74
152.51
8.87
3.21
9.22
9.09
.715
8.87
2.21 1.
9.22 .3
9.09
.450
\ ' • "
Water Ti
% ug/9 Dry wt
5.77
6.60
150
60
/
pCi/sampies
238pu 239pu 21.1^
16.4
<0.70
11.8
15.6
9.41
748.
70.7
694.
447.
418.
157.
23.6
116.
67.0
23.5
— = -— jr-T
pC 1/9 <>sn
238p(J 239pu
1.85
<0.32
1.28
1.72
20.9
84.3
32.0
75.3
49.2
929.
241 „
Am
17.7
10.7
12.6
7.37
52.2
PLANT SAMPLES - ANIMALS COLLECTED
391-1-707
391-1-707
391-1-707
391-1-729
391-1-729
391-1-729
391-1-761
391-1-761
391-1-761
391-1-774
391-1-774
391-1-774
391-2-707
391-2-707
391-2-707
391-2-707
391-2-707
391-2-729
391-2-729
391-2-729
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-761
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-2-774
391-3-707
391-3-707
391-3-707
391-3-707
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR A
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSAR A
RSW
RSWA
RSW A
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSAR
RSARA
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSWA
RSS
RSS
RSAR
RSARA
RSW
RSS
1477 7000.
1577
1677
1469 37300.
1579
1679
1471 37800.
1571
1671
1474 41600.
1574
1674
2477 8480.
2467
2577
2567
2569
2479 16600.
2579
2679
2471 17500
2771
2461
2571
2671
2474 11100.
2574
2564
2674
2664
3477 7840
3467
3577
3677
131.51
123.20
122.54
133.49
125.17
131.32
61.17
49.24
131.48
128.75
122.14
124.96
128.01
124.27
132.98
113.51
136.93
110.75
128.40
133.83
137.36
133.87
134.90
18.125
16.19
11.86
13.70
19.47
7.655 .
18.365
15.84
18.70
9.025
7.015
4.645
14.23
13.90
11.00
13.92
11.04
14.21
11.07
5.99
12.60
16.12
11.00
14.07
4.85
26.30
12.48
13.22
41.085
20.32
20.04
15.52
35.09
18.125
16.19
9.615 2.
7.615
13.70
19.47
5.66 2
18.365
15.84
16.69 2.
7.025
7.015
3.635 1.
14.23
13.90
11.00
13.92
11.04
14.21
11.07
4 .00 2 .
12.60
16.12
11.00
14.07
3.85 1.
26.30
19.23 2.
19.77
15.59 2.
4.29
4.68
4.73
4.94
4.37
4.90
4.27
4.87
3.10
1.73
5.80
2.51
2.91
7.27
1.80
4.95
3.81
5.26
4.58
5.18
250
260
480
370
330
300
250
350
160
280
190
380
310
360
330,300
210
380
210
99.5
26.1
34.1
83.8
38.2
69.8
20.7
66.7
66.7
17.1
19.0
53.5
45.0
31.4
29.5
29.9
50.2
7.93
12.8
223.
160.
202.
734
26.1
74.0
29.0
27.6
35.5
33.6
44.7
32.5
18.6
32.2
4590.
1130.
1550
3410
1530
2470
789.
2840.
2060.
673.
650.
1470.
1670
986.
720.
532.
1980.
464.
418.
8540.
7010.
8650
2820
910.
3180
830.
996.
1210.
1650.
1870
889.
676.
972
285.
142.
50.0
91.4
169.
145.
15.7
235.
172.
129.
126.
79.6
175.
154
136.
139.
105.
169.
139.
50.0
223.
349.
198.0
458.
27.2
27.5
tf?:
198.
78.7
80.8
17.5
42.0
97.3
56.6
0.52
1.61
3.51
6.12
6.75
3.80
1.31
4.00
7.39
2.44
5.23
3.76
3.26
2.85
2.2
2.71
3.53
.716
3.20
17.7
9.93
18.8
5.22
6.78
100.3
2.'09
1.85
1.70
2.20
1.62
1.20
2.07
253.
69.8
160.1
248.9
270.
135.
50.4
170.
295.
95.9
179.
103.
120.
89.6
57.7
48.2
139.
41.9
105.
678.
435.
782
200.
236
121.
66.5
75.3
62.9
83.5
92.0
44.6
43.6
59.5
15.7
8.77
5.14
6.67
29.9
7.89
9.91
14.1
19.0
18.4
34.7
5.59
12.6
11.1
12.4
9.99
9.51
11.9
12.6
12.5
17.7
21.7
18.0
S2-.6
7.06
7.14
18.1
13.7
15.0
18.09
4.09
0.861
2.10
6.27
3.63
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 2. (Continued)
to
Sample Weights, g
Analysis Dry
Lab No.
