EMSL-LV-539-2 EMSL-LV-539-2
GASEOUS RADIOIODINE TRANSPORT IN THE
AIR-FORAGE-COW-MILK SYSTEM
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
April 1976
This research was performed as a part of the Bioenvironmental Research
Program under Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(26-l)-539
for the
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
-------
TirU report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United
Stacks Government. Neither the United States nor the United States
Energy Research and Development Administration, nor any of their
employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or 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.
AVAILABLE FROM THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161
PRICE: PAPER COPY $4.50 MICROFICHE $2.25
-------
EMSL-LV-539-2 EMSL-LV-539-2
GASEOUS RADIOIODINE TRANSPORT IN THE
AIR-FORAGE-COW-MILK SYSTEM
S. C. Black, R. L. Douglas*, and D.^S. Earth
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
*Las Vegas Facility
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
1976
This research was performed as a part of the Bioenvironmental Research
Program under Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(26-l)-539
for the
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
-------
Effective June 29, 1975, the National Environmental Research
Center-Las Vegas (NERC-LV) was designated the Environmental Monitoring
& Support Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). This laboratory is one of
three Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratories of the Office
of Monitoring & Technical Support in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research & Development.
-------
Abstract
To study the transport of ^ in the air-forage-cow milk system, a
131
gaseous form of I was released over a field of growing alfalfa which
also contained some baled hay and dairy cows in pens. Some of the alfalfa
was converted to hay and fed to cows, and some was used as green chop for
other cows and goats.
The results of this experiment suggest that the deposition velocity of
gaseous iodine is much less than that for iodine bound to particulates; that
131
cows ingesting hay secrete & higher percentage of I in milk than cows in-
gesting green chop; that gaseous forms do not penetrate hay bales to any
great extent; that the gaseous form is transferred to milk in a manner simi-
lar to particulate forms; that ingestion of contaminated forage results in
1O1
80 times as much I transfer to milk as does "inhalation" exposure to the
131
same cloud; and that goats transfer I from forage to milk more efficiently
than do dairy cows.
-------
Acknowledgement
The radioiodine studies conducted by this Division for the Bio-
environmental Research Program all required a team effort involving a
majority of the Division personnel whose efforts are deeply appreciated.
Particular acknowledgement is made for the technical and theoretical con-
tributions of Richard E. Stanley, Benjamin J. Mason, Donald D. Smith and
David N. McNelis.
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract . i
Acknowledgement ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures iv
Introduction 1
Procedures
3
Results g
Discussion ,,
Conclusions ,0
lo
References , q
Appendices n
iii
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 Experimental cow groups
Table 2 Results from seven field studies with
Table 3 Percent of ^Ij secreted in milk
Page
6
15
16
List of Figures
Figure 1 . Experimental plot and instrumentation 4
Figure 2. -^1 concentration in milk from the three cow groups 9
Figure 3. l^I concentration in cow feed 10
Figure 4. ^Ij concentration in forage & milk - Goat Study 12
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
In a series of experiments to study the air-forage-cow-milk system
for the transport of radioiodine, this Laboratory has used various types
I O I
of synthetic aerosols tagged with IJXI, contaminated effluent from Plow-
share cratering tests, accidental ventings from underground nuclear tests,
and other tests where appropriate. Since this was a strongly field-oriented
program, the synthetic aerosols were generated over a field of growing for-
age at the Experimental Dairy Farm on the Nevada Test Site to simulate the
planned or accidental release of fission products to the environment. This
farm has been described previously.
In all cases, the contaminated forage was fed to lactating cows in
measured amounts, and, in some cases, cows were placed in the path of the
experimental aerosol plume to receive an air exposure. Three previous ex-
periments have involved different sizes of solid aerosols while a
fourth involved a liquid spray to simulate a rainout situation.
The experiment reported herein involved the release of a gaseous form
131
of radioiodine (presumably 12) and was given the acronym MICE (Molecular
Iodine Contamination Experiment). The objectives of this experiment, con-
ducted in September of 1967, were to:
1. Determine the deposition velocity and forage retention of molecular
iodine in gaseous form.
-------
2. Determine the percent of radioiodine transferred to milk when
dairy cows ingest hay or fresh forage contaminated with this gaseous
material.
3. Determine the relative importance of air uptake versus ingestion
as reflected by the amount appearing in milk.
4. Compare the milk transfer parameters with those obtained in the
previous experiments.
5. Compare the milk transfer parameters for lactating goats with
those for dairy cows.
-------
.PROCEDURES
An area measuring 65 by 70 meters was established in the growing
alfalfa field at the Experimental Dairy Farm to be used for this study.
This area was further subdivided into plots to provide: (1) a vegeta-
tion half-life study area, (2) an area to include cow pens for the air
uptake study, (3) an area to provide green chop for feeding 6 cows for
8 days, and (4) an area with baled hay and forage for hay feeding. The
study area and the instrumentation necessary to determine deposition and
air concentration data are shown in Figure 1. The precise plot layout
(6)
and instrumentation descriptions were included in an earlier publication.
