4.4 Article

Radioactivity from Fukushima Dai-ichi in air over Europe; part 1: spatio-temporal analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 22-34

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.11.019

关键词

Fukushima accident; Activity concentration in air; Spatio-temporal analysis; Data harmonization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radionuclides emitted from the Fukushima I nuclear power plant have been detected in air all over Europe. Concentrations remained far below levels which could have caused radiological concern: probably the committed thyroid dose due to inhalation remained below about 1 mu Sv (for 10 y children), within the investigated region. They provided, however, a spatio-temporal signal which could be used to develop and test tools to provide additional information on the large-scale situation (Europe-wide, in this case) during a nuclear emergency. In this part we discuss the spatial distribution of the contaminated air masses over Europe. Using I-131 as an example, we present a method to construct maps of the time-cumulated I-131 concentration in air and of the peak concentrations. Procedures to deal with the statistical limitations of a data set stemming from different monitoring schemes are discussed. As over all results, the mean (over the investigated region) cumulated concentration of particular I-131 is estimated about 9 mBq d/m(3), with observed maximum of about 23 mBq d/m(3). The probability that much higher concentrations occurred at unsampled locations, than have been observed anywhere, is assessed low, e.g. about 2.5% for the cumulated I-131(part.) concentration to exceed 30 mBq d/m3. Our method can be used in nuclear emergencies for providing spatial analyses if radionuclide concentrations of health concern are detected by atmospheric monitoring stations. We suggest considering such methods of data harmonization if synoptic assessment based on heterogeneous datasets is attempted. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据