AIR |J^> FORAGE Cl" > CATTLE r ^ }

> BEEF/I 1\l 1> MILK

Hi

IDeposition

Externalplant

Translocation

Internalplant

Root uptake

Soil

Removal

_

TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 364

Handbook of Parameter Valuesfor the Prediction

of Radionuclide Transferin Temperate Environments

" ^ Produced in collaboration with theIW% International Union of Radioecologists

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1994

HANDBOOK OF PARAMETER VALUESFOR THE PREDICTION

OF RADIONUCLIDE TRANSFERIN TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENTS

Produced in collaboration with theInternational Union of Radioecologists

The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

AFGHANISTANALBANIAALGERIA

ARGENTINAARMENIA

AUSTRALIA

AUSTRIABANGLADESH

BELARUSBELGIUM

BOLIVIABRAZIL

BULGARIACAMBODIA

CAMEROONCANADACHILECHINACOLOMBIACOSTA RICA

COTE D'lVOIRECROATIA

CUBACYPRUSCZECH REPUBLICDEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S

REPUBLIC OF KOREADENMARKDOMINICAN REPUBLICECUADOREGYPTEL SALVADORESTONIAETHIOPIAFINLANDFRANCEGABONGERMANYGHANAGREECEGUATEMALA

HAITIHOLY SEEHUNGARY

ICELANDINDIAINDONESIAIRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF

IRAQ

IRELAND

ISRAELITALYJAMAICAJAPAN

JORDANKAZAKHSTANKENYAKOREA, REPUBLIC OFKUWAITLEBANON

LIBERIALIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYALIECHTENSTEIN

LITHUANIALUXEMBOURG

MADAGASCARMALAYSIAMALIMARSHALL ISLANDSMAURITIUSMEXICOMONACOMONGOLIAMOROCCOMYANMARNAMIBIANETHERLANDSNEW ZEALANDNICARAGUANIGERNIGERIANORWAY

PANAMA

PARAGUAYPERUPHILIPPINESPOLAND

PORTUGALQATARROMANIARUSSIAN FEDERATION

SAUDI ARABIASENEGALSIERRA LEONE

SINGAPORESLOVAKIASLOVENIASOUTH AFRICASPAINSRI LANKA

SUDAN

SWEDENSWITZERLANDSYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

THAILANDTUNISIATURKEYUGANDAUKRAINEUNITED ARAB EMIRATESUNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT

BRITAIN AND NORTHERNIRELAND

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICAURUGUAYUZBEKISTANVENEZUELAVIETNAMYUGOSLAVIAZAIREZAMBIAZIMBABWE

PAKISTAN

The Agency's Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of theIAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1937. The Head-quarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is "to accelerate and enlarge thecontribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world".

© IAEA, 1994

Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may beobtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100,A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

Printed by the IAEA in AustriaJune 1994

STI/DOC/010/364

TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 364

HANDBOOK OF PARAMETER VALUESFOR THE PREDICTION

OF RADIONUCLIDE TRANSFERIN TEMPERATE ENVIRONMENTS

Produced in collaboration with theInternational Union of Radioecologists

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCYVIENNA, 1994

VIC Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer intemperate environments / produced in collaboration with the InternationalUnion of Radioecologists. — Vienna : International Atomic EnergyAgency, 1994.

p. ; 24 cm. — (Technical reports series, ISSN 0074-1914 ; 364)STI/DOC/010/364ISBN 92-0-101094-XIncludes bibliographical references.

1. Radioactive pollution—Forecasting—Mathematical models. 2. En-vironmental impact analysis—Mathematical models. I. InternationalAtomic Energy Agency. II. International Union of Radioecologists.m . Series: Technical reports series (International Atomic EnergyAgency) ; 364.

VICL 94-00085

FOREWORD

This Handbook has been prepared in response to a widely expressed interestin having a convenient and authoritative reference for radionuclide transfer parame-ter values used in biospheric assessment models. It draws on data from NorthAmerica and Europe, much of which was collected through projects of the Interna-tional Union of Radioecologists (IUR) and the Commission of European Communi-ties (CEC) over the last decade. It is intended to supplement existing IAEApublications on environmental assessment methodology, primarily Generic Modelsand Parameters for Assessing the Environmental Transfer of Radionuclides fromRoutine Releases, IAEA Safety Series No. 57 (1982).

A similar report summarizing transfer data in the context of assessments in themarine environment was previously issued by the IAEA entitled: "Sediment Kj'sand Concentration Factors for Radionuclides in the Marine Environment" (1985).

The initial proposal to produce the Handbook was made at a meeting of theIUR in Brussels in 1985. It has been produced through a series of consultants meet-ings and reviews by correspondence. The IAEA wishes to acknowledge the work ofall consultants and the advice provided by numerous reviewers (a full listing is givenat the end of the document), especially M. J. Frissel (National Institute of PublicHealth and Environmental Protection, Netherlands), who was actively involvedthroughout the project and in the final document production. H. Koehler andG.S. Linsley of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Management, werethe responsible officers at the IAEA.

EDITORIAL NOTE

Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information containedin this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility forconsequences which may arise from its use.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Purpose 11.2. Transfer parameters — nature and origin 11.3. Data analysis 31.4. Units 4

2. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS — VEGETATION 5

2.1. Interception of dry and wet deposited radionuclides by vegetation . 62.1.1. Definition 62.1.2. Dry deposited activity 62.1.3. Wet deposited activity 7

2.2. Translocation 122.3. Retention in vegetation 142.4. Uptake from soil 142.5. Resuspension and soil adhesion 262.6. Losses from soil 29

3. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS - MILK, MEAT AND EGGS 32

3.1. Intake by animals 323.2. Transfer from feed to animal products 34

3.2.1. Milk 423.2.2. Meat and eggs 42

4. FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS — FISH 43

4.1. Adsorption on sediment and suspended matter 434.2. Freshwater fish 46

5. NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS 47

5.1. Berries, fungi and honey 485.2. Game animals 495.3. Domestic animals 50

6. FOOD PROCESSING TRANSFER PARAMETERS 50

REFERENCES 59

CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW 73

In memoriam to Yook Ng

The persons involved in producing this Handbook wish to record their respectfor the late Dr. Yook Ng, formerly of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,USA, whose early work on transfer factors is an ingredient in many of the currentradioecological assessment models and who was actively involved in the Handbookproject.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE

This Handbook is intended for use in the assessment of the radiological impactof releases of radionuclides to the terrestrial and freshwater aquatic environments.It contains reference values for the most commonly used transfer parameters in radi-ological assessment models. The values given for parameters are usually given as'expected' values together with an observed range. These expected values may beused by modellers when local data sources are unavailable. However, because of thevariability which occurs from location to location in the world it is stressed that theuse of site specific data is always preferable to the use of generic values.

It should be noted that the 'expected' values in this Handbook are essentially'best estimates' and are not to be confused with the 'default values' of IAEA SafetySeries No. 57 [1], which are conservatively chosen so as to produce a low probabil-ity of the relevant radiation dose limit being exceeded.

The book is primarily intended for use by persons familiar with radioecologicalassessment methods and assumes a basic understanding of the processes involved.

1.2. TRANSFER PARAMETERS - NATURE AND ORIGIN

The radiological impact of routine releases of radionuclides from nuclear facil-ities is usually evaluated with the aid of mathematical models. In such models thepathways of fadionuclides from the release point to humans are described by trans-fers between compartments, such as those representing the various trophic levels inthe environment, e.g. as in the transfer of airborne radionuclides through the com-partments 'air' and 'pasture' to 'milk'. The radionuclide transfer between compart-ments is commonly described by transfer parameters. In simple models these transferparameters represent the ratio of concentrations of a radionuclide in two compart-ments for equilibrium conditions. In more complex models an attempt is made torepresent the time dependent movement of radionuclides between the variousenvironmental compartments. These time dependent models are known as 'dynamic'models.

Simple equilibrium models have been well described and documented andmany of the transfer parameters have become almost 'standardized'. The IAEASafety Series No. 57 is one of the texts which describes equilibrium models and theassociated transfer parameters [1]. In contrast, the parameters used in dynamicmodels tend to be model and situation specific and their values depend on, amongstother things, the assumptions made in establishing the model. In this publication theparameters refer to equilibrium conditions. Values are given for most of theparameters listed in Ref. [1].

1

A distinction can be made between aggregated and individual transferparameters. Individual parameters describe the transfer from one environmentalcompartment to another; an example is the transfer from feed to cattle. Aggregatedparameters describe the transfer via a complete chain of parameters; an example isa transfer parameter which relates the radionuclide concentration on the soil surfaceto the concentration in the meat of grazing animals. Both types of parameters havetheir particular applications. The diet of almost all humans is composed of foodwhich is obtained from various locations in the world, it is therefore not possible tocorrelate the'radionuclide concentration of food with the contamination of the areawhere humans are living. The contamination of each food product has to be calcu-lated separately and separate transfer parameters have to be used. For a populationliving in a particular area and feeding only with products from that area, such arestriction does not exist, and in principle it is possible to correlate the concentrationof radionuclides of the population directly with the total contamination of theenvironment via aggregated parameters. This may apply to some isolated humanpopulations, but applies particularly to herds of cattle which do not receive additionalfeed. The advantage of aggregated transfer parameters is that the specific contamina-tions of the individual feed products do not have to be considered. In particular, innatural ecosystems this is an advantage as neither the individual transfer parametersto the various parts of the animal diet nor the animal diets themselves are wellknown.

The foodstuffs which form the main components of diet vary from country tocountry and especially with climatic region. The transfer parameter data containedin this document were obtained only from temperate climatic zones. The Agencytogether with the International Union of Radioecologists (IUR) is currently examin-ing the available data for tropical and, subtropical zones.

The data collected in this Handbook result from a critical review of the relevantliterature. The data have been obtained from studies of fallout from nuclear weaponstests during the 1950s and 1960s, controlled releases of radioactive materials fromnuclear installations, experimental studies in natural and laboratory environments,comparisons with observations of the transfer of stable radionuclides and studies onthe fallout from the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

In 1982 the IAEA published a set of default parameter values for use in assess-ing radiation doses to critical groups [1]. More recently, as a result of a project spon-sored by the IUR and the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), datahave been collected from experimental programmes in several European countrieson the transfer of radionuclides from soil to plants [2]. Compilations of parametervalues for use in radiological assessment models have also been produced in othercountries, often based on data from national measurement programmes.

1.3. DATA ANALYSIS

The data have been analysed with the objective of estimating an expected valuefor a given parameter and of providing an indication of the extent of uncertaintyabout this estimate. The expected value in this Handbook is taken to be a value thatis considered 'typical' or most likely to occur, the uncertainty assigned to anexpected value is given either as minimum and maximum value based on a 95 % con-fidence interval, or as a range of minimum and maximum values occurring in theliterature.

In some cases the expected value is given without a statement of uncertaintyor a range because of the limited data. The expected value in these cases must beused with caution.

Arithmetic means and their derived confidence intervals are chosen in casesof a consistent set of observations for a single situation. Geometric means and theirderived confidence intervals are applicable in situations that require space and/ortime averaging of observations.