The lactating cows in the dairy herd were stratified by milk produc-
tion and then randomly assigned to three experimental groups as follows:
(1) six cows to receive an inhalation exposure and to be fed contaminated
hay, (II) six cows to receive an inhalation exposure and to be fed con-
taminated green chop, and (III) six cows to receive an inhalation exposure
only. Data on these cows are shown in Table 1.
Approximately two hours prior to aerosol generation, all cows were
placed in pens in the study area. Group I cows were placed in a pen con-
taining a water tub and feed bunk with 15 kg of loose hay for each cow.
Groups II and III were placed in a common pen with water tubs but no feed.
Also, 10 bales of hay were placed south of the pens to be contaminated by
the aerosol cloud.
-------
DRAINAGE WIND DIRECTION
Q Q Q
D
D
Q Q O Q
GREEN
CHOP
AREA
\
HA
AR
Y o,
EA
i
i
oA AO
ao«|COW PENS|» *^
<
'
<
oA A AO
lEDATflDO /«l Q II 1 1 1 1
HALF-LIFE
STUDY
/V
t
ASTAPLEX AIR SAMPLER (5)
o TEMPEST AIR SAMPLER (10)
PLANCHETS (98)
a CASCADE IMPACTOR (2)
DMETEOROLOGY (4)
F5Ml
FIG.1 EXPERIMENTAL PLOT AND INSTRUMENTATION
-------
1 O 1
Generation of the J T aerosol began at 2345 hours on September 21
and continued for about 30 minutes. A previous publication contains
details of the generation procedure. After aerosol generation was stopped,
measurements of gamma radiation were made in the plot with survey instru-
ments and all of the samples collected by instrumentation in the study
area were prepared for analysis by gamma-ray spectrometry. The cows were
left in the pens for about seven hours after exposure. The twelve cows
from Groups II and III were then led from the field pens, washed down with
a high-pressure water spray, and placed in the feed lot. After the Group I
cows had eaten the loose hay in the exposure pen, they were also washed
down and placed in the feed lot. Each cow in Groups I and II was placed
in an individual stall after milking so that ingestion of contaminated feed
could be controlled.
The feeding and milking procedures were similar to those used in the
previous studies(2~-*'with the exception of the Group I cows. These cows,
in addition to the air exposure, ate contaminated hay present in their man-
gers during and after the aerosol release. They were then fed hay for three
days from the bales of hay which were in the experimental plot during the
aerosol release. Finally, they were fed hay made from the contaminated
alfalfa which had been mowed on the day of release and allowed to dry
in situ and then baled in the late afternoon of the third day. The amounts
of contaminated and uncontaminated forage offered to each cow are shown
in Table 1. Each cow also consumed 3-4 kg of high protein grain at each
-------
Table 1. Experimental Cow Groups
Group
II
III
Cow No.
2
27
35
43
86
87
Average
16
21
28
36
45
46
Average
13
29
39
44
47
84
Average
Milk Output
liters/day
19.4
23.8
15.4
22.0
21.1
13.6
! 19.2
27.2
30.8
10.1
12.8
14.1
21.6
19.4
27.2
23.3
13.2
25.9
18.5
23.3
s 21.9
Days in
Lactation
212
59
176
34
22
289
132
150
43
221
159
175
43
132
57
155
165
37
129
22
94
Feeding Schedule*
Hay Green Chop
15 kg
**
Remarks
Fed 7.5 kg hay
after each
milking.
7.5 kg 20 kg**
Fed green chop
after morning
milking, hay after
evening milking.
7.5 kg 20 kg
Fed green chop
after morning
milking, hay after
evening milking.
*Each cow received 3-4 kg of grain at each milking.
**Denotes forage contaminated with ^ I.
-------
milking. Any residue of forage remaining in the individual mangers was
removed and weighed after each feeding to quantitate the amount ingested.
To compare feed to milk transfer in another species, four lactating
goats were placed in individual pens and each was offered 2 kg of contami-
nated green chop daily for 8 days. The balance of the goat's diet consisted
of uncontaminated hay and grain.
The effective half-life of radioiodine on alfalfa was studied in the
plots indicated in Figure 1. Each plot was divided into 48 blocks. Using a
randomized block design, two blocks were sampled in each plot at specified
times up to 19 days after release. Each sample consisted of all plants with-
in an area of 0.15m^, cut off two inches above ground.
Analytical Procedures: All samples were placed in plastic bags when
collected and then placed in a second bag after a sample identification num-
ber had been assigned. For forage and milk samples, or any sample which was
weighed, the weighing and bagging was done as soon as possible after collec-
tion.
The gamma spectrometry system used was capable of detecting 20 pCi of
I per sample and had an accuracy of ± 10% or 20 pCi, whichever was greater.
-------
RESULTS
The midpoint of the gaseous aerosol release was 0000 hours
September 22, 1967, so all times are figured from that point. Of a total
of 92.1 mCi I in the aerosol generation flasks, 69.1 mCi was released,
or 75%.
