EMSL-LV-539-1 EMSL-LV-539-1
>ll LEVELS IN COW'S MILK FOLLOWING INGESTION OF
CONTAMINATED ALFALFA OR SUDAN GRASS
S. C. Black, R. E. Stanley, and D. S. Earth
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Published August 1975
This research was performed as a part of the Bio environmental Research
Program under Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(Z6-l)-539
for the
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
-------
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United
States 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 $4.00 MICROFICHE $2.25
-------
EMSL-LV-539-1 EMSL-LV-539-1
1 ll LEVELS IN COW'S MILK FOLLOWING INGESTION OF
CONTAMINATED ALFALFA OR SUDAN GRASS
SV C. Black, R. E. Stanley, and D/ S. Earth
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Published August 1975
This research was performed as a part of the Bioenvironmental Research
Program under Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(26-1) -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
and Support Laboratory-Las Vegas (EMSL-LV). This Laboratory is one of
three Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratories of the Office of
Monitoring and Technical Support in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development.
-------
ABSTRACT
A dry aerosol, consisting of submicrometer diatomaceous earth particles
tagged with I, was released over two different types of growing forage
(alfalfa and Sudan grass) at the Experimental Dairy Farm on the Nevada
Test Site. Following deposition of the aerosol, the two forage types were
chopped and fed to different groups of lactating dairy cows. The dual ob-
jectives of the study were to evaluate the relationship of I secretion in
milk to the ingestion of different types of contaminated forage and to ob-
tain a further indication of the possible influence on milk radioiodine
levels of changing the particle size of the contaminant.
The ratios ol the peak activity concentrations measured in the milk to the
peak activity concentrations in the forage were computed to be 0. 0145 for
the cows fed contaminated alfalfa and 0. 0082 for those fed contaminated
Sudan grass. Comparison of the results from this study with those from
earlier studies indicates the major effect on activity levels in the milk can
be related to forage type. Ingestion of Sudan grass by the cow reduces the
transfer of radioiodine to milk by one half compared to ingestion of alfalfa.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROCEDURE 3
III. RESULTS 7
IV- DISCUSSION 12
V. CONCLUSIONS. 16
REFERENCES 17
APPENDICES 18
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Experimental plots and instrumentation
for Project HARE
Figure 2. Concentration of I in milk and forage
for cows fed Sudan grass and alfalfa ... 10
Figure 3. I concentration in milk and total in
alfalfa for metabolism cows 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of some Results from
Previous Studies
Table 2. Milk Production and Feeding Regime
for Cows Assigned to Project HARE .... 6
Table 3. Air Sampler Data for Project HARE 8
Table 4. Summary of Parameters for Four Experiments 15
111
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In five previous experiments using various types of synthetic
aerosols the air-forage-cow milk system for I transport has
been studied, giving particular attention to those parameters
which may be significant in determining the I concentration in
(1-5)
milk. Many of the parameters in those experiments appeared
to follow a pattern with the exception of two important measure-
ments obtained during Project Hayseed, the first experiment in
the series. The peak milk to peak forage ratio (pCi/1: pCi/kg) for
Hayseed was less than the ratio measured in the other experiments
where a particulate aerosol was used and the percent recovered in
milk was smaller. * ' ' A comparison of some of the measurements
obtained during these experiments is shown in Table 1.
-------
Table 1 - Comparison of Some Results from Previous Studies
Parameter
Total 131I Released (mCi)
Count Median Diameter of Aerosol
Deposition ((J-Ci/m )
i Q 1
I Integrated Air Concentration
((j-Ci-sec/m )
Wind Speed (km/h)
Ambient Temperature (°F)
Relative Humidity (%)
Type of Forage Fed
Peak Forage Level ([iCi/kg)
Peak Milk Level (nCi/1)
Milk/ Forage Ratio
Percent Recovered in Milk
Hayseed
22
23
3. 13
322
4.83
51
35
Sudan
2.7
22
0. 0081
2. 1
Alfalfa
40
2
4. 66
333
2.22
58
40
Alfalfa
3.4
109
0. 032
12. 5
SIP
52
0. 13
1.63
157 '
4.83
39
59
Alfalfa
1. 1
70
0. 062
7.6
An examination of the various parameters listed in Table 1 indicated two
possible causes for the large variation in the milk/forage ratio and per-
cent in milk among these experiments. These causes are the different
count median diameter (CMD) of the aerosols used and the different types
of forage used. Other factors, acting singly or in concert, may contribute
to the observed variation in the milk/forage ratio. However, their con-
tributions are not as obvious, from these data, as are the differences in
the CMD of the aerosols and the forage types.
