4.7 Article

236U and radiocesium in river bank soil and river sediment in Fukushima Prefecture, after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 225, 期 -, 页码 388-394

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.061

关键词

U-236/U-238; Cs-134/Cs-137; River system; Source identification; ICP-MS/MS

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [24110004, 24310002, 16K12592]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11435002]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K12592] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Almost 8 years after the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident, data for U-236 and U-236/U-238 have mainly remained limited to only a few heavily contaminated samples. In the present study, activities of U-236, (CS)-C-134, and Cs-137, along with U-234, U-235, U-238 in 15 river bank soil and 10 river sediment samples, were measured by ICP-MS/MS and gamma spectrometry. The Cs-134 activities and Cs-134/Cs-137 activity ratios (decay-corrected to March 11, 2011) in these 15 river bank soil samples were from 74.8 to 3.88 x 10(5) Bq kg(-1) and from 0.944 to 1.02, respectively; and in these 10 river sediment samples were from 87.1 to 1.86 x 10(5) Bq kg(-1) and from 0.904 to 0.990, respectively. The U-236 activities and U-236/U-238 atom ratios in these soil samples were in the respective ranges of (0.139-17.6) x 10(-5) Bq kg(-1) and (0.259-3.83) x 10(-8); and in these sediment samples were in the respective ranges of (0.884-27.0) x 10(-5) Bq kg(-1) and (1.12-5.04) x 10(-8). For one river sediment core sample, Cs-134 and U-236 activities decreased with the depth indicating Cs-134 and U-236 accumulated in the river sediment with time. Unlike Cs-134, no clear evidence of FDNPP accident-derived U-236 has been found in this study, although further monitoring is encouraged to establish the background database on U-236/U-238 for its potential application as a tracer in environmental studies. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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