~GW?EFORT COLLECTION I?EPRQDucTION

LAMS-21 17

COPY .

LOSALAMOSSCIENTIFIC LABORATORY

OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIAo LOSALAMOS NEWMEXICO

.,

.

-

,.

RADIOACTIVE DECONTAMINATION ‘TESTS ON SURGEON’ S GLOVES

CONTAMINATED WITH PLUTONIUM
LEGAL NOTICE

.

This reDort was Dre13aredas an accountof Government sponsor-cdwork. - N~ither the United States,nor the

Commission,nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission:

A. Makes any warranty or representation, express

or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness,

or usefulnessof the informationcontainedin this report,

or that the use of any information,apparatus,method,or

process disclosed in this report maynot infrtnge privately

owned rights; or

B. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use

of, or for damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this

report.

As used in theabove, ‘@erson acting on behalfof the

Commission” includes any employee or contractor of the

Commissionto the extent that such employee or contractor prepares, handles or distributes, or provides access

to, any information pursuantto his employment or contract with the Commission.
LAMS-2117

HEALTH AND SAFETY

LOSALAMOSSCIENTIFICLABORATORY

OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIALOSALAMOS NEWMEXICO

REPORT WRITTEN: March 1957

REPORT DISTRIBUTED: May 20,1957

RADIOACTIVE DECONTAMINATIONTESTS ON SURGEON’S

GLOVES CONTAMINATEDWITH PLUTONIUM

Work done by: Report written’by:

J. B. Webber W. R. Kemedy

Contract W-7405-ENG. 36 with the U, S. Atomic Energy Commission

All Ims Alsmos reportS present the opintons of the author or authors and

do not necessarily reflect the viewe of the ILIS Alamos Scientific Laboratory.

Furthermore, this LAMS report is an fnformal document which has been

prepsred for a special purpose snd is not considered suitable for general

distribution. It is accordingly requested that no distribution be made without the permission of the Office of the Director of the Laboratory.

-1-
1. slJMMARY

A techniquewas devised for applying plutonium activity to gloves,

washing them in various decontamination solutions, and evaluating the

relative effectiveness of these solutions for removing the activity.

When the most efficient solution for decontamination was determined}

decontamination of various lots of gloves from a laboratory handling

plutcmium was attempted. For a run-of-the-lab lot of gloves, 8074were

decontaminated and recovered for re-use. For gloves from an extremely

“hot” laboratory, recovery efficiency depended upon whether or not the

lot had been cross-contaminated by one or two highly contaminated gloves.

The cost of decontaminating gloves was approximately three times

the costof new gloves. While on a routine,largelot basis,this cost

couldbe loweredconsiderably,it appearsto be

taminateglovesunlessnew ~oves shouldbecome

“Consumerresistance”to washedgloveswas

amongusers.

uneconomicalto deconunavailable.

foundto be present

2. TEST OF RELATIVEEFFECTIVENESSOF DECONTAMINATION SOLUTIONS

New size 10 WilsonRubberCompany“WiltexLatex Surgeon’sGloves”

were used. Each glovewas slippedovera pieceof 1/4 in. plywood,

-2-
5by7 in.,which givesa slighttensionto the rubber. ‘Iheassenioly

is relatively flat and can be easily handled and alpha-counted. A

plutonium solution (HCl solution, pH 1 or less) was applied to the

palm of each gloveand allowedto dry. Approxinntely106 d/rein0.2

fi solutionwas used on each @_ove. Afterdryingfor a minimumof 16

hr, each glovewas countedusingan air-filledprobeoperatingin the

proportionalregion

of 256 sctier. me

5.5$.

and feedingthrougha preamplifierintoa scale

over-allgeometryof the counting equipmentwas

Glovesso preparedwere washedin the decontaminationsolution

being testedin the followingmanner: Each glovewas agitatedin the

solutionat 70°Ffor a periodof 3 rein,a soakingpieceof gauzewas

swipedlightlyacrossthe contaminatedspot,and the glovewas rinsed

in warm tap water for 1 tin, using the same agitation. The glove was

thenallowedto air dry a minimumof 16 hr and again countedon the

proportionalalphacounter. Efficiencyof decontaminationwas

expressedas (1.00

- :-) x 100$ ●

TWenty-fourcommercialdetergentsolutionswere testedin dupliin the abovemanner. ~ each case,solutionconcentrationwas

recommendedby the mmufacturerfor generalcleaning. Efficiencies

cate

that

computedby the aboveexpressionvariedfromminus30$ to plus 8%.

The negativevalueswere found i.n the cases where a wetting agent was

used alone, the result being to spread the activity on the, glove and

reduce self-absorption during alpha counting.