-------
Since it was impossible to attribute the difference between the two experi-
ments solely to one of the possible causes, a new experiment was con-
ducted to resolve the problem. The experiment, described herein, was
called Project HARE (for Hayseed-Alfalfa Repeat Experiment). The ex-
perimental procedure included the release of a dry aerosol of a known
particle size (0. 13
-------
10m
OB
DB
TD
10m .
DB
OB
A
B B B
om nm t a o
9
bbm
*
D
A
B
0 B B
*
B O DB OB
4 *
* lunfr 55m
t
16m
1
3m
Sudan Grass
Alfalfa
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
5.5m
Cascade Impactor
A Filter Pack
± Planchet Rack
B Glass Slide
O Fallout Tray
O Tempest
Planchet
O Generator
D DAT Trailer
Figure 1
Experimental forage plots and instrumentation
-------
The lactating cows in the dairy herd were divided into four groups and
fed chopped fresh forage (green-chop) according to the schedule shown in
Table 2. The amount of forage obtained with one pass of the chopper
through each contaminated plot was divided into thirds for each cow group.
Each experimental cow was then offered a measured amount of contaminated
forage, chopped fresh daily, and any residue was weighed to determine the
quantity actually consumed. Grain and uncontaminated forage were used to
supply the balance of the cows' ration. All of the cows except those assigned
to Group IV were milked twice daily and the milk analyzed for I. The
Group IV cows were used in a special metabolism experiment. The sampling
and analytical procedures are included in the previous reports. ' ~ '
Subplots in the plots of Sudan grass and alfalfa were used to determine the
effective half-life (Te££) of I on the two types of forage. The subplots
were divided into 70 sections and randomly selected sections sampled. Each
T
sample consisted of all the forage cut from a 0. 075m circle in the selected
section. This sampling was continued for 20 days post-release.
The samples were gamma counted on a system consisting of a Nal (TI)
crystal and 200-channel analyzer. The I activity in the samples was
determined by computer analysis of the gamma spectra obtained from
counting.
-------
Table 2. Milk Production and Feeding Regime for Cows Assigned
to Project HARE.
Group
No. Cow
16
45
I 47
2
II 13
39
21, 27
III 43,46
84, 85
87
35
IV 36
62
Daily
Milk
Production
(liters)
29.9
22. 0
23.3
18.4
29.9
22. 0
23.7
18.4
16.4
Group
Average
Daily
Milk
Production
(liters)
25. 1
23.4
21.4
19. 5
Daily
Feed
Con-
Type sumption
of Forage (kg)
Contaminated
Sudan 1 0
Contaminated
Alfalfa 10
Uncontaminated
Alfalfa
Contaminated
Alfalfa 20
Remarks
Feed gradually
increased to 20kg.
(Fed uncontamina-
ted Sudan grass for
4 days prior to re-
lease)
Feed gradually
increased to 20kg.
Control group.
Fed only uncontam-
inated forage
Metabolism group.
Fed 10 kg twice
daily. Last two days,
fed 20kg twice daily.
-------
III. RESULTS
The average deposition on the Sudan grass, as estimated from the deposi-
tion on 35 planchets, was 1. 25 fiCi/m . The average deposition on the
O
alfalfa, similarly estimated, was 1.43 uCi/m . From these data, it was
then estimated that 4. 7% of the activity released was deposited on the test
plots. The air sampler data in Table 3 indicate an average integrated air
concentration of 87. 5p.Ci-sec/m with a prefilter to charcoal activity ratio
of 1. 08. The average deposition velocity as calculated from planchet data
adjacent to the air samplers was 1. 6 cm/sec.
Approximately 500 particles on each of 19 glass slides were sized, using
the Feret diameter measurement. These data indicated a 0. 64 |am count
median diameter for the aerosol deposited on the test plots.
The average wind speed during the aerosol release was 4. 5 km/h, from
326° true, with a temperature of 51°F and a relative humidity of 51%.
The analysis of milk from control cows (Group III) and of water, grain,
and uncontaminated forage fed to all groups indicated that the deliberately
contaminated forage was the only significant source of I in the experi-
mental cow groups.