391-3-707
391-3-729
391-3-729
391-3-729
391-3-761
391-3-761
391-3-761
391-3-761
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-3-774
391-2-707
391-2-729
* Weight
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSS
RSAR
RSW
RSW A
RSS
RSAR
RSARA
RSW
RSWA
RSS
RSS
A-RL
Bc-RL
"A"
No.
3667
3479
3579
3679
3471
3571
3561
3671
3474
3464
3574
3564
3674
3664
"AR" Samples:
"W" Samples:
A* Ashed
11100. 155.66
152.39
13800. 157.28
161.31
155.58
9770 131.42
164.80
144.59
136.31
Total collected
Weight washed
Ash Water
Ti
pCi/sample
pCi/q Ash
n-in n-ir\ r» I. 1 TOO OQQ 9 ll 1
Total NERC UNR % ug/g Dry wt "°Pu z"Pu ^"'Am
15.57 2.4
21.74 3.57
16.25 4.93
38.47 36.34 2.
19.92 4.49
14.50 4.87
15.38
33.11
22.13 4.56
28.10
18.17 4.92
18.52
48.30 22.36 2.
21.95
270
140
360
240
370
280
26.0
36.0
26.5
55.4
9.10
67.8
32.2
24.2
34.4
83.6
33.7
66.7
11.8
16.1
54.8
18.1
620
1560
455.
790
1120
1120.
1300.
3210.
788.
2290.
404.
312.
935.
322.
59.0
35.6
58.1
28.2
106.
216.
256.
308.
71.9
171.
81.1
63.1
51.0
33.4
'JUPu Pu
1.70
2.55
0.560
1.87
1.67
1.67
2.24
2.52
1.52
2.37
.649
.869
2.45
.824
39.8
71.8
27.4
21.7
56.2
77.2
84.5
96.9
35.6
81.5
22.2
16.8
41.8
14.7
Am
3.79
1.64
3.58
0.776
5.32
14.9
16.6
9.30
3.25
6.09
4.46
3.41
2.28
1.52
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 3. SAMPLE CALCULATION OF 238Pu "IN" AND "ON"
A PLANT SAMPLE
Data:
Sample Number: 391-1-2. (Plant sample number 2, period 1).
Weight Sample, g
Weight Washed, g
Weight Ashed, g
Ash Weight Total, g
Ash Weight to EMSL-LV, g
Water, %
Titanium, mcg/g (db)
23'Pu, pCi/sample
Radioactivity per gram ash:
RA/g ash]w = 6.84/5.63 = 1.21 gCi/g
RA/g ashls = 5.14/4.28 = 1.20 pCi/g
Calculation of radioactivity per unit weight of plant (dry basis):
Z = Proportion of ash (db) in plant material:
Ash Weight
~ Wgt. Ashed (1 - % water/100)
As Received
186
3.91
660.
Washed
106
35.37
5.63
5.63
3.97
200.
6.84
Soil
6.255
4.28
5.14
zw =
5.64
35.37 (1 - 3.91/100)
6.25
= 0.1657 (16.57% ash)
= 0.0614
L^ 106 (1 - 3.97/100)
RA/g plant (db) = (RA/g Ash)Z
RA/g plant (db)]w = 1.21 x 0.1657 = 0.2005 pCi/g plant (db).
RA/g plant (db)]s = 1.20 x 0.0614 = 0.0737 pCi/g plant (db).
RA/g plant (db)]AR = RA/g plant (db)]W + RA/g plant (db)]s
= 0.2005 + 0.0737 = 0.2742 pCi/g plant (db).
(continued)
35
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 3. (Continued)
Calculation of radioactivity in and on plant:
a. Method of titanium ratio:
C = Ti/9 Plant - (RA/g soil ash)
Ti/g plant (db)]yj
0.0737 = 0.2432
RA in plant = RA/g plant (db)]w - C = 0.2005 - 0.2432
= 0.0427 pCi/g plant (db)
RA on plant = RA/g plant (db)Js + C = 0.0737 + 0.2432
= 0.3169 pCi/g plant (db)
(N.B. for this sample washing was rather inefficient for removal of the
contaminating soil.).
RA in AR sample = RA in plant + RA on plant = 0.3169 - 0.0427 = 0.2742
b. Method using average titanium composition of ash (2400 mcg/g ash) as
calculated from this project:
Ti]y
C = 2400 (RA/g soil ash)
(0.0737) = 0.00614
RA in plant = RA/g plant (db)]y - C = 0.2005 - 0.00614
= 0.1944 pCi/g plant (db).