Estimation of expected values and the extent of uncertainty about eachexpected value has been carried out by applying statistical analysis and/or subjectivejudgement. In the ideal case, where adequate data are available, the expected valuewould be the 50% fractile of the distribution of the parameters. In the absence ofknowledge of a distribution's characteristics the following estimates for the expectedvalue and a 95% confidence interval were made:

Lower 95% Upper 95%confidence limit confidence limit

Arithmetic mean

Geometric mean

X

X

Expectedvaluei »

n i-a

i

• (4 -)

-X — la

Vn

2a

X(exp(2fl)

where a is the empirical standard deviation, i.e.

i/2

f is the empirical standard deviation of the natural logarithms of the observations,and n is the number of observations.

Subjective judgement is necessary in all cases for which data are either sparseor have not been obtained from experiments that were designed to quantify environ-mental transfer parameters within the context of the specific question to be assessed.

Where judgement has been used to determine an expected value, the minimum andmaximum values can be considered to establish a subjective confidence intervalrepresenting uncertainty due to incomplete knowledge about the actual range of data.

In many cases, data could not be appropriately time or space averaged. Timeaveraging is required when model parameters are used to estimate human exposuresfrom chronic releases of radionuclides occurring over a period of years andequilibrium is assumed. For example, for estimation of doses to critical populationsubgroups exposed to prolonged routine releases of radionuclides, parameter valuesshould be estimated from data averaged over time periods such as a growing seasonor a year. The uncertainty in values averaged over such prolonged time periodsshould be considerably less than that associated with single observations made overshort time periods of a few hours or days.

Space averaging is required whenever the area covered by a single sample issmaller than the area over which human exposures occur, for example this includesthe area grazed by herbivorous animals. It is appropriate to estimate the dose tohumans in an exposed population by averaging samples taken from a given garden,field or pasture. The uncertainty in these space averaged values should be considera-bly less than the uncertainty associated with individual samples of vegetation takenfrom small plots within these larger areas.

In some cases judgement is required because bias is introduced as a result ofthe experimental design of studies producing values that are systematically higher orlower than would actually occur. In other cases, judgement is needed because dataare not available for the range of environmental conditions over which predictionsof environmental transfer of radionuclides are required.

It is often possible to reduce the uncertainty in the estimate of the expectedparameter value by listing the parameter value according to specific food types,chemical forms and environmental conditions. Where specific groupings of parame-ter values are not effective in reducing uncertainty or data are unavailable, onlygeneral categories are used. Examples of general categories of food (and/or feed)types are: pasture forage, leafy vegetables, non-leafy vegetables and fruits, grains,root crops, milk, meat, eggs and fish. Examples of general categories of environ-mental conditions are: arid soils, moist soils, temperate climates and Arctic climates.

1.4. UNITS

As far as possible the units applied in IAEA Safety Series No. 57 [1] are used.The introduction of other units may lead to other values of the transfer parameters.If this is not recognized it may lead to errors in estimated doses.

Transfer factors can be expressed in various ways. For food, animal feed andanimal products the amount of radioactivity per unit weight is almost always used.For humans the same unit can be used, but it is sometimes convenient to express the

contamination per capita or per organ. For crops there is a choice between dryweight and fresh weight. For soils, the amount of radioactivity per surface area(Bq/m2) or per unit weight (Bq/g) can be used. The use of surface area alone hasthe difficulty that the depth of nuclide penetration in the soil must be defined unlessan agreed depth penetration as a result of plowing is assumed, for example 20 cm.A common practice is to use the unit weight approach with depth and area definedin terms of the particular crop and local agricultural practice, including time of year,planting cycle, etc.

For the soil-to-plant transfer factor 2?v the unit (Bq per kg dry crop edibleproduct)/(Bq per kg dry soil in the upper 20 cm) has been chosen in agreement withRef. [1]. The dry weight for crop products was preferred because the amount ofradioactivity per kilogram dry weight is much less variable than the amount per unitfresh weight. It reduces uncertainties. For agricultural soils the definition chosenshould reflect the rooting depth. For most crops, 20 cm is a good approximation,the unit weight option is then easy to use. It is worthwhile to note that for many cropsthe uptake is not very dependent on the position of the radioactivity in the upper layer[3,4]. If for some reason it is required to use another layer thickness the Bv valueshave to be recalculated. For grass the upper 10 cm layer is used as a basis for theBv value.

In natural ecosystems the surface is less homogeneous than in agriculturalecosystems and sampling should be carried out in such a way that all radioactivityof a particular unit surface area is collected. Consequently it is logical to baseaggregated parameters on the surface area and not on soil weight.

For the transfer of radionuclides from fresh water to fish the only practicaloption is to correlate the concentration in fish with the concentration in water.

2. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS — VEGETATION

Vegetation may become contaminated with radionuclides in a variety of ways.Surfaces may become contaminated as a result of the deposition of radionuclidesfrom the atmosphere. The deposition may occur in dry conditions or during rainfall.Irrigation of crops with contaminated water is another means by which surface con-tamination can occur. It is also possible for secondary contamination to be producedby the resuspension of deposited radionuclides from the ground surface under theaction of wind, rain or some other disturbance. Surface deposits on vegetation maysubsequently be absorbed and translocated within the internal parts of the plant.

Another source of plant contamination is the uptake of radionuclides from soilvia roots and internal redistribution to the various parts of plants. Processes otherthan radioactive decay can lead to the reduction of radionuclide concentrations invegetation. These include growth dilution, wash-off of externally deposited radionu-clides and leaching. Further removal of radioactivity from vegetation can occur asa result of grazing by animals, harvesting, etc.

2.1. INTERCEPTION OF DRY AND WET DEPOSITED RADIONUCLIDESBY VEGETATION

2.1.1. Definition

If radioactive material is deposited, either by wet or dry deposition processes,a certain fraction may be intercepted by vegetation, and only the remainder mayreach the ground. The fraction reaching the ground may be expressed as1:

1 - / = exp(-nfl)

where / is the fraction of depositing material initially retained on vegetationB is the biomass (dry weight) of vegetation per unit area (kg/m2)H is the interception coefficient (m2/kg) assuming exponential intercep-

tion of the depositing material.

Some authors analyse results in terms of the interception coefficient m, others interms of the interception fraction per unit weight of the biomass f/B. If / i s less thanabout 0.3, there is little practical difference. (If/ = 0.3, f/B = 0.3/B. In this case1 - / = exp (-/iB) = 0.7, which results in n = 0.35/B.) When the retention frac-tion / approaches unity, as may happen when the biomass B is large, it is moreappropriate to use /* [5].

2.1.2. Dry deposited activity

Table I summarizes the values for m, measured for dry deposited particles infield experiments.

1 The terminology used in Section 2.1.1 is not fully consistent with that of IAEASafety Series No. 57 [1]. The terms 'f and 'B' in this section are equivalent to 'R' and T 'respectively in Safety Series No. 57.

TABLE I. INTERCEPTION COEFFICIENTS IN FIELD EXPERIMENTS [5]

ParticlesDiameter

0»m) CropMean Reference

LycopodiumLycopodiumLycopodiumQuartzSilica sandSilica sandSilica sandSilica sandSilica sandSilica sand238PuI3.x

323232

44-8840-6340-6363-10063-100100-200100-200about 1Vapour

GrassWheat, dryWheat, moistGrassGrass, dryGrass, wetGrass, dryGrass, wetGrass, dryGrass, wetComGrass

3.083.29.62.70.440.880.230.690.240.463.62.8

0.150.53.70.30.150.130.070.160.070.110.050.14

[6][7][7][8][9][9][9][9][9][9]

[10][6]

a Standard deviation of mean.

2.1.3. Wet deposited activity

Values of the interaction fraction per unit biomass (f/B) of wet depositedactivity are element dependent; the values for cations are significantly higher thanfor anions.

Values of f/B for cations decrease only slightly with increasing amounts ofrainfall, whereas for anions the f/B values decrease in proportion to increasingprecipitation.

During intermittent rain f/B remains constant, indicating that once initial reten-tion occurs subsequent rain is ineffective in removing previously deposited material.

The results of Aarkrog [11] and Voigt et al. [12] indicate that the values forfand f/B decrease as crops mature. These findings are especially valid for the secondhalf of the growing period when the foliage of plants

Experimental results [13] for die interceptionsummarized in Table II and in Figs 1-3. Measurleaf area index (expressed in terms of g/m2 leases) /are summa[12].

TABLE H. INTERCEPTION FRACTIONS PER UNIT BIOMASS (f/B) FORWET DEPOSITED ACTIVITY

Plant

PastureFescueFescueGrass

Clover

CarrotsBush beansCabbage

Tracer

SrSr, Cs, FeTcI

Water

Sr

I

Water

Sr

CsCsCs

Precipitation(mm)

0.080.1

124

8-1216-22

124

8-1216-22

124

8-1216-22

124

8-1216-22

124

8-1216-22

124

8-1216-22

111

f/B (m2/kg)Mean SDa

3.32.71.14.31.61.10.60.36.24.31.81.20.57.65.14.84.21.38.74.12.51.00.411.5.94.02.20.98.28.08.28.64.33.6-4.40.72-6.0"0.45-1.1"

0.560.490.05

Reference

[14]

[9][15][16]

[16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][16][12][12][12]

* Standard deviation of mean.b Decreasing during the growing period.

8

le)

CD

O>O

>^-

#

f/B

10

1

0.1

_

S aa

-

a

+

o

1.4-3.2 cm/h

5.7-12.2 cm/h

a eB

i

Ii

10 20Rain (mm)

30

FIG. 1. Individual values of the interception factor per unit biomass (f/B) for 131Ias a func-tion of the amount of simulated rain.

scal

e)

5?>i)<e

i

5a

. a

a

ao

e

o

iP

a

aa "o

a

o

Q

Q Do D

a

a

1.4-3.2 cm/h

o

t

a

ao

a

10Rain (mm)

15 20

FIG. 2. Individual values of die interception factor per unit biomas (f/B) for 7Be as a func-tion of the amount of simulated rain.

w 5

I5

go

a

go

a

aoo

o

a

ao

%o

o•

oo

000

a

Mean f/B 2.4m2/kg

o

BOB

10Rain (mm)

15 20

~ 1

0.60

Baaooa

oo

Mean f/B 2.12 nrVkg

D

oB

10Rain (mm)

15 20

5I1

f/B

0.

5

1

SO

o

a

aa

m

a

000

ao

£o

oo

oao

o

Mean f/B -[S&rrtlWg

aa

o

aB

10Rain (mm)

15 20

FIG. 3. Individual values of the interception factor per unit biomass (f/B) for 25.9 and 3 funinsoluble micropheres as a Junction of the amount of simulated rain.