The peak I activity concentration in the Sudan forage was 5. 75 nCi/kg,
-------
Table 3. Air Sampler Data for Project HARE.
Integrated
Air
Sampler Whatman Charcoal Microsorban Total Whatman Concen- Deposition
Number* nCi nCi nCi nCi Charcoal tration Velocity
Ratio (J-Ci-sec/m cm/sec
1 349
2 166
3 178
4 249
5 201
6 237
7 29.2
8 291
9 169
363
208
242
202
171
219
77.8
117
192
00.
02.
03.
02.
02.
02.
00.
00.
03.
925
91
58
30
81
20
949
724
29
713
377
424
453
375
458
108
409
364
Average
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
2.
0.
1.
961
798
735
23
18
08
375
49
880
08
161
82.
86.
98.
76.
93.
22.
92.
74.
87-
0
9
5
8
8
1
1
6
5
0.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
86
4
1
4
3
3
1
2
7
6
*In Fig. 1, air samplers were numbered left to right and front to rear starting
from the side of the plots nearest the generators.
-------
measured on the first feeding offered the Group I cows following the re-
lease (Appendix 1-3). The effective half-life for the I in the Sudan over
the 8-day feeding period was 4. 1 _ 0. 14 days. With a measured peak milk
activity concentration of 47. 1 nCi/liter, the calculated milk to forage ratio
for Group I was 0. 0082. Similar measurements and calculations on the
feed and milk of the Group II cows (fed contaminated alfalfa) gave a peak
forage activity concentration of 2. 28 nCi/kg, an effective half-life in the
forage of 6. 8 Z 0. 73 days, an initial peak milk activity concentration of
32. 8 nCi/liter, and a milk to forage ratio of 0. 0145 (approximately 2 times
greater than that for Group I). The initial peak concentration in milk oc-
curred at 1. 25 days in both groups. A second peak activity of 52. 6 nCi/liter
occurred at 6. 25 days in the group fed contaminated alfalfa. The effective
half-lives of I in milk after the cows' rations were changed to uncon-
taminated feed were 0. 85 and 0. 74 days, respectively, for the groups fed
Sudan grass or alfalfa. The *-'' I activity ingested with the forage and the
concentration secreted in the milk of the cows in Group I and II are shown
in Figure 2 and Appendices 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. Similar data for the meta-
bolism cows (Group IV) are shown in Figure 3 and Appendices 1-3 and 1-4.
-------
100
10
\/\.
\/\
MILK
b
1.0
V-
FORAGE
CO
LLJ
CO
'4
\ - A
.
\/\/\
200
100
50
0.1
0124 6 8 10 12 14
DAYS AFTER INITIAL FEEDING
16
10
i- 2.
i concentration in milk from cows fed
Sudan grass (-) or alfalfa (A A) and total
iodine-131 ingested with Sudan grass (o-o)
or alfalfa (A A).
10
-------
10
l\ J
V
\
10
£ 10
\ <+- MILK
\
\
FORAGE
\
\
V,
\ S~
200
100
-i
10
i i i i i i i i i
1
1 1 1 1 I 1
12 4 6 8 10 12 14
DAYS AFTER INITIAL FEEDING
16
10
Fig. 3. Average I concentration in milk (
and total ingested with alfalfa green
chop (o-o) for the metabolism cows.
11
-------
IV- DISCUSSION
Changing weather introduced an element of complexity in this study.
Tests on the crops prior to the experiment indicated that one swath
through the experimental plots by the chopper would provide 10 kg/day
for each of the three cows in the groups; however, warm weather occur-
ing after the start of the experiment increased the yield to 20 kg/day per
cow even though the plots were not irrigated during that period. The prin-
cipal effect of this increased feed was a positive slope in the I concen-
tration in milk during feeding of the cows fed alfalfa green chop (Figure 2).
For the cows fed Sudan grass, the effective half-life for iodine-131 in milk
during feeding was about 4 days rather than 3 days noted during the Hayseed
experiment, possibly a result of the increasing amounts fed.
The results of this experiment, though, indicate that radioiodine is not
secreted in milk to the same extent when cows are fed Sudan grass as when
they are fed alfalfa. There are three observations that confirm this con-
clusion. First, even though the total intake was smaller with the alfalfa
feed (Figure 2), the iodine-131 in milk was higher than with Sudan grass
feeding. Secondly, using only the first peak concentration in milk after
start of feeding, the ratio of peak concentration in milk to peak forage con-
centration was 0. 0082 for the Sudan grass feeding and 0. 0145 for the alfalfa
feeding, almost 2 times higher. Thirdly, the percent of ingested iodine-131
secreted in milk was only 3. 6 for the cows fed Sudan grass while it was 7. 2
for the cows fed alfalfa, in agreement with the milk/forage ratios.