RA on plant = RA/g plant (db)]$ + C = 0.0737 + 0.00614
= 0.0798 pCi/g plant (db).
c. Method using average value of the ratio of soil radioactivity to soil
titanium (0.0014) as calculated from this project:
C = 0.0014 x Ti]y
= 0.0014 x 200 = 0.280
RA in plant = RA/g plant (db)Jw - C = 0.2005 - 0.280
= -0.0795 pCi/g plant (db).
RA on plant = RA/g plant (db)]s + C = 0.0747 + 0.28
= 0.3737 pCi/g plant (db).
(continued)
36
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 3. (Continued)
Selection of reported value:
RA in plant = -0.0426 (Method a and c agree. Results of Method a
reported.).
RA on plant = 0.317 (Method a and c agree. Results of Method a
reported.).
*Abbreviations:
RA = Radioactivity
db = Dry Basis
Subscripts
AR = As Received Sample
W = Washed Sample
S = Soil Washed from Sample
37
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 4. BOTANICAL COMPOSITION OF FORAGE SELECTED BY RUMEN-FISTULATED STEERS
GRAZING ON AREA 13 OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE (Percent of Total Forage)
\
x
\
x
\
\
\
\
\
Date
Sampled
06-12-73
07-19-73
08-U8-73
09-05-73
10-01-73
11-06-73
Plant
Species
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
SteeK
No. X.
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
Grasses
•a 4_> (o a. o
u) >> -Q O in "O
~ JZ 3 -r- Ol
1X3 -r-J U l/l -r-
r-3 l/» Q) 3 4-
•— C 0. I— -I-
re in o in o +J
•r- CL -r- -Q C
s- o c re o aj
re N .0 a. s_ -o
r— >, -M ••- O -f-
-•- 1- -i- 4_> CL C
Not used
Not Used
8 32 1
88
17 41 T
49 42
1 12 1
43 31
11 29
11 19
9 13 T
7 16
16
19
8 1
6 2
10 4
Sample lost
14 2 1
16 2
32 5
36
79
16 4
3
•r- CD
01 £
zj re
re n»
CL 0
, — ^.
O OJ
in (O
IT^ r\
OO oo
T
1 T
2 T
14
1
1
1
4
1
2
Forbs
re
re m
u n
. . -r- S_
ZL 0. .= O
• CL CL CL 4-> 1 i
il 1 <_n *n c~
in — X U O)
=1 •!-> -3 .C 13 Q. CL •!-
o re Li o in c
'si 5 J= 're "i !c ^ 'c
2
1
1
T T
2
T
1
T 2
1
1
T 1
2
T 2
2
3
2
3
2
,0 Shrubs
•«-
o in
in 4- -O
c ••-••- ZJ
o s_ c: j:
+j QJ 4- in in
re c c s- o ~o
C ro O OJ c: • O>
re u o "o •> — CL -r—
. — c: CL CL 4-
x >< re in in •»—
re •*->
•r— r^ ,^ c= re re cr
-t-> CL CL Z> -i— d tl)
i- i- i- u re re •<—
=1 .u j-> >, l- n c
uj <; =£ _j CD l~n ZD
44 13
8 2
24 15
b 3
29 41
26 1
b b3
27 41
15 62
10 65 1
29 54
38 42 T
43 46
15 76 1
19 65 2
23 58
18 62
49 7
54 7 T
13
65 7 U
co
00
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 4. (Continued)
\
\
\
\
\
Date
Sampled
02-20-74
05-21-74
06-28-74
06-30-74
07-02-74
08-07-74
"
Plant
Species
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\^
Steer\
No. \^
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
(/i
OJ
o
•r- 0)
QJ >•>
••—) in
-r- CL
!- O
£ O
2
1 2
3
6
13
4 28
2
3
3
5 5
T 2
2
2
3
39
23
29
26
Grasses
in
OJ
in
- T3
_Q O in "O
3 -f- oj
0) n M-
c n. i — ••-
O i/l O +J
C
r_
^
tj
a.
0
GO
10
3
2
T
32
6
10
T
4
1
14
16
16
16
1
T
' 3
>f—
.0
LU
E X U OJ
-r- T- t- O. Q. 4-
<-> -a -c "3 CL a. ••-
fO ^- O VI C
c: o o o x
9
3
4
5
3
3
6
1
9
14
b
6
4
6
4
9
12
6
•^
D
4->
1_
01
4-
C
O
X
OJ
^
4-J
T
2
2
3
T
T
2
1
19
29
34
44
14
T
4
1
4
4
drills
•r—
C
3 > t.