10

TABLE m . INTERCEPTION FRACTION PER UNIT BIOMASS (f/B) FOR137Cs APPLIED DURING ARTIFICIAL RAINFALLS OF 1 mm FOR DIFFER-ENT PLANT SPECIES AS FUNCTION OF THE LEAF AREA INDEX [12]

Plant

Rye

Winter wheat

Spring wheat

Barley

Potatoes

Time toharvest

(d)

25910686785730

1139380655037

9376614818

100826749

110105926236

Leaf area

index

1.74.95.64.23.82.0

1.53.45.16.02.92.0

1.12.33.24.1<1

1.02.14.14.0

0.50.92.74.1<1

f/B(m2/kg)

0.150.430.630.400.350.30

0.250.320.290.450.450.32

0.130.390.450.530.44

0.110.240.500.50

0.100.130.210.440.48

11

2.2. TRANSLOCATION

Many elements are absorbed from the leaves of plants and translocated to allother organs in the plant, even to those which are not directly affected by the deposi-tion process.

Determination of the translocation

In experiments for determining the extent of translocation, plants are sprayedwith radionuclides dissolved in water at different stages of plant development. Oneplot is harvested immediately after the spray has dried and the activity is measuredin order to determine the initial retention. The plants, in parallel plots, are harvestedat maturity and the activity in the edible parts is determined.

The translocation factor TLF can be quantified as:

_ activity concentration in the edible parts at harvest (Bq/kg)

activity retained on 1 m2 of foliage at the time of deposition (Bq/m2)

Another way of expressing the translocation is by means of the ratio of the ini-tial activity per unit area of foliage and the activity in the edible parts in the samearea at harvest.

TLF(a)activity in edible parts of 1 m2 at harvest (Bq/m2)

activity retained on foliage of 1 m2 at deposition (Bq/m2)

In the case of caesium, it has been shown by Voigt et al. [9] that variationsamong the investigations are less if the translocation is normalized to the yield inkilograms. This option is therefore used in this report.

TLF values are shown in Table IV.

Uncertainty

The determination of translocation is associated with some uncertainty:

— An important source of uncertainty can be the variability of plant developmentwith weather conditions during the experiments. Also, factors such as thechoice of the plant variety (e.g. early versus late) and plant diseases can causevariations in the development of the test plants. Considering the sensitivity tothe time of deposition, it is obvious that even small deviations in developmentcan cause substantial differences in the observed translocation factor.

12

oo

S .•2

r ^ P ' 5 o ' " t " * t " - . o o " ^ . O N r ~ r ^ , - ^ ~ T ^ , < s l ^ ' r - - — oo oo

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

3o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o b o o o

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

o o( N I N I N

b o o bb b b b b b b b oX X X X X X X X X XX X X X X

C/3

zU

E

iI5

b o bxxx xx

2 2 2 2 2 2x x x x x x

xx x x x x

2 2xx

bx

2 2 2xxx

ii suit, i it tt

13

— Another possible source of uncertainty is related to the determination of the ini-tial retention. An accurate measurement is important for the determination ofthe translocation factor. However, the experimental method dictates that theinitial retention and the translocation can only be determined on different plotsand experimental errors of up to about 25% can be caused in this way.

— The chemical form used during the experiments may also influence the absorp-tion via the leaves and the subsequent transport within the plant. Special con-sideration has to be given to this effect for polyvalent elements with a tendencyto form complexes. However, only little information is available on this topic.

For all of these reasons the results of translocation experiments may haveuncertainty associated with them and the values in Table IV should therefore be usedwith caution. Only the values for caesium, strontium, molybdenum and iron are con-sidered to be based on adequate data. If, in assessment studies, translocation appearsto be an important pathway the use of locally derived data is recommended.

2.3. RETENTION IN VEGETATION

The radionuclide concentration of vegetation may be reduced by means of avariety of processes. These include radioactive decay, wash-off of previously inter-cepted material by rain or irrigation, surface abrasion and leaf bending from windaction, resuspension, tissue senescence, leaf fall or herbivore grazing, addition ofnew tissue (growth dilution), volatilization or evaporation [13, 21, 22].

Several observations have shown that the consequence is an exponentialdecrease of contaminant from crop surfaces:

M/Mo = exp(-f/r)

where Mo and M are the quantities retained on the crop initially and after time t, andT is an empirical time constant. During the growing season, T ~ 15 days [23]. Thevalue of 15 days is also used in IAEA Safety Series No. 57 [1] as a default valuefor particulates, while for iodine 10 days is used.

2.4. UPTAKE FROM SOIL

The uptake of radionuclides by plants from the soil is normally described bythe transfer factor Bv, the ratio of radionuclide concentrations in vegetation and soil(in Bq/kg dry weight plant to Bq/kg dry weight soil). The dry weight content of manyplants is given in Table V.

14

TABLE V. DRY WEIGHT CONTENT OF FRESH PRODUCTS (% of freshweight)

Product

CerealsBarley, oats, rye, wheatMaize

FodderAlfalfa, cloverMaize

GrassPea, beanSoybeanRoot crops

Beat, sugar beatCarrotRadishTurnipKohlrabiTapiocaPotatoSwede

VegetablesCabbage

CauliflowerCeleryCucumberLeekLettuceOnionRaspberrySpinachTomatoZuchini

graingrain

total crop

pods

tubertuber

Average(% d.w.)

8655

1931102531

22169

126

382111

121165

118

1116865

Standarddeviation

(absolute % d.w.)

10

517

8

444

651

4

13

3

Reference

[24][24]

[24][24][24][24][25]

[24][24][24][24][24][24][24][24]

[24][25][25][25][24][24][25][25][24][24][24]

15

Observed Bv values vary widely, mainly as a result of different soil and vege-tation types and environmental conditions. In addition, management practices suchas ploughing, liming, fertilization and irrigation greatly affect uptake. Variability canalso result if uptake into the whole plant is compared with uptake into parts of theplant, such as grain. The approach adopted here is that for plants consumed byhumans, all transfer factors refer to the edible parts, e.g. grain or tubers. Data foranimal foodstuffs generally refer to the whole plant.

Values for Bv are given in Table VI. The values are mainly derived from anIUR project [24, 27] in which participating research institutions agreed to applyrecommended experimental techniques to minimize artefacts and misinterpretations.The recommendations include:

— measures to ensure sufficient equilibrium between the radionuclide applied andthe corresponding stable nuclides already present in the soil,

— the application of fertilizer at rates used in normal agriculture,— minimum dimensions for field, lysimeter or pot experiments to avoid artefacts.

All transfer factor values are standardized for a homogeneously contaminatedlayer of 20 cm for crops, with the exception of pasture for which 10 cm was used.

In Table VI, for the less important radionuclides, specific conditions such assoil type are not given. Where possible, uncertainty factors and confidence rangesare given.

For the important radionuclides 137Cs and ^Sr, a distinction is made betweenclay, sand and peat soils. Since the pH also has an impact on fiv, the values areadjusted to standardized pH values; these are 6 for clay, 5 for sand and 4 for peatsoils. Higher pH values than those provided result in a decrease in uptake; lowervalues produce an increased uptake. Correction factors to adjust £v to other pHvalues are given in Ref. [23].

Crops are divided into groups, the groups being:

— Cereals (grain, flour)— Fodder (maize without grain, clover, alfalfa)— Grass (including the other vegetation present in pastures)— Pods (seeds of peas and beans)— Root crops (beet, radish, swede)— Tubers (potato)— Vegetables (cabbage, spinach, leek, lettuce, etc.).

For 137Cs and ^Sr uncertainty factors and confidence ranges are supplied.Values are based on statistical analysis and subjective judgement. These ranges arerather wide. The reason is that for a particular year or an area (field), specific condi-tions may apply which promote or decrease uptake. For assessment studies whichcover a number of years and/or fields the uncertainty is likely to be a factor of 3-5lower because of better time and space averaging.

16 Text com. on p . 26.

• J

s

|OS

O

i<a

OOS

uSOSQ

zos<COs

S3

2H336

I35

« 2

I*

80S0880 0808+ ' + + ! + + + I + + +ttl U] Uj U U U] U M fT1 M fT1i n ON Sn ^ 00 ON ON (^ VO f^ ^f

s s s ssI I I

S 8 S S S S 51 + 1 1 1 1 1

U W U U BU U Uq o ne 00 » »ri rj -« -> « - -

o o o

o 0 0 S 0 O 0 8 0 0 0 O 0I I + + I I I + I I I I I

i i 1 i i i

S S 0 0 81 + 1 1 +

UJ U j fT1 fTl fT1<n — 1 - 00 <N

80SSSI I I I Itu u w u u

§222?

31

g

S 8 S S S1 + 1 1 1

Uj [JU U UJ Wr— — Tt ON • < *— ON - " in

S itrM s

OS PC

"8 •£IS IS

z z u < u S

CO !_

z u

I3 J M * 3 J s -gu < u S o

17

*© NO V0vo io «£± d £L

v©2 £ i CL £1 CL £1

o

8 0 0 8 8 8 0 8 8+ I I + + + I + +N O<t et 91 O O N GO

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8+

- e

0 8 0 8I + I +

w u m tu« •* q »ve — M —

1W•n

s s s s s s s s sI I I I I I I I I

UJ [I] [ij (X] [l] (I] El] [I] U

W W W00 9 0

01

OJWv

01

UJCl

*n

O1

01

IDf i(^

O1

U)^-

rs

O1

a

01

El3f*

8w

s s s sI I I I(I) W

N q

O O O O O O O O O «o O_

d 6

S 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 o © o S ©I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I I + I + I t i l l

w u a w u j w w w u u u u w w u w u w u a u w u c u u u up m J N O ' ^ o o o v O p —; 00 p » * < | O ; - i n N ( » i © CJ — © O \

o\ -"00 — —

S B C

2 B S

I

I n u

oU 3 A

18

C±£i£±£i£i£i£L£i

IIX

in tr, a. tn r*•II II E II I

X X S ^ X

NO NO VO

II II IIX X X

c II E II g« I raX g

IIX

II I E II ||Xx S I I

ee S

o o S S S o o o o o S o o o S+ I + + + + + + + + + I + + +ft^ f t l ^t] fTT f f i f l^ p^ (T] fT^ fT^ ft"! fT^ fT^ f j ] fT]

o S S o S o o o o o S o o o SI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

fT~| fr1] T"] p i f->1 [T^ p i fT^ fT] fT^ ^ ] fT^ [T^ m f t ]

q q o * ( ; n ^ » o o t o e—! ~ M vi ri

8 .2q q

8 0 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 0 0 S 8 8 0 0 S+ I + + I + + + + I I I + + I I I s

I Iu u

S S 5II

—< — — i n

IN © v>•—i i*^ ~ ^ 5! — <s < i —

1! 88& 06 OS

•5 -5 -5as n «B C Ci

D.O

"8

I

I

I1

"8

S

o

19

VO vo VO vo VO vo vo vo vo VO VO </1N N «

vo vo vo <rtN (S N (M

VO </1 f- t-fM CM

'£ g _§ g g

8o

8 8 8 8o o o o

8o II 1

OIIo. in

144

8 ©

sSu

©

«

8w+88wo

su00

S o o © So oSI I + + + + + +

ClJ LxJ U UJ rti fti fri ftiS " o S • J q o er»' ori « «-< r i •-" —< «s

3E

-02

3E

-04

7E

-03

ts

7E

-05

OE

-03

00

OE

-05

8E-O

31E

-04

4E

-02

4E

-04

OE

-01

OE

-03

6E-0

16

E-0

3

>r> O O © © O O «n © © © © ©

5 8 5 8 5 5 5 8 8 S 5 S 5 S 3 S 5 3 8 8 8 8 8

f % * ^ ^ C ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ? ^ ^ ^ ^ ?