1
12
-------
The data for the metabolism cows (Group IV, alfalfa feed) shown in
Appendices 1-3 and 1-4 indicate a milk/forage ratio of 0. 029 and a per-
cent in milk of 6. 2. These data agree with the Group II data. The milk/
forage ratio was twice that for Group II, because the Group IV cows in-
gested double the amount of feed that Group II ingested.
A similar study conducted by another laboratory showed that feeding
Sudan grass to cows after oral doses of radioiodine decreased the percent
of radioiodine transferred to milk by half compared to feeding bromegrass.
Those authors suggest some chemical compound in the Sudan grass affected
the mammary gland, and that the nitrate and cyanide constituents were not
the responsible agents. A milk/forage ratio could not be calculated from
that report, because oral dosing was used. The decreased percentage ex-
cretion, though, confirms the results reported herein.
A change in milk production rate may be excluded as a cause of decreased
iodine-131 secretion in this study. The Group I cows (Sudan grass) aver-
aged 25. 8 liters/day compared to 25. 1 for the month before the experiment
while Group II cows (alfalfa) averaged 21.5 liters/day during the experiment
as compared to a prior 23. 4 liters/day.
Selected parameters summarized from the results of four different studies,
in which I-labeled DE was used to contaminate growing forage, are
shown in Table 4. In both instances where Sudan grass was the source of
13
-------
iodine-131, the milk to forage ratio and the percent secreted in milk -was
less than in the three experiments where alfalfa was used as forage.
There are two apparent anomalies in Table 4, the relatively low deposition
velocity measured for the Hayseed experiment and the high percent secreted
in milk in the Alfalfa experiment. However, the diatomaceous earth used as
the carrier aerosol in these experiments has a relatively low bulk density
because of the porous nature of the material so the CMD of 23[J.m measured
for Hayseed would indicate an average surface area about 120 times that for
the aerosol used for Alfalfa. It was therefore probable that air bouyancy
lowered the deposition velocity. Furthermore, one of the four cows used
in the Alfalfa experiment consistently secreted 20-30% of ingested radio-
iodine in her milk in various experiments and secreted 24% during Alfalfa
while the average for the other three cows in that group was only 8. 7%.
It is probable that the factor of two difference in the secretion of iodine-131
into milk is a minimum difference as a relatively simple correction of the
milk secretion curves for a consistent amount of forage intake (rather than
the increasing amount of intake that occurred) suggests a factor of three
difference. This difference in the milk/forage ratio can also be obtained if
the highest milk concentration in the cows fed alfalfa is used, i. e. , 0. 0526
HCi/liter -f 2. 28 M-Ci/kg is 0. 023 versus the 0. 0082 for the Sudan grass group,
14
-------
Table 4. Summary of Parameters for Four Experiments with particulate aerosols^
Experiment
HARE
Hayseed
Alfalfa
SIP
Aerosol
CMD (|xm)
0. 64
23
2
0. 13
Average
Deposition
(fJ-Ci/m2)
1.25
1.43
3. 13
4.66
1. 63
Deposition
Velocity
(cm/ sec)
1.6
1.6
1. 3
2.4
0. 92
Type of
Forage
Sudan
Alfalfa
Sudan
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Peak
Forage
(M-Ci/kg)
5.74
2. 28
2.7
3.4
1. 13
Peak
Milk
([iCi/liter)
0. 0471
0. 033
0. 022
0. 109
0. 0695
Milk/
Forage
Ratio
0. 0082
0. 014
0. 0081
0. 032
0. 062
Percent
in Milk
3.6
7. 2
2.
12. 5
7. 5
KMilk data based on cows fed fresh green-chop daily.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the conditions of this experiment, the following conclusions
may be derived from the results.
1. Cows fed I-contaminated Sudan grass secrete half as much of
the iodine in their milk as do cows fed similarly contaminated alfalfa.
2. Both the ratio of peak concentration in milk to peak concentration
in ingested forage and the total percent recovered in milk in 16 days are
reduced by half if Sudan grass rather than alfalfa is the source of radio-
iodine.