—1
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 4. (Continued)
Date
Sampled
10-01-74
10-03-74
Plant
Species
Steer
No.
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
Grasses
Q. i— -r-
•T- O -r-
1
8
1 T
Forbs
CJ £= -r-
i— _Q i— r— *r—
Shrubs
C T- -r-
,
19
46
38
29
69
40
62
59
23
24
19
19
3 65
7 49
55
80
12
7
16
26
10-05-74
11-05-74
707
729
761
774
7 92
21 77
56 44
9 14 59
2
12
01-17-75
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
19
5
10
33 38
59 35
62 27
46 1 51
14
18
16
100
83
79
84
01-19-75
707
729
761
774
3 1
1
10
86
99
4 86
98
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 4. (Continued)
Date
Sampled
Plant
Species
Grasses
(/) O
CL •--
o c:
in o •*->
-O C
fO O CU
O. i- T3
•t- O •—
Forbs
O
O
-o
O
CL
O
C
Ol
.c
cj
CL C^_ ••-
o
i-
-Q
Shrubs
C i- r-
O -r- -^
01-21-75
10-29-75
03-12-75
707
729
761
774
5
15
13
13
707
729
761
771
0
19 6
4
8 2
T
34
61
48
7 79
9 28
4 28
9 48
17
11
6
36 15 16
24 9 34
34 13 40
27 T 4
4
39
52
32
38
1 52
61
46
T = Trace
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 5.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF RANGE FORAGE SAMPLED BY
FISTULATED CATTLE
Date
7/10/73
7/10/73
7/10/73
7/10/73
8/8/73
8/8/73
8/8/73
8/8/73
9/5/73
9/5/73
9/5/73
9/5/73
10/1/73
10/1/73
10/1/73
10/1/73
11/6/73
11/6/73
11/6/73
11/6/73
2/20/74
2/20/74
2/20/74
2/20/74
Animal
Number
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
707
729
761
774
Dry
Matter
97.12
97.40
95.64
95.43
94.76
98.44
95.77
96.60
96.00
95.55
95.49
96.04
95.40
98.40
95.75
95.83
94.75
98.32
95.03
96.75
97.97
97.45
95.91
95.34
Percent by
Weight
Dry Basis
Protein
7.90
9.62
8.41
9.48
I 35.41
X 8.85
8.32
6.65
7.93
8.56
Z 31.46
X 7.86
5.71
5.17
6.41
6.97
Z 24.80
X 6.20
7.99
7.05
7.28
7.46
Z 29.78
X 7.44
8.36
7.22
8.64
7.43
Z 31.65
X 7.91
7.10
7.87
7.88
7.54
I 30.39
X 7.60
ADF
40.75
40.00
41.37
38.58
160.70
41.18
38.50
43.65
42.65
38.23
163.03
40.76
43.64
44.91
41.40
36.93
166.88
41.72
39.27
43.83
40.57
38.62
162.29
40.57
40.71
41.22
38.42
40.83
161.18
40.30
42.40
39.59
41.45
41.78
165.22
41.30
Lignin
8.04
8.13
11.57
9.01
36.75
9.19
8.66
10.09
9.05
9.37
37.17
9.29
8.31
10.37
8.82
9.11
36.61
9.15
12.31
15.35
12.23
11.76
51.65
12.91
13.01
12.00
11.13
11.91
48.05
12.01
14.01
12.42
16.17
15.62
58.22
14.56
Ash
13.67
13.40
13.68
15.40
55.95
13.99
13.43
12.76
18.74
14.70
59.63
14.91
25.98
8.44
12.25
15.10
61.77
15.44
12.24
11.59
16.14
14.62
54.59
13.65
10.97
11.17
14.98
13.76
50.88
12.72
12.53
11.77
10.95
12.44
47.69
11.92
(continued)
42
-------
APPENDIX TABLE 5. (Continued)
Percent by Weight
Animal
Date Number
5/21/74 707
5/21/74 729
5/21/74 761
5/21/74 774
8/7/74 707
8/7/74 761
8/7/74 774
No date 761
No date 774
Goat #2
10/25/73
No # No Date
Dry
Matter
96.14
97.74
96.05
95.22
95.45
94.97
96.09
95.03
95.74
96.32
96.44
Protein
11.89
11.12
9.82
12.02
Z 44.84
X 11.21
9.95
8.19
7.77
Z 25.91
X 8.64
11.61
10.33
6.03
7.66
Dry
ADF
35.60
36.61
40.96
34.92
149.09
37.27
39.02
40.70
39.68
119.4
39.8
35.60
39.74
40.54
36.90
Basis
Lignin
9.80
9.90
11.22
9.63
39.83
9.96
11.85
14.07
13.41
39.33
13.11
6.40
6.99
13.27
8.73
Ash
12.18
13.74
19.41
14.14
59.46
14.86
14.06
11.71
12.50
38.27
12.76
14.77
16.36
12.21
13.74
z = summation or total
X" = average
ADF = acid detergent
fiber
43
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1-40 Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas
41 Mahlon E. Gates, Manager, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
42 Troy E. Wade, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
43 David G. Jackson, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
44 Paul J. Mudra, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
45 Elwood M. Douthett, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
46 - 47 Ernest D. Campbell, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
48 - 49 Paul B. Dunaway, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
50 Roger Ray, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
51 Robert W. Taft, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
52 Leon Silverstrom, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
53 Robert W. Newman, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
54 Bruce W. Church, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
55 - 56 Technical Library, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
57 Chief, NOB/DNA, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
58 Hal Hoi lister, GTN, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
