Present methods for the analysis of plutonlum In urine requlre ashing the organic constituents of the sample, a time-conmlng procedure and a major source of error. A method was developed to quantitatively separate 25 fCi of plutonium directly from 800 cm3 of urlne by copreclpltatlon with calcium oxalate. Wlthout ashlng, the oxalate precipitate Is directly dlssoived in 7.2 M HNO, and the plutonium Is Isolated by anion exchange, electrodeposited, and then measured by cu-spectrometry. The results are in excellent agreement with results obtained by exlstlng procedures, and for 194 samples the average recovery of the plutonlum tracer was 91 % with a standard deviation of f10. The average recovery of the plutonium Isotope in quality control samples was 101 % when corrected for the 242Pu tracer recovery.The potential health hazards of plutonium have been recognized, and it has been our practice at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to monitor workers for exposure to plutonium (1). One of our methods is to analyze a worker's urine, and the method must be capable of detecting 25 fCi (0.056 dpm) in 800 cm3 of urine in order that the health protection controls can be properly evaluated. Instruments have been developed to accurately detect 25 fci of plutonium, but these instruments cannot detect 25 fCi of plutonium in a urine matrix. Therefore, the problem is the separation and isolation of 25 fCi of plutonium from a liter of urine. White, Handler, and Smith (2) reported the urine of a normal adult over a 24-h period to have the constituents listed in Table I. The composition of samples will vary widely due to illness, medication, or strenuous exercise, and although freshly voided urine may also appear clear, it may contain proteins and cells from the lining of the genitourinary tract.To achieve the required detection limit in urine with such a large variation of cellular elements and mucus, present methods (3-11) eliminate the organic components by wet or dry ashing. In addition to being very time-consuming, ashing is one of the major causes of erratic results. Veselsky (12) presents a review of the problems of various types of bioassay samples. Lisk (13) points out that sample preparation, ashing, element isolation, and concentration are usually the most critical steps in trace element analysis of biological samples. Gorsuch (14) presents a comprehensive review of sample ashing and the recovery or losses caused by different ashing procedures, temperatures, and other operating parameters for the destruction of organic matter for trace element analysis.