3. The cause of this effect of Sudan grass on milk secretion of iodine
is speculative at this time. There are several possibilities, e.g., com-
parative digestibility of the forages, chemical binding of the iodine, and
chemical blocking of the mammary secretory process are likely candidates.
4. The particle size of the I-labeled aerosols used in these experi-
ments appears to exert some influence on the milk/forage ratio, but its
effect is not as conclusive as is the species of forage.
16
-------
REFERENCES
1. Black S.C., Earth D.S. and Engel R. E. , 13 4 Dairy Cow Uptake
Study Using a Synthetic Dry Aerosol (Hayseed) Southwestern Radio-
logical Health Lab. , Las Vegas, NV, (Unpublished memorandum
report) Summary report by D.S. Barth and M.S. Seal in Proceed-
ings of Symposium on Radioecological Concentration Processes,
Stockholm, Sweden (April 1966).
2. Stanley R.E. , Black S. C. and Barth D.S. , 131I Dairy Cow Uptake
Studies Using a Dry Aerosol (Alfalfa), Southwestern Radiological
Health Lab., Las Vegas, NV Report SWRHL-4Zr (1969).
3. Mason B. J. , Black S. C. and Barth D.S. , 131I Dairy Cow Uptake
Studies Using a Submicrometer Synthetic Dry Aerosol (SIP) South-
western Radiological Health Lab. , Las Vegas, NV Report SWRHL-
39r (1971).
4. Douglas R. L. , Black S. C. and Barth D. S. , 131I Transport through
the Air-Forage-Cow-Milk System Using an Aerosol Mist (Rainout),
Southwestern Radiological Health Lab. , Las Vegas, NV Report
SWRHL-43r (1971).
5. Douglas R. L. , Black S. C. and Barth D. S. , 13 h Transport through
the Air-Forage-Cow-Milk System Using Molecular Iodine (MICE"),
Southwestern Radiological Health Lab. , Las Vegas, NV (in review).
6. James R.H., McNelis D. N. , Whittaker E. L. and Kennedy N. C. ,
Aerosol Preparation, Generation and Assessment-Project HARE,
Southwestern Radiological Health Lab. , Las Vegas, NV Report
SWRHL-75r (1970).
7. Moss B. R. , Voilleque P. G. , Moody E. L. , Adams D. R. ,
Pelletier C. A. and Hoss D. , Effects of Feeding Sudan grass on Iodine
Metabolism of Lactating Dairy Cows, J. Dairy Sci. 55, 1487-91 (1972).
17
-------
Appendix 1-1.
131
I Concentration in Milk, Cows fed Sudan grass (Group I)
Cow 16
Cow 45
Cow 47
Weighted Average
Time*
0.27
0.93
1. 27
1.94
2. 27
2.95
3. 28
3.96
4. 27
4.97
5.28
5.92
6.29
6. 94
7. 29
7. 94
8. 27
8. 95
9. 28
9.94
10. 29
10. 94
11.29
11.93
12. 29
12. 93
13. 3
13.94
14. 28
15. 06
15. 28
15.94
nCi/liter
55.7
42.6
62.3
34.9
39.7
24.0
34.6
23.2
26.9
19.7
23. 2
17. 0
20. 5
12. 1
19.3
13. 1
10.3
4.9
3. 5
1.7
1.4
0.64
0.71
0.39
0.44
0.32
0.26
0. 15
0.22
0.27
0.22
0. 18
liters
13.6
20. 2
11.4
18. 9
11. 0
21. 9
10. 5
21. 1
10. 5
20.2
11.4
17. 1
13. 6