Eighty-five percent of the radioiodine collected by air samplers was
on the charcoal cartridges. The deposition velocity as determined from
paired air sampler-planchet data was 0.51 cm/s. Both suggest that the
majority of the aerosol was either gaseous or, if attached to atmospheric
particulates, very small particles. The total deposit on the experimental
plot as estimated from planchet data was about 3 mCi with an average deposit
9
of 0.66 yCi/m . The average integrated air concentration was 129
Analysis of grain, water, and uncontaminated forage fed to the cows
101
indicated that these materials contributed no measurable I to the diet.
Data on the contaminated forage ingested by the three groups of cows
and the resultant concentration of "lj in their milk are presented in
Figures 2 and 3. The relationships among the groups resulting from the
different exposure modes are readily apparent in Figure 2. For example,
the concentration of radioiodine in the first milk from Group II is almost
identical to that from Group III. This concentration resulted from air up-
take* exposure only while the concentration in the first milk from Group I
was higher because of the combined air exposure and ingestion of contaminated
*See p. 14
-------
o AIR UPTAKE & HAY FEED
A AIR UPTAKE & GREEN CHOP FEED
oAlR UPTAKE ONLY
10 5 10 15
DAYS AFTER AEROSOL RELEASE
FIG. 2 131I CONCENTRATION IN MILK FROM THE THREE
GROUPS OF COWS.
-------
10
103_
0»
JL _
o
a
2
10J
10 _
10°
I
I
EI BALED HAY CONTAMINATED IN FIELD
^CONTAMINATED ALFALFA MADE INTO HAY
GREEN CHOP
i
I
I
I
I
I
r 1 2 46 8 10
TIME FED TO COWS-DAYS AFTER CONTAMINATION
FIG. 3 131 I CONCENTRATION IN COW FEED
10
-------
loose hay. Note also that baled hay exposed to the aerosol cloud ( |X] ^ in
Fig. 3) retained less of the contaminant than either fresh green chop ( )
or hay made from the contaminated pasture (O O ). The individual data for
each cow are tabulated in Appendix A and the various parameters derived from
the data are shown in Table 2 in the Discussion section of this report.
The group average data for ^ I concentration in ingested forage and in
secreted milk for the four goats are shown in Figure 4. Individual data for
the goat study are tabulated in Appendix B.
The effective half-life of the gaseous I deposited on alfalfa, as de-
termined from hand-cut pasture samples, was 2.2 days for the first two days
(0)
and then lengthened to 7.4 days.v Because the green chop was necessarily
cut from a different section of the pasture each day, the green chop samples
131
give variable results. However, the concentration of I in green chop
shown in Figure 2 illustrates an initial short effective half-life and a
subsequent longer one.
11
-------
3x10__
103-J
o
5 10*.
10 _
10-
0.3
1ST. FEEDING - 0.54 DAYS
~~^ A
GREEN CHOP- Tpff=4.6 DAYS
'-A
0° o0Teff=8 7 DAYS
O
o
\
\
o
\
MILK
9 :i
\Teff=0.8d
J I 1 I 1 I I I II I I
20
0 5 10 15
DAYS AFTER AEROSOL RELEASE
FIG.4 131 I CONCENTRATION IN FORAGE AND MILK - GOAT STUDY.
12
-------
DISCUSSION
The data from Group I cows (air uptake exposure plus ingestion of
contaminated hay) illustrate some of the problems in the determination of
exposure when baled hay is the contaminated forage. From the average
131
concentration of I in hay (Figure 3), it is apparent that even a predomi-
nantly gaseous aerosol does not penetrate very far into the hay. Also, even
bales relatively close to each other become contaminated to markedly differ-
ent levels as shown in the figure and in the first six concentrations shown in
Appendix A-4. On the other hand, pasture contamination appears relatively
uniform. When the forage was mowed, allowed to dry, and then baled; the
concentration in the resultant hay did not vary quite so markedly. In addi-
tion to the variable deposit on the baled hay, the radioiodine may have been
lost rapidly from this rather inert material as the decline in milk concen-
tration of Group I cows approached that of the cows exposed only to air up-
take during the three days they were fed the contaminated baled hay.
In contrast to the above, the rather firm binding or incorporation of
gaseous radioiodine to growing alfalfa is reflected by the correspondence
of the milk concentration data for Groups I and II, after the Group I cows
were fed the hay made from the contaminated alfalfa. The similarity of the
hay and green chop concentrations starting about Day 3 is evident in Figure 3.
The slightly higher average concentration in the latter hay compared to green
chop may be a consequence of moisture loss when the alfalfa was converted to
hay.
13
-------
Some of the milk transfer parameters derived from this study, two
studies conducted following accidental venting from underground nuclear
tests, (' 'and from four other aerosol studies at the Dairy Farm are shown
in Table 2. These data suggest that ^^1 on Sudan grass appears less bio-
logically available than 131l on alfalfa; that the peak concentration in
milk from cows fed contaminated green chop is about 50 times that in cows
exposed by air uptake to the same aerosol plume; and that goats appear to
transfer radioiodine from forage to milk to a greater extent than do cows
ingesting the same forage.