£ OS H

-ao

3E

-

• • ^

VO

Roo

t

1 1 1nM m mr- © <nN O0 -

VO VO

Frui

t

6E

-

•r,

vo

Roo

t

0E+

4E

-

en

-30

CM

OE

-22

0G

rain

6E

-

CM

132

Gra

in

i) o C I I 8 I £4)So

^ U 2-

1 1I «

S i s

"8 •S

I _ I -3 45S 2 S

o z_ Siu u

20

.•a

I5!

a2U

VO

IIX

VO VOII

VO VDI

B.W) aP II c

VO

IIX

^ 1 Bw O* Qu ,W D, Q , ^ 1

1 s?

0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 81 1+ + + + + 1 1 1 1 1+ + + + +

sssssssssssssssssI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S S o 5 S o 5 S S S S S 5 5 S S S S S S S1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i t t 1 1 1 1 1 + 1 1[1] II] U U U-U UUlUUttJUUdimUEtiUUIJ] UJ

^ N M N

a III sl£ £ .O eo O«

§ § §1 -2

I f f<S b b

U £ fc £ O O O

60 ob ti fc

irni1 S .a -S

so

3 S1 1

§ sI Iu wO Tt;vo 06

1 1

ve

"8 "8u. a.

8" 8

I s

J

21

This page is missing

™ " ™ l*» ^ p1 " F fN N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N^•^J ta^^J ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ fe^M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^J ^^^J ^^^J ^ ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^ ^H d ^ ^ ^ ^^^J ^^^y ^ ^ ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^H^ ^ ^ ^ ^

i i i l i g g g gB C C C

gI

a)

oI

ut

S S S 5 Si i i i i

U] [1} U] UJ UJN • • O; wi in^- vi P4 vd •»

Iid

5 S 8i i i

cu tu u

I s s I I IIs;

r- • * >no o oI I I

u u uIT) 00 —

S S S S S 8 S 5 S § 3i i i i i i i i i I I

3 S S S S 3i i i i i i

3 S S 3i i i i

£ 3 3i i i

oo in »

H N * - « N

aI

24

§

8)c

<•-•

cout *

Si

o1

[X]

s

s1UJ

-05

1-2

CidiCiCiLilliCiCi f. r*. r . r*. r . r». f. r*.

g i i § g g §

OI

Wr-

wsI

S S S S S 3 S 3i i i i i i i i

O O (S ^- —

i l l

s s ssI I I I

u u i u u» N « «c4 «- ei —

$ s ssI I I I

tU III W IDrf t>; V) Tf—I >ri ON tn

g g §

OI

w

OI

UJ

s s sI I I

tt] [U [tis sI I

s sI I

W WID t"»

O O so —CM P<

u

25

The bioavailability of caesium and strontium decreases in most agriculturalareas with time due to ageing effects (i.e. irreversible adsorption and incorporationof nuclides in the soil mineral lattice). For ^Sr this decrease will be around 3% peryear and for 137Cs around 15% per year during the first two years after contamina-tion [27]. Thereafter the rate of decrease seems to become less. On peat bog soilsthe reduction of the bioavailability for l37Cs is almost negligible. To take accountof this decrease of availability, Bv values are standardized for a contact time of2 years.

Many other factors influence uptake. For l37Cs the most important onesare [32]:

— potassium content in the soil;— irrigation;— the presence of a litter layer to which caesium is adsorbed and thus remains

more available with time;— the presence of high soil organic matter contents in combination with high

moisture contents and low temperatures; under such conditions microorgan-isms produce ammonium ions which prevent fixation of 137Cs and thus coun-teract the decrease of the bioavailability.

It was not possible to derive uncertainty factors for the transuranics plutonium,americium, neptunium and curium because soil adhesion (see Section 2.S) plays animportant role for these nuclides. Instead, the observed minimum and maximumvalues are supplied. The maximum values are sometimes a few orders of magnitudehigher than the expected Bv values. The maximum values demonstrate the possibleeffects of soil adhesion and could be used to account for this mechanism. However,it is better to use the expected Bv values and to account for soil adhesion using thefactors given in Section 2.S.

For some elements the only source of information on Bv values is Ref. [25].However, the data are usually in the form of fresh weight values and conversion todry weight is necessary for Table VI. This is not straightforward because the datado not refer to a single crop. Since most of the values in Ref. [25] refer to vegetables,the factor used for recalculation from fresh to dry weight was 7. However, in caseswhere Ng et al. [25] also supplied values for fodder crops (reported as dry weight)the data reported in Table VI are the geometric mean values between the correctedfood crop values and the values for fodder.

2.5. RESUSPENSION AND SOIL ADHESION

Adhesion of soil particles to vegetation may be caused by two principalprocesses: the interception of resuspended matter and the splashing of rain or irriga-tion water droplets. It can be influenced by factors such as the height and type ofplant canopy as well as wind, rain and soil type.

26

TABLE VH. EXPECTED VALUES FOR SOIL ADHESION (g dry soil per kg dryweight plant)

Product Adhering soil

Low estimate for leaves and grass40 cm or more above the soil surface 440 cm or less above the soil surface 10

Grain <4Upper limit for non-extreme conditions 250Upper limit for extreme conditions 500. .

The term resuspension is often used to indicate that this is a secondary suspen-sion into the atmosphere, usually by the action of wind. The rate of resuspensionafter deposition declines as radionuclide bearing particles gradually mix with soil.Resuspension may last for many years. The use of mechanical equipment in fanningactivities and the disturbance created by livestock can also cause localized resuspen-sion in the vicinity of crops.,Raindrops detach particles from the soil surface andsplash them on to plant surfaces. Further rain may transport particles to the innercore of crops or wash them off again. In the meantime, mobile elements such ascaesium may be taken up by the plant, :

Existing resuspension and redeposition models may underestimate particletransport to plant surfaces because they usually focus on concentrations of radionu-clides in air and on human exposure by inhalation. Contamination of crops due tosaltation and rain splash is often not included.

For radionuclides that are not easily taken up by plants the effect of soil adhe-sion (Table VII) can be important as the amount of radionuclides present in theadhering soil can exceed the amount taken up via the roots.

An analysis of the uptake data of the IUR shows that soil adhesion may playa role when Bv values are lower than 0.1 [23]. This means that for strontium, forexample, in normal situations soil adhesion effects will not be significant. For peatsoils some By values for strontium are less than 0.1 but resuspension effects onthese soils are low and therefore soil adhesion does not play a significant role. Forcaesium, with Bv values ranging from 0.01 to 0.5, soil effects may play a role. Forplutonium and americium, with Bv values ranging from 1 x 10'5 to 1 x 10"3, soiladhesion is important. An amount of 1 g of soil per kilogram of dry crop causes an'effective' Bv of 1 x 10"3. . ..

27

TABLE Vin. SOIL ADHESION VALUES FOR DRY AREAS (g soil per kg dryweight plant)

Crop Soil adhesion Reference

Broccoli 10 [34]Cabbage 1.1 [34]Lettuce 2.6 [34]Sunflowers 2.6 [35]Tobacco 2.1 [34]Turnips 32 [34]Corn 1.4" [36]Soyabean 2.1" [36]Wheat 4,8' [36]

* At harvest.

In this context, consideration has to be given to the ways in which crops areused and handled. Many crops for human consumption are washed or treated in someway, reducing soil transfer effects. For grazing animals, soil intake can be impor-tant; its effects are considered in Section 3.1.

Another factor which should be considered is the bioavailability of the radionu-clides. It must be expected that a nuclide which is taken up via the roots and is apart of the plant tissue has a higher bioavailability than a radionuclide adsorbed toa soil particle. Representative data on bioavailability are scarce.

The IUR report on soil adhesion [33], discussing numerical values, states:"Values of soil adhesion depend so much on environmental conditions that it is notrealistic to propose a default value. However, an estimate for a low value of soiladhesion is 4 g soil per kg dry vegetation for leaves and grass taken from 40 cm ormore above soil surface. Below 40 cm, 10 g per kg might be a reasonable estimatefor leaves and grass. Values will be lower if precautions are taken to reduce soiladhesion. Considerably lower values are expected for products such as grain, whichare protected by plant parts which are not consumed. A reasonable upper limit forsoil adhesion is 250 g per kg. Under extreme conditions values of 500 g per kg maybe reached. Extreme conditions might include high intensity storms, severe grazingpressure (particularly by sheep) and plant species which are highly vulnerable to soilloading".

Some older data on soil adhesion are shown in Table VIII. They refer to arather dry area which may not be generally representative.

28

2.6. LOSSES FROM SOIL

The radionuclide inventory of the rooting zone of a soil may be reduced byuptake of radionuclides by plants and subsequent removal by harvesting or consump-tion, by runoff, by resuspension of soil particles in the air and by leaching to the sub-soil. Consumption by grazing animals and resuspension will generally not lead to adecrease of the inventory as radionuclides will return to the soil. The amountwhich will be removed by harvesting is usually small. Runoff may be important. Itmay lead to movement towards low-lying sites in a field or to removal to elsewhere.The evaluation of losses due to runoff is outside the scope of this document; theydepend entirely on the local conditions.

Besides radioactive decay, the most important process for the reduction ofradionuclides in the rooting zone is leaching. In most areas of the world the rainfallsurpasses the evapotranspiration and consequently there is, at least in the wet season,a downwards transport of the soil liquid. It should be noted that in calculations thewater surplus (rain or irrigation minus evapotranspiration) should be used. In tem-perate climates typical values for the water surplus are 10-30 cm per year. With apore volume of 0.30 this means that the water front moves downwards with a veloc-ity of 30-90 cm per year. Radionuclides which are completely soluble move down-wards at the same speed and are therefore removed from the rooting zone in abouta year.

None of the important radioelements, i.e. caesium, strontium or plutonium, ishowever, very soluble and therefore their leaching rates are much lower than forsoluble elements. The amount of radionuclides in the soil solution can be calculatedusing the KD value. KD is defined as the ratio of radionuclides in the solid and liquidphases (the units are (Bq per kg soil)/(Bq per L solution) = L/kg). The use of theproper units is critical; sometimes KD values are listed without clear indication ofthe units.

One of the applications of KD is its use in a retardation factor. The factor is(1 + p.KD/6), in which 6 is the (moisture filled) pore volume and p is the soil den-sity. A default value for 6 is 0.3 and for p 1.4 kg/dm3. For peat soils p may besomewhat lower, but it is usually greater than 1. Default values for KD are given inTable IX. Depending on the soil type KD values for ^Sr and l37Cs range from 20to 1000. This implies retardation factors of between 100 and 5000 and migrationvelocities ranging from 1 cm per year to almost zero. In the latter case mechanicaltransport by animals such as earthworms dominates, at least in the upper soil layer,as a transport mechanism. Other limitations of the applicability of the KD aredescribed in Section 4.