18.4
9.7
19. 8
13. 2
16. 2
11. 0
18. 0
11.4
19. 3
11. 0
21. 9
11.9
21. 9
11.4
18. 0
11.0
19.3
7.9
18.4
nCi/liter
33.4
26.9
32. 2
19.2
20.2
14. 1
18.9
12. 0
20. 8
12.4
11.9
9.3
12. 7
6.6
11. 2
6.5
6. 1
2. 3
1. 7
0. 78
0. 82
0.42
0. 55
0. 30
0.30
0. 24
0. 28
0. 19
0. 21
0. 24
0. 23
0. 23
liters
8.8
14.9
9.2
13.2
7.0
13.6
9.2
13.6
7. 0
14.9
7.9
14. 0
7. 9
13. 2
8.8
13. 2
7. 5
12. 7
7. 0
13.6
6. 1
11.9
7.9
11.9
6.6
11. 0
6. 1
11.4
4. 0
13.6
5.3
11. 0
nCi/liter
37-6
41. 1
44.4
31.3
43.3
22.8
29.2
23. 5
31.0
25. 5
20. 5
17. 1
17. 0
13. 1
17. 0
13. 5
12. 1
7. 2
5. 5
3.3
2.7
1. 5
1.4
0.99
0.79
0.49
0. 50
0.35
0.45
0. 15
0. 53
0.37
liters
12. 7
14. 5
12.7
18. 0
9.7
16.7
14. 0
14. 5
10. 0
15.4
9.2
18. 0
10. 1
15. 8
11.4
15. 8
8.8
15.8
8. 3
14. 5
11. 0
14. 0
10. 5
15. 8
9.2
16.2
11. 0
15. 8
10. 5
14.9
8.8
14. 5
nCi/liter
43. 5
37.4
47. 1
29.4
36. 0
21. 0
28. 0
20. 1
26.9
19.3
19. 1
14. 8
17.4
10. 9
16. 0
11.4
9. 8
5. 0
3.6
1. 9
1. 8
0. 84
0. 93
0. 56
0. 52
0. 36
0. 36
0. 23
0. 32
0.22
0. 34
0.26
Total in Milk 16. 5
* Days after initial feeding.
18
-------
Appendix 1 -2.
131
I Concentration in Milk, Cows fed Alfalfa (Group II)
Cow 2
Cow 13
Cow 39
Weighted Average
Time*
0.26
0. 92
1. 28
1. 93
2. 26
2. 94
3.26
3. 94
4. 26
4. 94
5.26
5.91
6. 28
6. 92
7. 28
7. 94
8.27
8. 95
9.28
9. 94
10.29
10. 94
11.29
11.93
12. 29
12. 93
13. 30
13. 94
14. 28
15.06
15.28
15.94
nCi/liter
33.3
29. 1
29.8
17.8
23.4
16. 1
36.9
26.7
37.0
23. 1
34. 0
23. 1
35.4
32. 0
37.9
29.2
21. 1
9.8
6.4
2. 3
1.7
0. 96
0.74
0.43
0.42
0. 38
0.28
0.21
0.28
0.23
0.29
0. 19
liters
6.6
12.7
7. 5
12.7
6.6
13.6
6.6
13. 6
5. 7
14. 0
6. 1
10. 5
7. 0
12. 3
7. 5
11.4
5. 3
12. 3
7. 0
10. 5
4. 8
12.3
6. 6
12. 3
5. 7
14. 0
7. 0
10. 1
6. 1
12. 7
4. 8
11.9
nCi/ liter
18.9
20.4
20. 1
12. 1
12.9
11.9
23.2
19. 1
32.9
26.2
26. 0
16. 5
31. 1
22.7
23.8
17. 9
14. 0
7.9
5.6
3.3
3. 0
1.6
1.3
1. 0
0. 82
0. 61
0.44
0. 32
0. 29
0.20
0. 25
0.26
liters
15.8
22.4
13.2
19.8
12.7
22.8
12.7
25. 5
12.3
20.2
12.7
19.8
12.7
20. 6
12. 3
21.9
U. 0
19. 8
12. 7
19. 8
10. 1
20. 2
7-0
16.7
6.6
21. 1
7.9
17. 1
9.7
20. 6
6. 1
19. 8
nCi/liter
51. 0
51. 0
56.0
30.2
33. 1
31.4
74. 1
47.6
90. 8
48. 5
81.8
45.7
91.7
45.9
65.4
47. 9
29.9
13. 5
8.8
3.8
2.9
2. 0
2.4
1.2
1.3
0. 89
1.2
0. 80
1. 0
0.81
1. 2
0.84
liters
9.7
14. 9
8.3
15.8
8.8
15.8
9.7
17. 6
7. 9
15.8
9.2
14. 9
10. 1
15.4
8. 8
14. 9
8. 8
14. 0
8. 8
15.4
6.6
15.4
7.9
14.9
8. 8
18.4
7.9
14. 0
9.7
16.7
6.6
14. 9
nCi /liter
31. 5
31. 7
32. 8
19. 5
21. 6
18. 8
43.3
29.7
51.4
32. 3
46. 0
27- 6
52. 6
32.4
40. 2
29.8
21. 0
10. 0
6.8
3. 3
2. 7
1.6
1. 5
0. 93
0. 90
0. 64
0. 65
0.46
0. 56
0.41
0. 60
0.42
Total in Milk 21. 9 |JtCi
*Days after initial feeding.