The reason for the use of the term "air uptake" rather than "inhalation
exposure" can be ascertained from the data in Appendix A-3. At an average
milk output of 22 liters/day, the total ^Ij output in 20 days after air
uptake was 160 nCi. Using the integrated air concentration of 129 y Ci-s/m ,
and assuming 100 liters/min for the minute-volume of a cow, the inhalation
exposure can be calculated to be 215 nCi so about 75% of this was measured
in milk. This high a percentage transfer to milk appears improbable so some
concurrent ingestion is postulated; thus "air uptake" rather than "inhalation."
The percent of ingested radioiodine which was secreted in milk is shown
in Table 3 for the cows and goats. These data are based on about 8 days of
ingestion and on milk content for a total of 20 days. Because of limitations
on the amount of "lj that could be used, sufficient green chop was available
for only a single feeding per cow per day. Feeding twice daily (usual practice)
14
-------
Table 2. Results from Seven Field Studies with
131,
Study Name
Pike (7)
Pin Stripe ^
Hayseed (2)
Alfalfa
(3)
SIP
Rainout
^ '
Type of Type of
Contaminant Green Chop
Fission
Products
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Particulate Sudan Grass
Aerosol
Alfalfa-
Oats
Alfalfa
" "
Solution
of I
MICE(cows) Gas
MICE(goats)
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Particle
Size*
-
23am
Type
of
Milk Concentration
PeaknC:/Hter % in
Exposure Peak(nCiAiter) Time to Tef£ During PeaknCi/kg
Peak(days) Feeding(days)
Green Chop 0.38 4.0 3.8 0.08
Hay
Green
Green
Green
Hay
Chop
Chop
Chop
Air Uptake
2 him
Green
Hay
Chop
Air Uptake
0. 13fun
-
_
Green
Hay
Air
Green
Hay
Green
Hay
Air Up
Chop
Chop
Chop
take
0. 07
4.6
1. 1
2?
11
0.6
109
39
2. 0
69. 5
4. 3
1.2
860
130
140
110
3.6
3
2
3
2
1
1st
1
1
1st
1
0
1st
1
1
2
3
1st
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
Milk
. 5
. 0
Milk
.6
.6
Milk
.0
. 0
.0
.2
Milk
5
5
4
3
2
2
8
5
7
2
6
4
. 9
.6
. 0
. 0
. 7
-
. 5
. 0
-
. 2
_
-
. 9
. 5'
.9
.6
-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
054
086
078
008
027
-
029
069
-
061
040"
-
041
013
053
051
-
Milk
10
4
2
6
12
15
7
17
6
4
8
11
.4
. 9
. 1
. 3
-
. 5
. 2
-
.6
.9
-
. 1
. 5
.7
.4
-
Green Chop 147
1. 1
8. 7
0. 089
18. 0
*Count Median Diameter
-------
Table 3. Percent of 131I Secreted in Milk
Animal Total intake Total in Milk % In Milk Average
Group Exposure No. (iCi |J.Ci
II
III
Goats
Hay
Green
Chop
Air
Green
Chop
2
27
35
43
86
87
16
21
28
36
45
46
13
29
39
44
47
84
1
2
3
4
108
107
98. 7
125
127
101
131
175
130
210
127
215
9.22
10.8
8.91
9.36
11.6
16. 1
10. 1
9.35
21. 5
8. 07
21.6
19.2
5.8
14. 0
9.7
13. 3
0. 2
0. 18
0. 112
0. 136
0. 161
0. 175
0.71
1.75
1.66
2.74
10. 7
15. 0
10. 3
7. 5
16.9
8.0
16. 5
11. 0
4.4
6.7
7.6
6.2
7.7
16.2
18.6
29.3
11.4 + .3.8
8. 7 ±4.4
18.0 ± 8. 9
16
-------
would have extended the time to peak activity and increased the peak con-
centration in milk slightly but would not have affected the percent in milk.
Furthermore, twice-daily feeding would have minimized the sawtooth effect
on milk secretion of the iodine, cf. the smoother appearance of the curve
for the cows fed hay.
The most common effective half-life (T ) for decrease in iodine-131
concentration in milk from cows consuming fresh forage as quoted in the lit-
erature is about five days. From the data in Table 2, a value near that
(5.2 days in the SIP experiment) occurred only in the experiment where the
aerosol had a count median diameter of 0.13 ym. Where the aerosol was lar-
ger the T was shorter and where ionic or molecular iodine was used the T
was longer.
It can be hypothesized that the I or I? enters the plant more readily
and becomes more firmly bound than is the case for iodine adsorbed on par-
ticles. Thus, if this longer T is not just peculiar for our experiments,
and assuming all other variations were held constant, the thyroid dose to
humans drinking milk produced by cows on a pasture contaminated by predomi-
131
nantly gaseous I would be larger than would be the case if a Te of five
days were used.
17
-------
CONCLUSIONS
For this experiment, cows and their forage were exposed to an aero-
sol plume which consisted of a predominantly gaseous (12) form of 131i.