29

FTrn.

I3'

U

1,Q

i

iu

8Ia;<a.

sCD

S

u92

©

X

00I

f^©

X

IN

©

X

m"I

2XNOi»i

g.

1.

I3

oX

P -^X Xq qI N NO

XNO

l»i

.%'X X X

ON IN O•* -" IN

X<rv.

"~"• i

7©

Xq•n

X•*.r-

i

"bXqmm

XNO

NOI

fN

©Xoomm

Xf-I N

1fNO

X

wi

O

X

m

oXV>

OX X

©f*N

oX<n

oX.00

oX

oX

0 0

oXo1*1

•©

X

mm

O

XON

ON

O

X-

IN

oXr-«N

oX

ON

oX

in

*©

Xom

oX

«N

O

XON

oXr~

oX©

oX

oX

oX

©

Xi n

fN

oXm

oXo

1

~oX

00

©

X00

*©

X

©

X

oXI N~*

f,

o

3.3X

1

i

"©

XmI N

"bXoON

Xm^*

i .

bX

©

X—•

mOX

NO—

©

XoNO

©

XON

ON

•bX\D

I

"©

X

*"•

f*"i

oXoIN

E

©

Xm

©

X< • •

00

*bX

IN

a

oXr-

O

Xo• *

rhXI N

5

oX

oX

ON

"bXV)

&

oX

ON

O

Xom

ooXoON

(3

oXu*i

I

oxoON

O

X.

fN

oXON

ON

• • 1

O

XNO

oXo• *

"©

1.5x

1

1

%

X

m

"bX

3

oX**«n

i

*bX

eX©

oXNO—.

©

Xo

oX

00

"b

1.2x

1

i

© .

X©

•bXON

" *

u

oX

X

t-:

i

oX

oX

00

^^

* ©

Xo"*

E

©

XoI N•I

©

X

oX^*

L.X00'—

i

oX

ON

ON

O

Xm

X

bXI NI N

"bXoNO

o

©

X»n

o

ON

r*

oX

ON

O

X©!*N

"bX

1

% •

X©

—

"bX!>.NO

©

X

1

• ©

X

©

X00

oXoNO

t

©

Xi nrn

oX

, o

4.0X

1

i

%

XOS

- "

* ©

X

I N

d

©

Xo

1

%

Xe»NO

oXNO

oXmir>

i

• o

X©I N

oX^^00

4.0X

1

i

°©X

I N

" •

fN

oXINI N

©

X

oXm

fN

oXm

oXi n

oX

mm

OO

fN

oX

oX

.

bXI N00

oX00

fN

©X^.

f N

©

XI N00

oXi n

" *

"©

8.5x

bXmmm

oOXo

oX

ON

ON

1OOX

i n

«

oX00

o

—i

• ©

X

oXI N

©

8.1x

1

i

%

XoI "

"bX

ON

" *

|

O

XON

ON

1oOXI N00

oX©ON

O

Xm~*

,01

6.7

x

bXI N00

%

X

O

XoON

O

• x

m

fN-

oXNO

g

oX!>.I N

1fN

oXNO

oX

NO

oX

om

* ©

8.1

X1

i

"bXoI N

fNO

X©

©

X

©

X

oX«n

»N

oX

1 ^r<

1

oXI N

oXi nN

IN

o

I.2

x

1

bX

" •

oO

X

a

30

oX

o

X

ob

ox"ciI.

Xo

Xsoi

©X

vi1

3©><

—«

x

t

o

x"

oX0000°

1

"©

><o

©

x"oSO

1

%

X

©Xp*1

"oX*

2 2 S S 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 S S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sx x x x x x x > < x x x x x x x x x > < x x > <

o

© © ©X X XOs l*~ ^^ rsi in

tnOXr*rsi

i

INO

XOsOs

O ©X Xr» r»«s r>i

©

X

iri1

"©X

orn

O><f i

enI

_O

X

r-'

oXOs

**

X

1

©

X—~

©><f>l<^

1IN©

Xr-so

o ©X X© «~OS fS

©

"x00

1

"©X

oX©so'

10

oX*orsi

© © © © © © ©X X X X X X Xa -9 -9 oe «*> r-» —"* M *" - ~ * -

rsi

oXoso'

1

oX

so

O

"x

1

oo

o ©X Xm rsi

,01

XoOs

1CM

oX

o"x0 0Os'

1

ox"p

oX

oXOS

a*1

©

X*o

ox

~*

ft

oXoOs

1

r«l

oX

©

o1

o"xm.

o oX X^ orM m

oXsO

1

><• •«

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2x x x x x x x x x x x x . x > < x x x x x x xo » e » O r i i o o o o i « o ; - - n o - O t n r < n Nm — — — V — ri — Os — * — «' V pi » - ri - i — «s

oX

oX

X Xso so

2 2 2X X Xp oo rsiso — od

XpOs

X

2 2 -o 2 'o

3.3x

i

©

X•n

5.0

x

i

©

X

Xp

1

"©

X

2.0

x

iINoX

irt

XSO

1

*©

X

2 2 £ £ 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 £ ® 2 2 ® 2*2^*°*®x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x > < > < x x xoi »> isl n - l o T t i n w i ^ ' - ^ r r i c j — • —i rsi — m r» rsi >b

31

3. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS — MILK, MEAT AND EGGS

Radionuclide concentrations in animal food products are dependent on the rela-tionship between intake, turnover in animal tissue and excretion. Although inhalationand drinking water may be important in some instances, the major source of contami-nation of animals or animal products is ingestion of contaminated feed.

3.1. INTAKE BY ANIMALS

The intake of radionuclides by animals is dependent on the animal species,mass, age and growth rate of the animal, the digestibility of the feed and, in the caseof lactating species, the milk yield. Typical feedstuffs of domestic animals aregiven in Table X, with estimates of their dry matter intake and water consumptionin Table XI. However, large differences may occur: for instance milk cows may con-sume three to four times as much feed as beef cows of the same weight. For cows,much of the intake consists of grass, hay, maize, silage and sugar beet. Generally,about 10-20 L milk are produced each day. For higher milk yields exceeding 20 L/d,extra concentrates need to be supplied. For instance in Germany extra concentratesare supplied at a rate of 0.3 kg dry weight per day per litre of milk [40].

The quantities of concentrates or dry feed given in addition to fresh forage canvary considerably between and within different countries. Even when the amounts

TABLE X. TYPICAL FEEDSTUFFS OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS

Animal species Typical feedstuffs

Dairy cows Grass products', maize, clover, alfalfa, sugar beetBeef cattle Grass products, maizeDairy goats Grass productsDairy sheep Grass productsLambs Grass productsCalves Milk, milk substitutes, hay, maizePigs Cereals, corn, potatoes, whey, soyab

Laying hens Cereals, protein feedChickens Cereals, protein feed

° Grass products include fresh pasture, hay and grass silage.b Normally less than 0.5 kg/d.

32

TABLE XI. DRY MATTER AND WATER INTAKE OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS[38, 39]

Animal species

Dairy cowsBeef cattle (500 kg)Calves (160 kg)Dairy goatsDairy sheepLambs (50 kg)Pigs (110 kg)Laying hensChickens

Expected(kg/d)

16.17.21.91.31.31.12.40.10.07

Dry matter

Range(kg/d)

10-255-10

1.5-3.51.0-3.51.0-2.50.5-2.02.0-3.0

0.07-0.150.05-0.15

Water

(L/d)

50-10020-605-155-105-83-56-10

0.1-0.30.1-0.3

of additional feed are known, estimates of fresh forage intake are difficult. Methodsof measuring intake by animals are reviewed by Mayes [41]. The values for intakeof domestic animals given in Table XI are only a guide of intake estimates. It isrecommended that specific information be obtained on agricultural practices relevantto the country or region considered.

Radionuclide transfer models often underestimate soil adhesion on vegetationingested by animals. The extent of soil ingestion will be influenced by factors suchas the species of animal, season, soil type, stocking rates and pasture management.Consequently, values for soil ingestion will be highly site specific. Typically, soilingestion is expressed as a fraction of feed or forage intake. For example, Healy [42]quoted soil intake of 4-8% of herbage for dairy cows, whereas Beresford andHoward [43] gave values ranging between 2 and 40%. In the latter study seasonalinfluences were evident; in the winter soil ingestion was often greater than 25%,whereas in summer it rarely exceeded 5%. Soil adhesion to hay and silage will becomparatively low and is unlikely to exceed 10%. Recent studies suggest thatmechanical harvesting may increase soil adhesion [44]. From Refs [45, 46], meanfractions of soil intake were estimated to be 0.5% for confined fodder, stored awayfrom soil, 1.5% for confined feed, 6% for grazing cattle and 10% for grazing sheep;for pasture grass considerable seasonal variation is to be expected. Although soilassociated radionuclides can account for a large proportion of total daily intake,studies on the absorption of soil associated radiocaesium suggest that in most cases

33

soil will not be an important source of 'available' radiocaesium in the animal[47-49]. However, exceptions may occur; for instance, the transfer to milk from soilfrom the 10 km around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was high compared withother types of soil [50].

3.2. TRANSFER FROM FEED TO ANIMAL PRODUCTS

Transfer from feed to animal products is commonly described by using thetransfer coefficients Fm and Ff for milk and other animal products respectively.These coefficients are defined as the amount of an animal's daily intake of a radionu-clide that is transferred to one kilogram of the animal product at equilibrium [51]or at the time of slaughter. The validity of using such transfer coefficients was dis-cussed by their originators, Ward and Johnson, in 1986 [52]. Some of the difficultiesin using transfer coefficients include:

— The need for equilibrium

With a few exceptions, such as 131I, most radionuclides will not haveequilibrated in animal products before slaughter. Equally, few experiments areconducted for a sufficient length of time to enable equilibrium to be estab-lished. Hence transfer coefficients derived from comparatively short termexperiments will underestimate equilibrium transfer coefficients. In somecases (for example, plutonium and americium) Ff values (transfer coefficientto meat) for shorter time periods have been used, as the lifetime of the animalis too short for the radionuclide ever to reach equilibrium.

— Metabolic homeostasis

Some elements (for example, sodium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium andcalcium) and therefore their radioisotopes are subject to homeostatic control;hence an increase in feed concentrations will not necessarily be reflected intissues.

— Effects of chemical and physical form of radionuclide, and diet composition

The availability for gut uptake of radionuclides differs markedly, dependingon the chemical and physical form, and on the constituents of the diet [53, 54].Recent data obtained after the Chernobyl accident suggest that transfer coeffi-cients for radiocesium in the first period after deposition were lower than thoseobtained once radiocaesium was incorporated into plant tissues [55-57].

— Influence of age

Young animals often have higher transfer coefficients than adults [38]. Fewtransfer coefficient data which take this into account are available.