19
-------
Appendix 1 -3.
131
I in Cow Feed
Time
hours
0
23
47
71
95
119
142
166
0
23
47
71
95
119
142
166
10
12
11.
18
19
20
19
19
nCi/kg
Cow 16
10
12
15
20
20
20
20
20
7.78
1. 32
1. 10
0.85
0.45
0.84
0. 55
0.44
Cow 2
2.73
0. 60
0.93
0.92
0.76
0.65
0.46
0.49
nCi/kg
kg nCi/kg
Group I - Sudan grass
Cow
9.5
12
15
20
20
20
20
20
45
4.95
1.42
0. 88
1. 04
0. 56
0. 65
0.44
0. 51
Cow
10
8. 3
9.3
18
18
18
18
18
47
4.47
1.78
1.0
1.21
1. 16
0. 72
0. 52
0. 59
Total Intake
Group II
Cow
9.8
12
12
20
19
19
20
19
- Alfalfa
13
2. 52
0.75
0.91
0.94
0.84
0. 33
0. 52
0. 35
Cow
9.7
12
13.8
20
20
20
20
20
39
2. 11
0. 67
1. 07
0.49
0.69
0.70
0. 55
0.38
Daily Intake
M-Ci
16. 90
47. 6
38. 9
59. 5
41. 1
42. 7
29. 1
29.6
458
67.4
24. 1
36.3
45. 0
44. 1
33.3
30. 0
23. 5
Total Intake
304
20
-------
Appendix 1-3.
131
I in Cow Feed - Cont'd
Time
hours
0
25
18. 6
22.7
42. 9
48.9
67.4
72. 9
92.4
98.2
115.6
118.8
138.8
144. 3
163.8
167. 3
nCi/kg
nCi/kg
kg
nCi/kg
Group IV (Metabolism) - Alfalfa
Cow
10
10
10
10
12
12.4
12
12
11. 5
11. 5
9
9
20
20
20
20
35
3.23
3.31
0.84
0.93
0. 97
0.78
0.88
0.85
0.76
0.85
0.86
0.76
0.72
0. 54
0, 53
0. 58
Cow
10
10
10
10
11.6
11.6
11. 5
11. 5
10. 5
10. 5
10. 5
10. 5
20
20
20
20
36
2.78
2. 80
1.07
0. 94
0.70
0.72
0.86
0. 96
0. 93
0. 94
0. 92
0.93
0.49
0. 65
0. 56
0. 52
Cow
9.3
10
9.2
10
7.7
12. 1
10
10
10. 5
10. 5
8. 5
8. 5
20
20
20
20
62
2. 51
1.93
1.25
0.82
0.92
0.84
0.85
0.92
0.79
0.98
0.89
0.74
0.81
0.84
0. 67
0.41
Daily Intake
p-Ci
164
58.2
54.9
59.2
56. 8
47.8
80.7
64.8
Total Intake
585 [J.Ci
21
-------
131
Appendix 1-4. I Concentration in Milk, Cows fed Alfalfa (Group IV)
Cow 35
Cow 36
Cow 62
Weighted Avg.