The results of the experiment suggest the following conclusions:
1. The deposition velocity of gaseous iodine (0.51 cm/s) was % to 1/3
the deposition velocity measured with particulate aerosols.(2-4)
2. As in earlier experiments,' ^the cows ingesting contaminated hay
secreted a higher percentage in their milk than cows ingesting contaminated
green chop.
3. Cows exposed to the aerosol plume secreted a very small amount of
13*1 compared to cows ingesting contaminated forage. The latter cows had
a peak milk concentration about 44 times the air uptake cows and their total
secretion in milk was about 80 times higher.
4. The time to peak concentration in milk, effective half-life during
and after ingestion of contaminated forage and percent transferred to milk
were similar to earlier experiments using other aerosols except for the
case where Sudan grass was used.^'
5. Gaseous 131j is apparently bound to growing alfalfa more firmly
than particulate I31j aerosols.
6. Goats apparently absorb more 131j from contaminated alfalfa than
do dairy cows and secrete a higher percentage in their milk.
18
-------
REFERENCES
1. Smith D.D. (1970), Status of the bioenvironmental research experi-
mental dairy herd, Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
Report SWRHL-67r, Las Vegas, NV.
2. Earth D.S. and Seal M.S. (1966), Radioiodine transport through the
ecosystem air-forage-cow-milk using a synthetic dry aerosol, in
Radioecological Concentration Processes, Pergamon Press, NY.
3. Stanley R.E., Black S.C., and Earth D.S. (1969), 131I dairy cow
studies using a dry aerosol, Southwestern Radiological Health Lab-
oratory Report SWRHL-42r, Las Vegas, NV.
4. Mason B.J., Black S.C. and Earth D.S. (1971), -1 dairy cow uptake
studies using a submicrometer dry aerosol, Southwestern Radiological
Health Laboratory Report SWRHL-39r, Las Vegas, NV.
5. Douglas R.L., Black S.C. and Earth D.S. (1971), 131I transport
through the air-forage-cow-milk system using an aerosol mist,
Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory Report SWRHL-43r,
Las Vegas, NV.
6. McNelis D.N. , Black S.C. and Whittaker E.L. (1971), Radioiodine field
studies with synthetic aerosols, Southwestern Radiological Health Lab-
oratory Report SWRHL-103r, Las Vegas, NV.
7. Earth D.S. and Veater J.G. (1964), Dairy farm radioiodine study follow-
ing the Pike event, Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory Report
SWRHL-14r, Las Vegas, NV.
8. Earth D.S., Engel R.E., Black S.C. and Shimoda W. (1969), Dairy farm
radioiodine studies following the Pin Stripe event, Southwestern Radio-
logical Health Laboratory Report SWRHL-41r, Las Vegas, NV.
9. McFarlane J.S. and Mason B.J. (1970), Plant radioiodine relationships:
a review, Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory Report SWRHL-90r,
Las Vegas, NV.
10. Thompson S.E. (1965), Effective half-life of fallout radionuclides on
plants with special emphasis on iodine-131, Lawrence Livermore Labora-
tory Report UCRL-12388, University of California, Livermore, CA.
19
-------
Appendix A-l
I Concentration in Milk from Group I Cows
(air uptake plus hay) - nCi/liter
Time*
0.34
0.64+
1.28
1.65
2.29
2.63
3.32
3.64@
4.29
4.63
5.21
5.59
6.30
6.63
7.30
7.62
8.27
8.63
9.28
9.62
10.34
10.64
11.30
11.67
12.30
12.67
13.30
13.69
14.29
14.64
15.30
15.63
16.30
16.66
17.32
17.67
18.30
18.66
19.30
Cow 2
18.2
21.7
14. 0
9.08
5. 13
3.84
3.06
25. 5
81. 1
94.0
97.7
85. 5
57. 0
78. 5
106
93.2
82.6
79.6
92.3
83.8
74.5
23.0
36.6
24.2
11.7
7.32
3.36
2.08
1.26
1.01
0.70
0.66
0.47
0.44
0.46
0.41
0.36
0.33
0.27
Cow 27
15.7
15. 5
10. 1
3.66
4. 19
3.43
2.28
36.9
84. 1
107
97. 3
93. 5
89.9
123
110
95.3
70.0
79.6
91.3
79.0
28. 0
79.8
46. 1
28. 0
16.2
9.43
5.42
3. 52
2. 12
1.60
1. 11
1. 06
0.75
0.62
0. 52
0. 50
0.39
0.41
0.34
Cow 35
6.29
7.32
4.33
1.49
2.06
1.86
1.41
33.6
73.0
81. 1
106
104
89.6
65.7
129
122
85.6
88.0
84.7
70.0
58.4
26.3
41.9
23. 1
10.7
7.04
3.36
2.26
1.48
1.23
0.83
0.84
0.65
0.62
0.46
0.49
0.39
0.34
0.30
Cow 43
7. 11
7. 14
4.39
3.76
2.07
1.79
1.00
11.4
22. 0
27.8
30.0
32. 1
48.2
110
66.4
60.6
45.6
50.2
47.8
42.9
32.6
32.9
21.9
16.2
9.08
6.91
4.88
3.60
2.21
1.97
1.52
1.26
0.88
0.87
0.65
0.71
0.61
0.53
0.45
Cow 86
15.9
16.7
11.4
8.31
5.49
4.31
3.32
24.0
61.4
68.0
89. 1
105
133
136
137
101
89. 1
81.9
103
100
96.2
104
66.4
48.3
30. 1
19.8
11.9
8.75
5.32
4.26
2.92
2.80
2. 14
1.85
1.39
1.42
1. 12
1.05
0.89
Cow 87
9.46
9.73
6.45
5.06
2.82
2.40
2. 18
24.9
49.7
65.4
72.8
95. 1
91. 2
124
108
104
86. 1
86.8
80.4
83. 2
54.7
55.8
32.3
22. 5
13.3
9.26
4.62
3.37
2.26
2.35
1.36
1. 05
0.93
0.85
0.70
0.73
0. 56
0. 57
0.47
Weighted
Average
12.6
12.4
8. 56
5.24
3.76
3. 12
2.20
24.9
61.2
69.9
81.5
81.8
85. 1
108
107
92.4
75.3
75.6
83. 5
75.9
57.8
57.8
41.4
28.5
16.0
10.3
5.87
4.44
2.66
2. 13
1.53
1.36
1.04
0.94
0.71
0.77
0.60
0.60
0.48
* Days after air exposure. Ate hay in manger during and after exposure.
