Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T23:05:34.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The metabolism of caesium-137 in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. F. Sansom
B. F. Sansom
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Institute for Research on Animal Diseases, Compton, near Newbury, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The metabolism of 137Cs in dairy cows has been studied after single oral and intravenous doses and during twice daily oral dosing for 28 days.

2. Gastrointestinal absorption of 137Cs was about 70-80% of the oral doses.

3. After 28 days continuous feeding the mean concentration of 137Cs in milk was 0.84% daily dose/1. and the body burden of the isotope varied between 5.7 and 8.2 times the daily intake.

4. When feeding of 137Cs stopped the concentration of the isotope in milk fell by a factor of five in 8 days, by a factor of ten in 16 days, by a factor of twenty in 32 days, and thereafter exponentially with a half-life of 30 days. The concentrations of the isotope in muscle decreased at first rather slowly but finally also exponentially with a half-life of approximately 30 days.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1966 , pp. 389 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council Radiobiological Laboratory (1962). Report ARC RL, no. 8, 40.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council Radiobiological Laboratory (1963). Report ARC RL, no. 10, 39.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council Radiobiological Laboratory (1964). Report ARC RL, no. 12, 32.Google Scholar
Baloh, C. C., Bartlett, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 98.Google Scholar
Booker, D. V. (1959). Nature, Lond., 183, 921.Google Scholar
Cragle, R. G. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 352.Google Scholar
Ekman, L. (1961). Acta Vet. Scand. 2, Suppl. 4.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. G. (1947). Radiology, 49, 325.Google Scholar
Hood, S. L. & Comar, C. L. (1953). Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 45, 423.Google Scholar
Ilyin, D. I. & Moskalev, Yu. I. (1957). Atomnaya Energiya, 2, 163. Translated in J. Nucl. Energy (1957), 5, 413.Google Scholar
International Commission on Radiobiological Protection (1959). Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation, Publication 2. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, B., Jones, I. R., Carter, M. W., Robbins, P. J. & Straub, C. P. (1965). J. Dairy Sci. 48, 556.Google Scholar
Love, W. D. & Burch, G. E. (1953). J. Lab. Glin. Med. 41, 351.Google Scholar
Stewart, H. F. (1964). Ph.D. Thesis. Colorado State University,Fort Collins.Google Scholar
Stewart, H. F., Ward, G. M. & Johnson, J. E. (1965). J. Dairy Sci. 48, 709.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R. H. & Comar, C. L. (1961). Rad. Res. 15, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, R. H., Comar, C. L., & Twardock, A. R. (1962).Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 4, 299.Google Scholar