Acta Facultatis Ecologiae - Technická univerzita vo Zvolene

8880007000y = 6622xR 2 = 0.939SIMS Intensity [counts]60005000400030002000y = 82642xR 2 = 0.9609y = 1413xR 2 = 0.8062100000 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2Activity [Bq]Fig. 7 The correlation between SIMS intensity of ions with m/z = 234 vs. 234 U alpha activityTab. 4 Table with correlated values SIMS intensity vs. Uranium isotopes surface´s weightsIsotopem s[g⋅cm –2 ]Intensity[Counts]234U 2.93.10 –12 2021.81.10 –11 3312.96.10 –11 3398.32.10 –10 7011.59.10 –9 15789.07.10 –10 134235U 1.36.10 –9 1625.90.10 –9 2636.44.10 –8 10031.13.10 –7 23471.14.10 –7 132238U 2.77.10 –7 5604.70.10 –7 12001.39.10 –5 41653.06.10 –5 7105y = b⋅xy = 965.42xLinear correlationR 20.8065y = 19.63x 0.9607y = 244.52x 0.9389As we can seen, it’s possible to plot the calibrationcurves of SIMS intensities [counts] vs. surface’sweights of uranium isotopes by Equation 3,which permits to use the SIMS measurements asa quantitative method for measurement of surfacecontamination by uranium isotopes.CONCLUSIONSThe main objective of the paper is to find thecorrelation between two sensitive techniques–alphaspectrometry and SIMS for natural isotopes ofuranium and to determine the possibility of using