f First feeding baled hay contaminated by the aerosol was at 0.42 days.
@ First feeding of contaminated pasture converted to hay and baled was at 3. 40 days.
20
-------
Appendix A-2 I Concentration in Milk from Group II Cows
(air uptake plus green chop) - nCi/liter
Time*
0.36
0.66"1"
1.30
1.63
2.31
2.66
3.30
3. 66
4.31
4.64
5. 23
5.60
6. 31
6.64
7.31
7. 64
8. 29
8.64
9. 30
9.63
10.36
10.66
11. 28
11.65
12. 28
12. 64
13.28
13. 70
14.31
14.65
15. 28
15.64
16.28
16.64
17.30
17.65
18.29
18.64
19.29
Cow 16
4.02
94.3
70.4
130
92. 1
140
85.9
129
79.8
116
87.5
135
88.3
134
73. 1
99.1
70.7
52.5
22.2
14.8
6.31
4.37
1.84
1.62
0.79
0.71
0.40
0.49
0.36
0.47
Cow 21
2.66
84.3
76.0
129
100
110
79.1
102
74.2
96.6
68.0
88.3
53.9
75.6
45.9
57.7
52.4
39.0
27.2
18.3
9.73
8. 15
4.24
3.44
2.48
2.31
1.45
1.20
0.76
0.65
Cow 28
2.59
53.2
80.2
99.8
83.0
114
65.0
77.2
64.9
87.7
66.2
50.9
46.4
64.9
36.6
69.6
52.3
44.9
20.9
14.3
6. 58
2.25
2.45
2. 16
1.26
0.81
0.83
0.72
0.76
0.43
Cow 36
3.62
174
174
210
154
123
131
175
103
168
130
158
84.7
117
77.7
114
83.4
55.4
26.5
17.6
8. 59
4.50
2.94
2.63
1.35
1. 13
0.76
1.06
0.63
0.68
Cow 45
2. 55
121
105
174
94.2
106
82.9
147
79.8
134
92.4
125
72.4
89.7
45.2
99.3
57.8
39.2
15.6
10.5
4.66
3.89
2.07
1.66
1.00
1.06
0.59
0.89
0.69
0. 54
Cow 46
2.77
102
88.9
123
93.2
101
71.2
83.7
72. 3
78.2
52.8
60.2
45. 2
50.9
44.4
56. 5
42.7
30.3
15. 9
11. 6
6.49
4.78
3.30
2.31
1.61
1. 58
1. 14
1. 08
1. 14
1.29
Weighted
Average
3.06
102
90.0
140
100
116
84. 3
115
78. 1
109
79 5
I / -J
101
64. 3
90. 2
54. 8
78. 8
58. 6
42.7
21. 6
14. 8
7.24
5. 33
2. 94
2. 40
1. 53
1. 36
0. 92
0.92
0.72
0 69 ^
' &
0. 59
0.71
0. 55
0. 58
0.70
0.47
0.31
0.38
0.33
* Days after air exposure.
+ First green chop feeding at 0.39 days after air exposure.
y Composite samples.
