Part 6

(Values estimated from graph)

The spectrum obtained from a streak of metal on a quartz plate after a 3-hour exposure to neutrons in a reactor and a 6-hour delay before counting. The activation products of gold and copper are obviously present and are easily measured in only 1 minute.

Energy Counts Channel Number 0.445 MeV 230 130 0.657 MeV 1200 190 0.687 MeV 170 200 0.715 MeV 220 220 0.760 MeV 230 225 0.820 MeV 60 250 0.884 MeV 500 260 0.937 MeV 190 280

(Values are estimated from graph)

The spectrum obtained from the same streak of metal after re-exposure to neutrons for 100 hours and a delay of approximately 2 months before counting. Activation products from gold and copper have decayed away and the gamma-ray spectrum of silver-110m is now observed. In this case the sample is closer to the detector than for the earlier measurement and the measurement takes 100 minutes.

Two months later, the scientist repeats the procedure of counting the samples and standards, except that this time the plastic capsules are closer to the detector, each count is for 100 minutes, and the sample changer operates for about a week. A typical spectrum looks like that in the figure on page 39.

The scientist can now compute ratios for the three elements in each sample and compare them with the standard, but he decides that a computer could do it faster and with fewer errors. The data collected during the two series of counts are therefore sent to a data processing center where, in a matter of minutes, a computer does the following for each of 50 samples:

1. Finds the 0.411-MeV gamma-ray peak for gold-198.

2. Determines the total counts in the peak.

3. Repeats the process for the corresponding wire standard.

4. Corrects the total count for the wire for the small amount of radioactive decay that occurred in the few minutes between the sample count and the standard count.

5. Computes the ratio: [total count for sample/total count for standard (corrected)]

6. Repeats all the above for the 0.511-MeV gamma ray for copper-64 and (in the longer counts) for the 0.658-MeV gamma ray for silver-110.

7. Computes the ratios: [sample to standard (for copper)/sample to standard (for gold)] and [sample to standard (for silver)/sample to standard (for gold)].

8. Tabulates and prints the ratios found in Step 7.

Radioactivity ratios for 50 “gold” coins. Above are the silver to gold ratios. There are two groups of genuine coins. Five known forgeries show considerably higher ratios than the genuine coins. Two of the suspect coins also show high ratios but the third, suspect A, shows a ratio that falls into one of the genuine groups. Below are the copper to gold ratios. Again there are two groups of genuine coins. (The same coins make up the two groups here as above.) The five known forgeries again show higher ratios than the genuine ones and again the same two suspects appear to be forgeries. Suspect A, however, shows a ratio similar to one group of the genuine specimens. One therefore concludes that suspect A is genuine and that B and C are not.

For example, suppose for sample 1 there are 20,000 counts in the 0.412-MeV peak (gold), 190 counts in the 0.511-MeV peak (copper), and 450 counts in the 0.654-MeV peak (silver). Suppose also that standard 1 yielded 10,000, 500, and 400 counts for these three peaks (corrected for decay), respectively. Then the ratio for gold would be (20,000/10,000) = 2.00, the ratio for copper would be (190/500) = 0.380, and the ratio for silver would be (450/400) = 1.13.

Finally, the activity ratio of copper to gold would be (0.380/2.00) = 0.190, and the activity ratio of silver to gold would be (1.13/2.00) = 0.565.

Because each sample was irradiated with an identical standard, and counted in an identical arrangement, the last two ratios will be the same for different samples if, and only if, the concentrations of gold, silver, and copper in those samples are in identical proportions. This will be true no matter where in the reactor or for how long the irradiation took place.

Now the scientist presents the data to you. You immediately see that (a) the good coins fall into two groups, one with a silver to gold activity ratio of approximately 0.56 and a copper to gold ratio of approximately 0.20 and a second group with these ratios approximately 0.51 and 0.18; (b) the coins you were certain were forgeries have distinctly higher ratios ranging from 0.60 to 0.65 for silver to gold and from 0.23 to 0.30 for copper to gold; and (c) of the three suspected coins, two have ratios that fall into the range of the known forgeries, but one, with ratios of 0.552 and 0.198, is probably genuine.

You present the result to the museum director in the form of a graph (see the figure on page 41) and a few weeks later, 43 coins are added to the permanent exhibits of the museum, while 7 are discarded.

In a Criminology Laboratory

The Problem

You are a scientist working in the criminology laboratory of a large metropolitan city. A detective brings you a minute sample of paint taken from the clothing of a hit-and-run victim. He has a suspect whose automobile paint seems to match that sample. The suspect was found in his parked automobile, not far from the scene of the accident. He seems to fit the description given by two witnesses, and he is extremely nervous. You scrape a small sample of paint from a recently damaged area of the suspect’s car, and, (with the aid of a microscope) find that the pigment content seems to be the same as that taken from the victim’s clothing. But, are they really from the same paint?

The Solution

You know that paint, like almost everything else, contains very small quantities of impurities that are present only by accident and do not affect its properties as a useful material. The trace impurities, as they are called, will vary from batch to batch of the same paint. Very rarely will a match be obtained in both type and concentration of trace impurities in two samples if they are not from the same batch.

By measuring a sufficient number of different elements, the probability of accidentally matching two samples can be as rare as the duplication of fingerprints in two individuals. Matching of trace impurities is often called a “fingerprint” method.

With neutron activation analysis, you can obtain the “fingerprints” of the two samples to see if they match. Although this kind of evidence may be difficult to use as proof in court, a positive match will let the detective know that he is on the right track. Also, the suspect might confess if he is confronted with the evidence and realizes that he is “caught”. On the other hand, a mismatch will clear the suspect completely and the detective will know to look elsewhere for the criminal.