34

TABLE XH. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS Fm FOR COW MILK (d/L)

Element. Expected

9.0

1.5

2.3

6.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Range

10"'-2.5 x 101

io-2 .

io-3-

io-3-

- 2.0 X 10"2

- 1.1 x 10"'

- 1.0 x 10"2

10-'-3.0 X 10"'

io-7-

io-'-

io-'-

2.0 x 10"5

3.5 x 10"2

2.7 x 10"2

Type ofdata

bb,nh,k,t

c,tc,tc,th,tc,ta,q,Tc-99mh,q,Tc-99ma,q,Tc-95ma,q,Tc-95mabaaa,Te-123m

a,h .b,h

hbiaac,hi,a,chahbhiaha ^---7=—-^~

Reference

[65][66][67][68][58][58][58][69][58][70][69][70][67][70][71][71][71][70][72][71][67][73][74][58][38][70][70][60][38][75][76][77][78][79][38][70][75]

^ [39]

'H3H(OBT)Na

MgPS

aKTc

MoCrMnFeTeCo

NiRbSrZrNbCaRuAgSb1

CsBaCeHgPoRaUNpPuAm

1.5 x 10"2

note n1.6 x 10L2

3.9 x 10"'1.6 X 10"2

1.6 X 10"2

1.7 x 10"2

7.2 x 10"'2.3 x 10-5

1.4 x 10"4

1.7 x 10"'1.0 x 10"3

3.0 x 10-5

3.0 x 10"5

4.5 x 10"4

note p

1.6 x lO'2

1.2 x 10"2

2.8 x 10"'5.5 x 10"7

4.1 x 1O"7

3.0 x 10"'3.3 X 10-*5.0 X 10"5

2.5 x 10"5

1.0 x 10"2

7.9 x 10"'4.8 x 10"4

3.0 X 10'5

4.7 x 10~*3.4 x 10"*1.3 x 10"'4.0 x 10"4

5.0 x 10"*1.1 x KT*1.5 x 10-*

1.0 X 10" - 1.3 x 10"'7.3 X 10-3 - 6.1 x 10"4

3.0 x lO"9 - 3.0 x 10"*4.0 X 10"7 - 2.0 x 10"3

TABLE X m . TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS Fm FOR SHEEP MILK (d/L)

Element Expected RangeType of

dataReference

SrAgI

Cs

PuAm

5.6 x 10"2

<6.0 X 10"2

4.9 x 10"'

5.8 x 10"2

9.4 X .10"*1.4 x 10"5

8.0 x 10"2 - 9.4 X 10"'

6.0 x 10"' - 1.2 X 10 '

ibbmbj

ii

[38][81][82][83][84][38][85][38][38]

TABLE XTV. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS Fm FOR GOAT MILK (d/L)

Element

'H(OBT)ZnSr

ZrNbMoTc

TeI

Cs

BaNpPuAm

Expected

3.2 x 10"'2.7 x 10"2

2.8 x 1O"2

•5.5 X 10"*6.4 x 10"*9.0 x 10"'1.5 x 10^1.1 x 10"2

8.5 x 10"4

4.4 X 10''4.3 X 10"'

1.0 x 10'

4.6 x 10"'1.0 X 10"4

9.4 x 10"*1.4 x 10"5

2.26.0

6.0

9.0

X

X

X

X

Range

10-2 - 3.110'3 - 3.9

10"2 - 6.5

10"' - 4.7

XX

X

X

io-2

io-2

10'

10'

Type ofdata

naiaaaaa,q, Tc-99ma,q, Tc-99a,q, Tc-95ma,Te-123mhhbiaaaaii

Reference

[86][87][38][87][70][70][70][88][88][88][70][79]—

[89][38][87][47][70]

[62,63][38][38]

36

TABLE XV. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR BEEF Ff (d/kg)

Element

NaMgPClK :Ca :CrMnFe :Co i

Ni iC u <ZnRbSr 1

YZrNb :MoTc

Ru ii

Ag :Cd ASb ATeI A

Cs i

Ba 1Ce 1W 4Pb APo IRa SU 3Np 1Pu 1

1Am 4

1

Expected

8 x2 x5 x1 X1 X2 x? X

5 X2 xnote

5 x) XL x1 Xi x1 X1 X

Xi X

XXX

> X\ X( Xt X[ X1 X

\ X

X. X

! x. X

1 X^ X

XXXXXXXX

io-2

io-2

io-2

io-2

io-2

io-3

io-3

10"io-2

r

io-3

io-3

10"'io-2

10"3

10"'io-3

10"*io-7

io-3

lO" 4

IO-6

io-2

io-'io-3

10"io-5

10"3

10"2

io-2

10"'10"10"s

io-2

10"io-3

lO"4

10"lO"3

10" 5

io-3

io-5

io-3

4

7

424

54

3

112

4

7

14

165

2

4

X

X

XXX

XX

X

XXX

X

X

XX

XXX

X

X

Range

10"2 - 6 x

10"* - 3 x

10"* - 7 x10"3 - 5 X10-5 - 7 x

10"3 - 1 x10"2 - 2 x

10" - 8 x

10" - 5 x10"2 - 4 X10'3 - 6 X

10'5 - 5 X

10"3 - 5 x

10'2 - 6 x10"2 - 6 x

10"* - 7 X10"4 - 5 X10"* - 5 X

10'7 - 2 x

10-6 - 1 X

10"2

10"3

IO-4

io-2

io-2

io-2

io-'

io-3

io-2

io-'io-3

io-3

io-2

io-2

10"'

10"io-3

10"3

10"

10"

Type ofdata

d,tc.tc,d,th,td,tCddc,d,ec,d,eb,c,d,e,hbbdhCdCddg, beefg, vealeaaah,q, Tc-95mh,q, Tc-99mg, beefg, vealhcaa,Te-123mb

g, beefg, vealahdc,eeghhi, beefi, veali, beefi, veal

Reference

[39][39][39][69][39][39][39][39][39][39][73][90][91][74][39][39][39][38][38][39][70][70][70][69][69][38][38][75][39][76][70][78]r£Qiloyj[38][38][70][75][39][39][39][80][74][91][38][38][38][38]

37

TABLE XVI. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR SHEEP MEAT F{ (d/kg)

Element Expected Range ^P6 ° Reference

S 1.4 1.2-2.1 c,t [39]Mn 5.9 X 1(T3 2.0 x lO'3 - 1.0 x 10"2 c [39]Fe 7.3 X 10"2 c [39]Co 6.2 X 10"2 c [39]Cu 3.9 X 10"2 c [39]Zn 4.1 c [39]Rb 1.5 X 10"1

: b, adult [92]6.9 X 10"1 b, lamb [92]

Sr 4.0 X 10"2 3.0 X 10"3 - 4.0 x 10'2 g, adult [38]3.3 X 10"1 g, lamb [38]

Nb 3.0 x 10" h [75]Ru 2.6 x 10'1 1.0 X 10"2-2.6 x 10'1 g, adult [38]

1.5 1 x 10*2- 1.5 g, lamb [38]Ag 2.7 X 10" 2.7 x 10"4 - 2.0 x 10~2 a [93]

[75]I 3.0 x W1 b [94]Cs 1.7 x 10"1 4.6 x 10-2 - 3.5 x 10"1 g, adult [38]

4.9 x 10'1 1.0 x 10-1 - 1.6 g, lamb [38]Ce 2.0 X 10"4 h [75]Pu 9.4 x 10"5 5.0 x 10-6-1 .0 x 10"3 i, adult [38]

3.1 X 10"3 i, lamb [38]Am 2.0 X 10,-4 9.6 x 10-6 - 1.0 X 10"3 i, adult [38]

4.1 X 10"3 2.4 X 10"3 - 4,1 x 10"3 i, lamb [38]

The paucity of literature for which transfer coefficients have been explicitly

derived means that many transfer coefficients have to be derived from other sources,

such as stable element concentrations in feed and animal tissues, extrapolations from

single dose tracer experiments, and comparisons of elemental concentrations in

associated or unassociated meat or milk and feed [39, 58]. Where recent data have

become available which are more suitable for inclusion in this Handbook than previ-

ous estimates from reviews — for which assumptions have had to be made — only

the recent values are presented, although a range of values from reviews may also

be given. Collateral data, from other animal species, are used only when there are

no other sources of information such as for stable elements. These data must be

treated with caution.

38

TABLE XVH. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR GOAT MEAT Ff (d/kg)

Type ofElement Expected Range . Reference

^ e data

3H<PBT)SrZrNbTcTeCs

2.82.82.06.02.22.42.3

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

io-2

io-'io-5

io-5

i o -io-'IO-1 1.2 x 10"2 - 3.8 x 10"

Ba 1.3 x 10-5

b,na,baaTc-99mTe-123maaia

[86][95][70][70][70][70][47][87][38][70]

TABLE XVm. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR PORK Ff (d/kg)

Element

MnFeCoCuZnSeSi

NbTcRuAgCdICsCeUPuAm

Expected

3.6 x2.6 x

<2.0 x2.2 x1.5 x3.2 x4.0 X2.0 x1.5 x6.6 X2.0 x1.5 x3.3 x2.4 X1.0 x6.2 x8.0 X1.7 X

io-'io-2

IO-3

io-2

10"'IO-1

io-2

1 0 -1 0 -10"'io-2

io-2

io-3

IO-1

i o -io-2

io-J

i o -

1.9

1.45.4

2 x

1 x5 x

1.83.0

4.01.2

Range

x 10"' - 5.3

x 10'2 - 2.9x 10"2-2.4

10'' - 4.0 x

10- - 2.0 X10'3 - 6.6 x

X 10- - 3.3x 10"2- 1.1

X 10"* - 8.0X 10"5 - 1.7

x 10"'

x 10"2

x 10'1

io-2

i o -10"'

x 10'3

X 10"3

X 10-

Type ofdata

ccbccc

ghh,Tc-95m

ghcb,c

ghhii

Reference

[39][39][96][39][39][39][38][75][69][39][75][39][39][38][75][74][39][38]

39

TABLE XDC. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR POULTRY F{ (d/kg)

Element Expected Range ^ Referencedata

10 2 X 10 - 4 x

10"' 3 x 10"' - 7 x

5 x 10-' - 10

Cu 5 X 10"'

1 x 10'' - 4

-5

CaMnFeCo

4 X5 x12

ZnSeSr

YZrINbMo

798

16131

x 10

x 10x 10x 10x 10

9 x 10"' - 2

Tc 3 x 10"' 3 X 10"' - 2 x

7 x 10"' - 8

10-'

10' 0.3 - 10

RuAgCdTeCsBaLaCe

PrNdPm

HgU

PuAm

828 x6 x1 X9 x1 X

2 X

4 x3 X

9 X

2 X

3 x1

3 x6 x

0 .3-1

2 x 10'5 - 3 x 10"'2 X 10'5 - 6 X 103

c,ea,eca,c,e,hhchcc

gaeaaaaaa,Tc-95mh

ghea,Te-123m

gaeh,Ce-141h,Ce-144

eeehc

gg

[39][39][39][39][74][39][74][39][39][38][87][39][97][97][97][97][87][88][69][38][75][39][97][38][97][39][75][75][39][39][39][39][39][74][38][38]

40

TABLE XX. TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR EGG CONTENTS F f (d/kg)