21
-------
Appendix A-3
131
I Concentration in Milk from Group III Cows
(air uptake) - nCi/liter
Time*
0.37
0.63
1.27
1.62
2.27
2.61
3.27
3.62
4.27
4.61
5.19
5.58
6.28
6.61
7.28
7.61
8.26
8.61
9.27
9.61
10.32
10.62
11.26
11.63
12.26
12.62
13.26
13.67
14.28
14.62
15.27
15.63
16.26
16.62
17.28
17.63
18.27
18.63
19.27
Cow 13
3.40
3.49
1.95
1.40
0. 75
0. 58
0.35
0.30
0.27
0.24
0. 19
0. 16
0. 12
0. 12
0. 12
0. 10
0.084
0.098
0. 065
0.064
0.037
0.050
0.053
0. 073
Cow 29
4.44
4.68
2. 37
1.43
0.81
0.66
0.38
0.41
0.30
0.23
0.20
0.25
0. 15
0. 16
0. 12
0. 16
0. 14
0. 12
0. 078
0.095
0.053
0.078
0.039
0. 072
Cow 39
4.71
4.76
2.06
1.24
0.85
0.72
0.42
0. 53
0.45
0.32
0.28
0.27
0.22
0.26
0.27
0.30
0.25
0. 18
0. 16
0. 10
0.060
0.076
0.061
0.070
Cow 44
2. 55
2.37
1. 05
0.86
0. 53
0.45
0.24
0.26
0.21
0. 17
0. 16
0. 19
0. 25
0. 17
0. 14
0. 17
0. 10
0.099
0. 067
0.090
0.043
0.067
0.080
0. 10
Cow 47
4.28
4.25
2.41
1.69
0.96
0. 78
0.43
0. 57
0. 62
0. 57
0.42
0.30
0. 14
0.28
0. 19
0. 24
0. 18
0. 16
0. 10
0.096
0. 080
0.088
0.071
0. 10
Cow 84
2.98
3.42
1.93
1.33
0.70
0. 53
0.35
0.37
0.34
0.29
0. 19
0.29
0.20
0.20
0. 16
0. 16
0. 12
0. 11
0.079
0.086
0.058
0. 075
0.080
0. 14
Weighted
Average
3. 58
3.56
1.90
1. 30
0.73
0. 58
0.35
0.39
0.34
0.29
0.23
0.24
0. 18
0. 19
0. 15
0. 18
0. 13
0. 12
0.084
0. 087
0.053
0. 072
0.065
0.093
0. 086**
0. 088
0.063
0.052
0. 064
0.027
0.030
0. 042
0.066
0.064
0. 039
0.39
0. 13
0. 068
0.066
* Days after exposure (0000 hr 9/22/67)
** Composite samples.
22
-------
Appendix A-4
131
I Concentration in Cow Feed - jxCi/kg
Hay for Group I Cows
Time* Mean S.E.**
0.33
0.67
1.29
1.62
2.32
2.62
3.33
3.62
4.29
4.62
5.25
5. 58
6.33
6. 58
7.33
7. 58
8.33
8. 58
9.33
9.62
10.33
0. 096
0. 034
0.009
0. 102
0.078
0. 047
1.44
1.00
0.911
0.956
1. 01
2. 11
1.49
1.69
0. 586
0. 613
0.955
1.22
0.424
0. 589
0. 568
0.012
0.011
0.002
0.025
0.029
0.027
0.22
0. 12
0. 17
0.06
0. 19
0.67
0.13
0. 14
0. 12
0. 14
0. 13
0. 18
0.056
0. 110
0.071
Green Chop for Group II Cows
Time Mean S.E.
0.39
1.33
2.33
3.33
4.33
5.25
6.33
7.33
2.63
1.48
0.89
0.80
0.71
0.64
0.64
0.71
0.88
0.36
0.023
0.074
0.042
0.062
0.030
0.032
* Days after release when fed to cows
** Std. error of mean
23
-------
Appendix B
131
I Concentration in Milk and Feed, Goat Study
Milk - nCi/1 Green Chop - M-Ci/kg
Time*
0.67
1.34
1.65
2.35
2.65
3.35
3.65
4.34
4.66
5.35
5.65
6.37
6.65
7.34
7.65
8.37
8.65
9.35
9.65
10.35
10.65
11.35
11.65
12.36
12.65
13.35
13.65
14.34
14.65
15.34
15.65
16.34
16.65
17.35
17.64
18.35
18.65
19.35
19.65
20.34
20.66
Goat 1
25.4
36.0
55.9
40.9
45.9
28.0
4. 10
33.3
37.3
26. 1
20.5
40. 5
57.2
26.3
33.3
29.0
22.2
11.8
8.37
3.97
3.29
1.39
1. 08
0.59
0.60
0.37
0.37
0.28
0.31
0.22
0.26
0.24
0.38
0.32
0.21
0.25
0.24
0. 19
0.21
0. 15
0.20
Goat 2
53. 5
88.9
108
109
109
85.0
87.9
57.7
76. 5
64.2
46.4
81.9
74. 1
55.6
58.7
69.2
44.5
26.0
17.4
13.3
7.58
4. 14
3. 11
1.85
1.49
1.08
0.90
0.70
0.68
0.72
0.62
0.77
0.63
0.65
0.54
-
0.50
0.44
1.21
0.39
0.42
Goat 3
111
165
166
154
163
98.7
106
75.9
74.5
47.2
34.1
79.5
144
103
134
110
85.1
39.1
25.4
11.3
8.76
4.42
3.38
2.31
1.84
1.82
1.62
1.24
1. 12
1.05
1.03
1.01
1.00
0.92
0.76
0.64
0.63
.0.48
0.41
0.53
0.62
Goat 4
204
307
318
263
293
153
241
196
243
126
95.1
146
241
137
172
146
112
48.8
34.2
14.4
10.7
5.05
5. 12
2.95
2.89
2.20
2.34
1.64
1.75
1.59
1.87
-
1.96
1.48
1.27
1.23
1.26
1. 11
0.56
0.91
1.15
Weighted
Average
83.6
135
147
130
124
85.8
100
83.6
86.9
62.6
46.4
83.8
113
72.8
88.6
87.3
57.4
28.6
20.7
10. 5
6.96
3.60
2.88
1.77
1.60
1.22
1. 14
0.91
0.85
0.85
0.80
0.64
0.88
0.77
0.59
0.62
0. 60
0.51
0.60
0.44
0.41
Time Fed*
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
54
53
50
52
51
68
50
55
51
43
40
Mean
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
65
37
36
972
02
922
692
500
00054
00047
00044
S
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.E.