Time*
0. 1
0.76
1. 10
1.76
2. 10
2.76
3. 10
3.76
4. 08
4.82
5. 10
5. 82
6. 11
6. 80
7. 10
7. 82
8. 10
8. 82
9. 10
9.76
10. 10
10.72
11. 10
11.72
12. 01
12. 72
13. 10
13.72
14. 10
14. 72
15. 10
15. 72
nCi /liter
10. 1
73.7
69.8
46.2
99.6
89.6
68. 5
121
93.5
77.4
80.2
65.7
75. 0
80.6
86.3
63. 1
52. 1
29. 5
20.8
15.3
7. 0
3. 5
3. 1
1.3
1. 5
0.92
1.4
0.64
0.87
0.79
1. 1
0.82
Liters
4.2
10. 5
8.6
16. 1
7.4
9. 1
3. 0
10.4
3. 8
10. 1
4. 5
10. 1
5. 0
10. 2
5.4
11. 0
4. 3
10. 0
4. 5
11. 0
5. 3
12. 3
6. 6
13. 2
9.7
13.2
7. 0
12. 3
5. 3
13. 6
4.4
11.9
nCi/ liter
16.3
100
95.8
74.0
70.4
77.7
98.3
104
-
118
142
126
160
143
128
107
96.7
54.3
48. 0
28. 0
14.0
9.7
7. 3
3.4
3. 1
1.6
1.8
1. 1
1. 1
1.3
1.3
0.80
Liters
4.8
10. 9
7.8
15.4
8.8
1.3
5. 0
11.3
-
12. 0
5. 0
10.2
4.0
11. 0
5. 1
11. 2
4. 5
11.0
5. 0
11.4
7- 0
11.9
7.9
12.7
6.6
13.2
6.6
11.9
7.9
13.2
5.7
11.9
nCi /liter
9.7 '
62.3
54. 5
48.6
41. 5
64.4
61.7
77.7
110
115
115
91.6
103
105
105
89.7
87.4
53. 0
_
30.9
21. 7
10.3
8.6
5. 1
2.8
2.3
2.0
1.2
1.6
1.0
1. 5
0.76
Liters
4. 0
10.2
4.9
13. 2
4. 3
10. 8
3. 1
10. 0
2.7
9. 5
3.2
11. 0
4.2
11. 5
4.7
10.8
4. 0
10. 5
11.9
5.7
13.2
5. 7
13. 2
6. 1
11.4
7. 9
11. 9
7. 5
13. 2
4. 8
12.7
nCi/liter
12.2
79. 1
52.4
58.0
74.8
76. 0
79.9
100. 8
98.8
104
113
94. 0
110
110
103
86.4
78. 8
46. 0
35. 1
24. 9
14. 3
7. 8
6. 3
3. 3
2. 3
1. 6
1 7
J. 1
0. 98
1. 2
1. 0
1. 3
0. 79
Total in Milk 36. 5
22
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1 - 20 Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
21 Mahlon E. Gates, Manager, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
22 Robert H. Thalgott, 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 Paul B. Dunaway, ERDA/NV, Las Vegas, NV
29 - 30 Ernest D. Campbell, 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, Washington, DC
43 Tommy F. McCraw, DOS, ERDA, Washington, DC
44 Major General Ernest Graves, Dir., DMA, ERDA, Washington, DC
45 Assistant General Manager, DMA, ERDA, Washington, DC
46 Gordon C. Facer, DMA, ERDA, Washington, DC
47 James L. Liverman, Dir., DBER, ERDA, Washington, DC
48 Robert L. Watters, DBER, ERDA, Washington, DC
49 John S. Kirby-Smith, DBER, ERDA, Washington, DC
50 L. Joe Deal, DOS, ERDA, Washington, DC
51 Charles L. Osterberg, DBER, ERDA, Washington, DC
52 Rudolf J. Engelmann, DBER, ERDA, 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, Dir., Div. of Criteria and Standards,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
58 - 59 Floyd L. Galpin, Dir., Field Operations Div., ORP, EPA,
Washington, DC
60 E. David Harward, Dir., Div., Technology Assessment, ORP,
EPA, Washington, DC
61 Joan A. Davenport, Dir., Office of Technical Analysis,
EPA, Washington, DC
62 Library, EPA, Washington, DC
63 Bernd Kahn, Chief, Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering,
EPA, NERC-Cincinnati, OH
64 Peter Halpin, Chief, APTIC, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
65 Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Admin., Region IX, EPA
San Francisco, CA
66 James K. Channell, Regional Radiation Representative,
Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
67 Charles R. Porter, Dir., Eastern Environmental Radiation
Facility, EPA, Montgomery, AL
68 K. M. Oswald, Mgr., Health and Safety, ILL, 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 Paul L. Phelps, LLL, Livermore, CA
74 Mortimer L. Mendelsohn, LLL, Livermore, CA
75 Charles I. Browne, 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 D. 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 Lab., 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, UT
90 William S. Twenhofel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
91 Paul R. Fenske, Desert Research Institute, University of
Nevada, Reno, NV
92 President, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada,
Reno, NV
93 - 119 Technical Information Center, ERDA, Oak Ridge, TN
(for public availability)
120 Verle- R. Bohman, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
121 Manager, Desert National Wildlife Range, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, NV
122 Supervisor, Region III, Nevada Fish and Game Department
Las Vegas, NV
123 Paul Lyons, Nevada Wildlife Research, Division of Archives,
Capitol Building Annex, Carson City, NV
------- |