Element

NaMgKCaMnFeCo

CuZnSeSr

YZrNbMoTcRuCdTeICsBaLaCe

PrNdPmUPuAm

Expected

6214 x 10"'6 x 10'2

11 x 10"'

5 x 10"'392 x 10''

2 x 10''2 x lO"4

1 x 10''9 x 10''35 x 10''1 x 10''534 x 10''9 x 10''9 x 10-'4 x 10-'9 x 10"'5 x 10"'3 x 10"4

2 x 10'2

15 x 10"4

4 x 10"'

4367

21

2

4

26

31

Range

x 10"' -X 10"2 -x 10"' -x 10"' -

x 10"' -- 5

X 10-' -

x 10"' -

- 4x 10"2 -

x 10"' -x 10'' -

6 x 10"'1 x 10"'25

7 x 10"'

6 x 10"'

6 x 10"'

2

8 x 10"'9 x 10'

Type ofdata

c,tc,tc,tc,ecb,ca,c,hhccciceaaaa,Tc-95miea,Te-123maiaeh,Ce-141h.Ce-144eeecbb

Reference

[39][39][39][39][39][39][39][74][39][39][39][38][87][39][97][97][97][97][38][39][97][97][38][97][39][75][75][39][39][39]

[39][39][39]

41

3.2.1. Milk

The milk transfer coefficient Fm represents the amount of the total daily intakeof a radionuclide that is transferred to a litre of milk at equilibrium (d/L). The valueslisted in Tables XII-XX are largely based on the reviews by Ng et al. [39] and Ng[58] and Coughtrey et al. [38, 59-64]. An explanation of the notes used in the TablesXII-XX is given below:

a) Based on the recovery of a single administered dose, stable or radioisotope.b) Based on repeated/continuous feeding of radioisotope.c) Based on comparisons of stable element concentrations in associated meat or

milk and feed (i.e. where concentrations have been determined in the feedstuffof the animal and in the associated food products).

d) Based on comparisons of stable element concentrations in unassociated meator milk and feed (i.e. where concentrations have been determined in unrelatedfeed and animal produce).

e) Based on collateral data, i.e. from other species. Use with caution.f) Based on assessment of Ng et al. [39] and Ng [58] and the additional references

quoted.g) Model prediction for equilibrium based on assessment of available data,h) Based on literature review.i) Model prediction for 100 days based on assessment of available data.j) Based on reviews by Coughtrey [38] and Howard [98] with additional data

from Vandercasteele et al. [99] and Voigt et al. [90].k) Transfer value depends on dietary intake [60] expected value given from Ng

et al. [68] and Voigt et al. [67] based on normal dietary levels.m) Experimental studies combined with model predictions.n) OBT is organically bound tritium.p) Cobalt transfer differs according to its chemical form. For organically bound

. cobalt a higher value of 3 x 10"4 is expected, whereas for inorganic forms alower value of 7 x 10~5 is appropriate.

q) Different values for different forms of technetium.r) See note p); for organically bound cobalt 1 x 10~2 and for inorganic cobalt

1 x 10"* is expected.s) Refers to organically bound form, the value for the inorganic form would be

expected to be higher.t) Element is homeostatically controlled and therefore, strictly speaking, a trans-

fer ratio should not be used.

3.2.2. Meat and eggs

The meat transfer coefficient F{ represents the amount of the daily intake ofa radionuclide by an animal that is transferred to one kilogram of animal product at

42

equilibrium or at slaughter. Although Ff values for caesium, strontium and iodineare relatively well documented for some animals, for many other radionuclides thedata are sparse (Tables XV-XX).

Higher radionuclide concentrations are often found in tissues other than mus-cle, particularly liver (for example, for plutonium, americium, cobalt, silver andruthenium) and bone (for example, for plutonium and americium). Information ontransfer to these other tissues can be found in Refs [38, 75].

4. FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS - FISH

The incorporation of radionuclides into food products derived from the aquaticenvironment such as fish and invertebrates may contribute to human exposure. In thissection data are given on two of the element dependent factors which must be takeninto account in the assessment of radiation dose, namely the absorption of radionu-clides on sediments and suspended matter and the accumulation of radionuclides infish.

4.1. ADSORPTION ON SEDIMENT AND SUSPENDED MATTER

The quantification of radionuclide adsorption to paniculate material in fresh-water bodies is usually expressed in terms of a distribution coefficient Kd, which foruse in radiological assessments can be defined as the ratio of the concentration ofa radionuclide adsorbed to solid particles to the concentration of that radionuclideleft in solution (Bq/kg dry or wet sediment per Bq/L). Key points necessary for thecorrect applicability of the A include [100]:

— the radionuclide should be present only in trace concentrations,— there should be a constant ratio between the radionuclide activity and the stable

chemical concentration, i.e. a constant specific activity,— equilibrium should exist between the compartments concerned.

Equilibrium rarely occurs in natural fresh water ecosystems owing to reactionssuch as mineral formation, non-ideality of ion exchange and the influence of seasonalfluctuations, and precipitation. Equally, the rapid movement of water and suspendedsediments in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters may not satisfy the assumption ofecosystem spatial and temporal equilibrium. The low solids to solution ratio presentin many water columns compared with laboratory systems usually studied may alsocomplicate the interpretation of the applicability of the. time dependent Kd data

43

TABLE XXI. GROSS AVERAGE A^ VALUES WITH EMPHASIS ONOXIDIZING CONDITIONS IN AQUEOUS SYSTEMS (L/kg) [100]

Fresh Water

Elements Expected Range

P1 High

Cr" Low 0 - 1 x 10'Mn' 1 x 10'Fe* 5 x 10'Co 5 X 10'Zn 5 x 102

Sr 1 x 10'Zr 1 x 10'Tc* 5I 10Cs 1 X 10'Ra 5 x 102

Ce 1 x 104

Pm 5 x 10'Eu 5 X 102

Th 1 x 10"U l 5 x 10'Np* 10Pu 1 X 105

Am 5 x 10'Cm 5 x 10'

° Dependent on oxidation-reduction conditions.

which are available. Alternatively, the high surface area and exchange capacity com-monly found for suspended sediments might allow a more rapid attainment ofequilibrium sorption [100].

Another factor making difficult the use of K^ values is the reversibility of thesorption process. In natural ecosystems it is becoming apparent that many radio-nuclides desorb at slower rates than the rates at which they adsorb and in steady stateconditions show a stronger affinity for the solid phase. This results in higher Kd

values measured in the desorption direction compared with those measured in theadsorption direction. Hence some degree of irreversibility is evident. A dynamicsystem equation, including both a time dependent adsorption KA and a time depen-dent desorption Kd may be a better approach [100].

44

1111

1

5181212I

19

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XXX

X

102-l10'-110'-7102- 18-4

10'- 10-10-8

10'-8102-l10'- 110'-1102-810'-110'-1lO'1 - 1102- 110'-410-7

X

X

XX

X

X

XXX

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

104

104

104

10'10'104

102

10'104

10'105

104

102

106

10'102

107

104

104

TABLE XXH. CONCENTRATION FACTORS (Bp) FOR EDIBLE PORTIONSOF FRESHWATER FISH (L/kg)

Element

3HHeBeCN0NaPSScCrMnFeCoNiCuZnBrRbSrYZrNbMoTcRuRhAgSnSbTeICsBaLaCePrNdPmEuTaWHgPbBiPoRaThPaUNpPuAmCm

Expected

111 x 102

5 X 104

2 X 105

12 X 10'5 X 104

8 X 102

1 X 1O2

2 X 102

4 X 101

2 X 1O2

3 X 102

1 X 1O2

2 X 102

1 X 103

4 x 102

2 X 103

6 x 10'3 X 10'3 x 102

3 x 102

102 x 10'101053 x 103

1 x 102

4 x 102 *4 x 10'2 x 103

43 x 10l

3 x 10'1 x 102

1 x 102

3 x 10'5 x 10'1 x 102

1 0 ,1 X 103

3 x 102

10 ,5 x 10'5 x 10'1 x 102

10

3 x 10'3 x 10'3 x 101

3 X 101

5 x

2 x3 x

4 X5 x5 x

5 x1 X

2 x

1 X

2 x

4 x2 x3 x

3 x3 x3 x

1 X

1 X

3 x

3 x3 x

Range

6 x 10'

103-5

1 0 ' - 11 0 3 - l

2 - 110'-210'-510'-210-3

10'-2102-3

102-91 - 1

3 - 3102-3

2 - 810-2

X

XX

XXXXX

XX

XX

XX

XX

10"' - 10

1-2102 - 110' -610'-3

4 - 2

10'-510'-110' -110-210-2

102-310-1

102-3

10-510-2

10'-1

2 - 510-34 - 3

10' - 310'-3

XXXXX

XXXXXXX

X

XXX

XXXXX

- 1

104

102

103

102

10102

10102

io2

103

103

103

io2

104

10'102

102

103

102

10?102 |

1102 |10 |10 |

References

[101-107][105][108][101,102,104,105][106]•106]1,101,103-105,107];i,101,103-105,109]1,104,105]103-105]1,101,104,105,107]1,100,101,103-107,109]1,100,101,103-105,107]1,100,101-107,109]1,103-105,107,109]100,104,105]101,103-105,107-110]104,105]100,104,105]1,102-107,109]1,104,105]1,101,103-105,107,109]1,101,103-105,107,109]103-105,107,109]1,103-105,109]1,101,102-105,107]104,105)1,101,104,105,107]104,105]1,101,103-105,107,109]1,104,107]1,101-107,109]1,101-109]1,100,102-105,107,109]1,104,105,107]1,101,103-105,107,109]104,105]104,105]

102 [1,101,104,105,107]102 [ 101,104,105]104 [104,105]103 [104,105]

[105]102 [1,104,105]

[1,104,105]102 [1,104,105]102 [1,101-105]104 [1,103-105]

[1,104,105]10' [1,101,105,107,109]103 [1,101,103-105,107,109]102 [1,101,102,104,105,107,109]102 [1,101,103-105,107,109]102 [1,101,103-107,109]

45

However, the Kd concept has proven invaluable for die prediction of radionu-clide migration as long as the qualifying assumptions are met and the system beingstudied is reasonably well understood. High Kd values indicate a higher adsorptionand thus a slower movement of radionuclides.

As indicated, it is impossible to generalize and establish one Kd for eachnuclide. However, to satisfy the needs of modellers, Table XXI is cited from Onishiet al. [100].

Expected Kd values should be considered to vary by about an order of magni-tude for those values greater than 102. Therefore, the use of these simplistic Kd

values can be misleading. When an understanding of the mechanisms involved inadsorption of a specific radionuclide has been elucidated, more site dependent ATd

values can be derived or determined, leading to better predictions. Finally, althoughthe ATd concept for soils and sediments is based on the same assumptions, numericalvalues differ because of different ecological conditions.