13
10
044
039
050
038
022
050
00002
00004
00002
Days after aerosol release.
24
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1-20 Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
21 Mahlon E. Gates, Manager, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
22 Charles E. Williams, Deputy Manager, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
23 Bennie G. DiBona, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
24 David G. Jackson, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
25 Arthur J. Whitman, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
26 Elwood M. Douthett, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
27-28 Ernest D. Campbell, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
29 - 30 Paul B. Dunaway, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
31 - 32 Mary G. White, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
33 Roger Ray, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
34 Robert W. Taft, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
35 Leon Silverstrom, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
36 Richard C. Amick, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
37 John 0. Cummings, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
38 Bruce W. Church, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
39 - 40 Technical Library, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
41 Chief, NOB/DNA, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
42 Martin B. Biles, DOS, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
43 Tommy F. McCraw, DOS, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
44 - 45 Major General Joseph K. Bratton, Assistant General Manager,
DMA, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
46 Gordon F. Facer, DMA, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
47 James L. Liverman, Director, DBER, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
48 Robert L. Watters, DBER, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
49 John S. Kirby-Smith, DBER, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
50 L. Joe Deal, DOS, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
51 Charles L. Osterberg, DBER, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
52 Robert W. Wood, DBER, ERDA/HQ, Washington, DC
53 Harold F. Mueller, ARL, NOAA, Las Vegas, NV
54 Gilbert J. Ferber, ARL, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
-------
55 Wilson K. TAlley, Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development, EPA, Washington, DC
56 William D. Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation
Programs, EPA, Washington, DC
57 William A. Mills, Director, Division of Criteria and Standards,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
58 - 59 Floyd L. Galpin, Director, Field Operations Division, ORP,
EPA, Washington, DC
60 E. David Harvard, Director, Division of Technology Assessment,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
61 Albert C. Printz, Jr., Director, Office of Technical Analysis,
EPA, Washington, DC
62 Library, EPA, Washington, DC
63 Bernd Kahn, Chief, Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering,
EPA, EMSL-Cincinnati, OH
64 Peter Halpin, Chief, APTIC, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
65 Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region IX, EPA
San Francisco, CA
66 James K. Channell, Regional Radiation Representative,
Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
67 Charles Porter, Director, Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility, Montgomery, AL
68 K. M. Oswald, Manager, Health and Safety, LLL, Mercury, NV
69 Bernard W. Shore, LLL, Livermore, CA
70 James E. Carothers, LLL, Livermore, CA
71 Howard W. Tewes, LLL, Livermore, CA
72 Lawrence S. Germain, LLL, Livermore, CA
73 Mortimer L. Mendelsohn, LLL, Livermore, CA
74 Paul L. Phelps, LLL, Livermore, CA
75 John C. Hopkins, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
76 George E. Tucker, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
77 Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
78 Arden E. Bicker, REECo, Mercury, NV
79 Savino W. Cavender, REECo, Mercury, NV
80 Carter B. Broyles, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
81 Melvin L. Merritt, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
82 Richard S. Davidson, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH
83 Steven V. Kaye, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
-------
84 Leo K. Bustad, College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State
University, Pullman, WA
85 Leonard A. Sagan, Palo Alto Medical Clinic, Palo Alto, CA
86 Vincent Schultz, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
87 Arthur Wallace, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
88 Wesley E. Niles, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
89 Robert C. Pendleton, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
90 William S. Twenhofel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
91 Paul R. Fenske, Desert Research Institute, University of
Nevada, Reno, NV
92 Lloyd P. Smith, President, Desert Research Institute, University
of Nevada, Reno, NV
93 Verle R. Bohman, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
94 Manager, Desert National Wildlife Range, U.S. Fish and Game
Department, Las Vegas, NV
95 Supervisor, Region III, Nevada Fish and Game Department,
Las Vegas, NV
96 Paul Lyons, Nevada Wildlife Research, Division of Archives,
Capitol Building Annex, Carson City, NV
97 - 123 Technical Information Center, ERDA, Oak Ridge, TN
(for public availability)
------- |