2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10967-014-3066-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different approaches to estimate uncertainty budget in k 0-INAA measurement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The latter reason might also cause an impaired detector efficiency calibration. The Na determination in NIST SRM 1547 yielded much higher value than the NIST certified value with both software packages, but this finding is in agreement with recently reported results [17,19,20] Agreement with the NIST values within the uncertainty margins was obtained for 63 and 93 % of elements determined in NIST SRM 2711 using Kayzero for Windows and k0-IAEA programs, respectively, whereas these figures for NIST SRM 1547 were 60 and 90 % using the respective software packages. This seems to suggest that k0-IAEA program provides more satisfactory results, which is obviously due to larger uncertainties of the results evaluated by this software tool.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The latter reason might also cause an impaired detector efficiency calibration. The Na determination in NIST SRM 1547 yielded much higher value than the NIST certified value with both software packages, but this finding is in agreement with recently reported results [17,19,20] Agreement with the NIST values within the uncertainty margins was obtained for 63 and 93 % of elements determined in NIST SRM 2711 using Kayzero for Windows and k0-IAEA programs, respectively, whereas these figures for NIST SRM 1547 were 60 and 90 % using the respective software packages. This seems to suggest that k0-IAEA program provides more satisfactory results, which is obviously due to larger uncertainties of the results evaluated by this software tool.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In PUREX process, the typical concentration of Pu(IV) ranges from 4 mM to 0.14 M depending upon the type of the fuel and conditions employed for extraction [37] . In the partitioning step, it is necessary to reduce all the Pu(IV) present in the organic phase to inextractable Pu(III) by employing the required amount ofU(IV) in the aqueous phase.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this context, solvent extraction is regarded as the most versatile and widely accepted technology in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in nuclear industries [2,4–6] . Various ligands have been designed and explored for the separation of actinides and fission products depending on their ligand denticity and the stability of metal‐solvate species (metal‐ligand complex formation) [2,7–13] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%