59 Tommy F. McCraw, DOS, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
60 L. Joe Deal, DOS, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
61 - 65 Major General William W. Hoover, Director, MA, DOE/HQ, Washington,
DC
66 Gordon C. Facer, MA, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
67 Robert L. Watters, OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
68 Jeff Swinebroad, OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
69 Robert W. Wood, OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
70 William S. Osburn, Jr., OHER, DOE/HQ, Washington, DC
71 Ray Brechbill, DOE/SAN, Oakland, CA
72 Marcy Williamson, RESL/INEL, DOE/ID, Idaho Falls, ID
73 Steven V. Kaye, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN
74 Nancy Vaughan, ESIC, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN
75 H. E. Walburg, CARL, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN
76 Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, EPA,
Washington, DC
77 Deputy Assistant Administrator for Monitoring and Technical Support,
ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
78 Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs, EPA,
Washington, DC
79 Director, Monitoring Technology Division, Office of Monitoring and
Technical Support, ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
80 Director, Technical Support Division, Office of Monitoring and
Technical Support, ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
81 Director, Criteria Development and Special Studies Division, Office
of Health and Ecological Effects, ORD, EPA, Washington, DC
-------
82 Library, EPA, Washington, DC
83 Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
84 Regional Radiation Representative, Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
85 Director, Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering Branch, EPA,
Cincinnati, OH
86 Director, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, EPA, Montgomery,
AL
87 Harold F. Mueller, NOAA/WSNSO, Las Vegas, NV
88 Gilbert J. Ferber, NOAA/WSNSO, Silver Spring, MD
89 K. M. Oswald, Manager, Health and Safety, ILL, Mercury, NV
90 Richard L. Wagner, LLL, Livermore, CA
91 Howard W. Tewes, LLL, Livermore, CA
92 Paul L. Phelps, LLL, Livermore, CA
93 Mortimer L. Mendelsohn, LLL, Livermore, CA
94 J. C. Hopkins, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
95 Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
96 Lamar J. Johnson, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
97 George E. Tucker, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM
98 Carter D. Broyles, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM
99 Melvin L. Merritt, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM
100 R. Glen Fuller, Oracle, AZ
101 Richard S. Davidson, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH
102 Arden E. Bicker, REECo, Mercury, NV
103 Savino W. Cavender, REECo, Mercury, NV
104 Auda F. Morrow, CETO, Mercury, NV
105 Joseph H. Dryden, NTSSO, DOE/NV Mercury, NV
106 Billy Moore, NVHQ, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV
107 Leo Bustad, Director, Veterinary Medicine, Washington State
University, Pullman, WA
108 Vincent Schultz, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
109 Arthur Wallace, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
110 Wesley E. Niles, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
111 Library, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
112 -115 Verle R. Bohman, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
116 -118 Clifton Blinooe, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
119 Lloyd P. Smith, President, Desert Research Institute, University of
Nevada, Reno, NV
120 Paul R. Fenske, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada,
Reno, NV
121 William S. Twenhofel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
122 Manager, Desert National Wildlife Range, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Las Vegas, NV
123 Supervisor, Region III, Nevada Fish and Game Department, Las Vegas,
NV
124 Paul Lyons, Nevada Wildlife Research, Division of Archives, Capitol
Building Annex, Carson City, NV
125 L. L. Skolil, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
126 C. S. Fore, ESIC, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN
127 -153 Technical Information Center, DOE, Oak Ridge, TN (for public
availability)
------- |