-3-
Two othersolutionsin generaluse in

laminationpurposeswere also tested. ‘he

as follows:

the laboratoryfor deconcompositionsper literare

SolutionA (aciddecontaminationsolution- pH approximately2)

4.8 gm (0.025F)citricacid

2 niLVerseneFe-3 specific(liquid)

2 ml Igepal- CA Extra

Make up to 1 literwith water.

SolutionB (basicdecontaminationsolution- pH 10)

4.8 gm (0.025F)citricacid

1 gm Verseneregular powder

5 ml Igepal- CA Extra

7 gm NaOH (sufficientto raisepH to 10)

Make up to 1 literwith water.

Testingof thesesolutions

pectively.

=ble I is a tabulationof

effectiveness.

gaveefficienciesof 98$ and 947$,resall solutionsin the orderof their

3. DECONTAMINATIONOF USED GLOVES

A lot of

plutoniumwas

random. They

glovesfrom the glovedisposal

secured. One hundredpairsof

were placedin an enclosedpot

chelatingsolution,and sufficientsaturated

-4-

bin in a laboratoryusing

gloves(200)were takenat

in 30 gal of the acidic

steamwas appliedthrough
TABLEI

TABULATIONOF DECONTAMINATION EFFICIENCIESOF DETERGENTSOLUTIONS

Product $ Efficiency

Igepal.- CA Extra -30

Zoleo :20

Dreft 18

Hales ToiletSoap 23

SBS-50 26

SBS-11 27

IvorySnow 33

Sana sass 33

Dysept

Hale-Shine ::

FranklinCleaner 41

MajesticSoap 42

Actusol 42

Wedaco 43

Neutralave 47

ServisAmmonisan 50

VerseneFe-3 54

Temp 56

Versene- Regular 56

Oakite 57

Bryte ‘ 67

VerseneFe-3 Specific 76

RadiacWash 81

Alconox 89

SolutionB 94

SolutionA 98

$ Concentration

by volume

2

3

3

3:

2

2

--

2

0.4

3

2

12

3

--

--

Remarks

Cream,used direct

and rinsed

Basic chelation

solution

Acidicchelation

solution

-5-
the bottom to give agitation for a

rinsed twice in lukewarm water and

air, the gloves were turned inside

periaiof 30 min. ‘lheywere then

dried. Afterdrying16hr in room

out and allowedto dry a second16

hr or longer. The gloveswere thenmonitoredinsideand out for alpha

radiationusinga Pee Wee (a proportional,batteryoperated,portable,

alpha count rate meter), were tested for leaks and were powdered, s3.zed

and paired. EQ@typ airs were found free of all acti.vityj ps,intj or

leaks, and were i.n good usable condition.

A secondlot was collectedin one laboratorywherehigh levelsof

activitywere knownto be present. Collectionwas made by havingthe

usersdisposeof the glovesinto a closedpot containingabouttwo

gallonsof the decontamination solution. Of 54 pairswashed,nonewas

free of activityafterthe firstwashing. Fourteenpairswere found

free of activityaftera secondwashing,13 pairsof whichwere usable.

Of the 40 pairswasheda thirdtime,22 pairswere free of activity;

but all were discamiedbecauseof holes or loss of elasticityin the

gloves. A checkof the containerused for collectionwasmade,and it

was foundto be highlycontaminated.The conditionof the container

indicatesthat one or more highlycontaminatedglovesin the lot crosscontaminatedthe entirelot.

A thirdlot was collectedin the samemanneras the secondand in

the same room,but the time of collectionwas shortenedfrom several

days to one day. Of 24 pairswashcxlonce,21 pairswere recoveredas

usab’le,one pairwas free of activitybut with leaks,and two pairs

-6-
with activitywere discafied.

‘I%bleII is a tabulationof resultsof

variouslots of gloves.

TABLEII

RESULTSOF CLEANINGEFFORTSON

Pairs

decontaminationof the

GLOVELOTS

Lot Pairs Recovered $ Recovered Remarks

1. Run-of-lab 100 80 84)

2. “Hot”room 54 13 24

(3day)

After second

wash

3* “Hot”room 24 a 88

(lday)

.

The recoveredgloveswere put out for use in the laboratories.

Therewas a certainreluctanceon the part of the users to take these

I gloveswhen new gloveswere available. Therewere also some complaints

that the recoveredgloveshad lost some of theirelasticityand tore

easily. ‘Ihiscomplaintwas not borne out upon examinationof the

remaininggloves.

me entireoperationof washing,monitoring,leak testing,powdering, sizing,and pairinga batch of 100 pairsof glovesrequired

approximatelytwo man days. Dryingtime is neglected. Usinga figure

of $25.00per mn day, includingoverhead,the cost is $50.00per 100

I

pairsof gloves,and if only 80$ is recovered,the cost is $50.00per

80 pairsof @.eves,or $0.625per pair. With glovessellingat 15 to

20 centsper pair,the recoveryof used @eves appearsuneconomical

at this time.

-7-