4.2. FRESHWATER FISH

For equilibrium situations the incorporation of radioactivity into aquatic faunais normally expressed as the concentration factor Bp defined as the ratio of theactivity concentration in animal tissue to that in water (Bq/kg wet or dry weightorganism per Bq/kg or Bq/L water). Table XXII gives concentration factors B? forfreshwater fish. The range of recommended values is rather wide because the ranges

TABLE XXffl. CONCENTRATION FACTORS Bp FOR STRONTIUM ANDCAESIUM IN FISH AS A FUNCTION OF Ca AND K CONCENTRATION INWATER

Cs log Bp(Cs) = 4.3 - 0.72 x log (tfw) + 0.297 - 0.23 x log(S), where

K,, is the concentration of K in water (jiM/h)T is the trophic level (equal to 1 for piscivorous fish and 0 for

non-piscivorous fish$ is the suspended sediment concentration (mg/L).

Sr flp(Sr) » exp(5.18 - 1.21 X lnCCaJ). where

Ca« is the concentration of Ca in water (mg/kg)

Note: In refers to natural logarithms and log to logarithms to base 10.

46

include both piscivorous and bottom-feeding fish. The latter take up more radioactiv-ity than the former [110]. The uptake of radionuclides is age dependent for manyspecies and this causes further variability of the values.

Freshwater invertebrates — molluscs and Crustacea — are usually of minorrelevance for the human food chain and therefore are not included in this Handbook.

For radionuclides of strontium and caesium, expressions have been derivedwhich allow calculation of bioaccumulation factors for freshwater fish as inversefunctions of calcium and potassium water concentrations, respectively [110, 111].They can be used if site specific concentrations of potassium and calcium in water,CwK and CwCa respectively, are available (see Table XXIH).

5. NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS

This section is largely derived from the second report of the VAMP TerrestrialWorking Group [112].

Natural and seminatural ecosystems include areas such as heathlands, uplands,marshlands and tundra. Non-intensively managed forests and mountain pastures mayalso be included.

Before the Chernobyl accident, only the contamination associated with rein-deer had been systematically investigated. Since then many other data have becomeavailable; they are mainly derived from northwestern Europe and the Nordiccountries.

The consumption of products from natural and seminatural areas by the generalpopulation is low, but groups such as hunters and berry and fungi pickers may con-sume relatively large quantities.

For various reasons the transfer processes in natural ecosystems tend to berather complex, and transfer parameters of the type used elsewhere in this Handbookare difficult to derive. A simple empirical approach is used in Table XXIV; anaggregated transfer parameter is used to relate the activity concentration in the foodproduct (Bq/kg) to the activity of the surface deposit per unit area (Bq/m2). Theparameter values relate to the period after deposition has ceased, when the directlydeposited material on the plant has been removed or lost (several months after depo-sition). Information on the time dependence of the aggregated transfer parametersis sparse; in many natural ecosystems the ecological half-life is very long and inextreme cases the effective half-life may be determined by the physical half-life ofthe radionuclide. .

47

TABLE XXIV. AGGREGATED TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS FOR Cs-137 TO

FOOD PRODUCTS FROM SEMI-NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS (m2/kg) [112]

Food product

Fungi (dw)Cantharellus cibariusCantharellus tubaeformis

Lactarius trivialisLeccinum versipelleLeccinum scabmm

Boletus edulisRozites caperataXerocomus badiusXerocomus chrysenteron

Berries (dw)CloudberrryLingonberryBilberry

Honey (fw)Game animals (fw)

Moose meatRoedeer meatRed deer meatArctic hareBrown hare

Domesticated animals (fw)Sheep meatGoat milkCow milkBeefReindeer (summer)

(winter)

Expected value

3 x 10"'7 x 10"'

1.81 X 10"'3 x 10"*7 x 10"*

1.91.51.0

1 x 10"'4 X 10"*4 x 10"*

5 x 10"'

2 x 10"*5 x 10"*3 x 10'*3 x 10"*4 X 10"'

4 x 10"*4 x 10"'2 X 10"'6 x 10"'1 X 10"'8 X 10"'

Range

1 x 10"* - 6 x 10"'1 x 10"' - 12 X 10"* - 55 X 10"' - 7 X 10"'

3 x 10"' - 38 x 10"' - 32 x 10"' - 72 x 10"' - 2 x 10"'

2 x 10"' - 2 x 10"'3 X 10"* - 4 X 10'2

2 X 10'* - 4 X 10"*

4 x 10"5 - 1 x 10"'

6 x 10"' - 3 x 10"*1 X 10"' - 2 x 10"'2 x 10~2 - 4 x 10"2

9 x 10-' - 1 x 10"'2 X 10"' - 5 x 10"*

1 X 10"* - 7 X 10"*2 X 10"' - 1 X 10"*1 x 10"' - 2 x 10"*

2 x 10"* - 1 X 10''6 x 10"' - 1

5.1. BERRIES, FUNGI AND HONEY

Typical products of natural ecosystems in temperate climates are berries, fungi

and honey.

The variability of the contamination of fungi is very large. Soil type, time and

other unknown factors determine the uptake. It is therefore difficult to recommend

48

particular values for the different types of fungi. For caesium a geometric mean ofthe values listed in Table XXIV may be a good choice. Most of the caesium in naturalecosystems is still present in the first centimetre of the soil. With time it will beleached downwards and the uptake of the caesium by fungi with a deep myceliummay therefore increase with time. Strontium-90 levels in fungi are lower than inhigher plants; they correspond to the low levels of the analogue element calcium.

Berries in natural ecosystems such as the northwest European upland peat bogsoils are effective accumulators of caesium. However, their contribution to the137Cs uptake by humans is, in general, less than the uptake via fungi.

Honey as collected from the wild species Calluna vulgaris and Erica tetralixalso accumulates caesium. Observations stem not only from the aforementionedupland soils, but also from the poor, low organic matter, heather fields in centralEurope.

5.2. GAME ANIMALS

Moose

Moose (Alces alces) graze mainly on leaves from trees and shrubs in summerwhile in autumn they also consume berries and heather. The caesium level thereforevaries slightly with time and may be highest in autumn. The bioavailability ofcaesium in ecosystems grazed by moose seems to be rather constant, and thereforethe physical half-life determines the effective half-life.

Roe deer

Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) eat a wide variety of herbs, grasses and alsofungi when they are available. Caesium levels in roe deer peak in August and Sep-tember when fungi are abundant. An average aggregated transfer coefficient maythus be misleading. The effective half-life in this system is difficult to determinebecause of the wide seasonal variation.

Reindeer

Reindeer graze pastures in summer; in winter, lichens form their main food.Because of their nomadic behaviour it is, in principle, difficult to derive anaggregated transfer parameter. The VAMP report [112] mentions values of0.6-1.1 m2/kg during the first winter after deposition, while for August a value of0.5 is reported. In general, the caesium concentration during the summer and earlyautumn (northern Hemisphere) is less then 10 or 20% of the winter concentration.The bioavailability of caesium depends on local conditions. The effective half-lifevaries from 5 to 10 years, but both lower and higher values are reported [112].

49

5.3. DOMESTIC ANIMALS

The domesticated animals in natural or seminatural ecosystems include sheep,goats and cattle. An important foodstuff for these animals is grass, but many otherherbs are also consumed. Because the soil-to-plant transfer of caesium to herbs isconsiderably higher (often an order of magnitude) than the transfer to grass, caesiumlevels in animals in seminatural ecosystems are higher than in comparable artificialsystems. Moreover, goats and sheep consume mushrooms if they are available, andsheep also eat heather.

The bioavailability of caesium in natural or seminatural upland pasturesdecreases less with time then in most artificial pastures. The low temperature, highorganic matter content and high moisture contents lead to the production of ammo-nium ions by microorganisms. The ammonium ions counteract the fixation of 137Csby illite and other soil parts. Leaching and physical decay will therefore determinethe effective half-life.

6. FOOD PROCESSING TRANSFER PARAMETERS

The concentration of radionuclides in food will be affected by industrial anddomestic processes such as extraction during boiling, removal of certain parts of theraw food (eg. bran, peel, shell, bone) and drying or dilution. Neglecting the lossesduring food processing can lead to overestimation of the calculated dose.

Data on the behaviour of many radionuclides during food processing arescarce. The exceptions are caesium, strontium and iodine. Some measurements weremade in the 1960s at a time when there was concern over the consequences of radio-nuclide transfer from nuclear weapons testing into the human food chain. Since thenuclear accident at Chernobyl, new measurements have become available. Recently,Noordijk and Quinault [113] reviewed the existing literature with in the frameworkof the CEC and VAMP programmes. The main results are shown in Tables

xxv-xxxn.A serious difficulty was the lack of uniform definitions of the transfer of radio-

nuclides to processed foods [216-219], In the context of mis work, FT was definedas the total amount of a radionuclide in processed food divided by the total amountof the radionuclide in the original raw food (Bq processed per Bq raw). Thus, Fr isthe fraction of radionuclides which is retained in the food after processing.

50

In order to avoid misinterpretations, this definition is illustrated with referenceto caesium and strontium. The Ft value of 0.4 for caesium in boiled meat indicatesthat only 40% of the caesium present in raw meat is retained after boiling, 60% isremoved into the boiling liquid (Table XXVI). In the case of dairy products(Table XXV) the yield of each product is important. For example, an Fr value of0.61 for strontium in goat cheese indicates that 39% is removed by the conversionof goat milk to cheese, but, owing to the 12% yield of cheese, the concentration ofstrontium in goat cheese is 0.61/0.12 = 5 times the concentration in goat milk. Theratio (kg prepared food)/(kg raw product) is called the processing efficiency Pe.

Ft values for animal food products are all based on contamination in vivo. Alldata on plants refer to the contamination of the edible product, generally contami-nated via root uptake followed by translocation. For vegetables FT values based on'external contamination' are also presented. A product is said to be externally con-taminated when the leaves are contaminated by spraying, painting, deposition, etc.and the time lag between contamination and processing is short enough to ensure thatthe majority of the radionuclides have not migrated from the surface into the plant.

It must be stressed that a thorough knowledge of the food consumption schemeis required. For example, all Ft values referring to extraction procedures such ascooking and frying apply only when the extraction liquid is removed and not usedfor other culinary purposes.

Milk may pose a problem. It should be known which coagulation process isused for cheese making — the acid or rennet process. Further, it should not beassumed beforehand that all whey will be discarded as waste or animal feed. Thefood industry has found ways to use whey as an additive to human food. If all wheyand buttermilk is used for human consumption, it is more accurate to use an Ft of1.0 for all milk.

51

OS

N Ol © — ©o © d o ©n to tn f> "SOf-; O p ©

do o d d

N 00 N

i i iq 8 8o d d

s 8d d

c > <=>

2 S

© o

O ft

? 2 d

£ SSo d d s 00 -< MO —< Mo d d

S

5

2 &m inO eo

o o8S 8 8o d d —

irt <*i N Ki— M — qo o o d

S8 = Sd d d d

£

P Rd d

<=> <555 SS S

<5>

IT) VO«M OS

o o

«r> © T

8 8 8 8© © © —

22d d

3

52

S 5 iid d

R

2 Sd < ?ssd d d d

§ 3

5 qd d

S3d?

PSd d

w-i oo

28d d

a 4)

j I153

TABLE XXVI. FOOD PROCESSING RETENTION FACTOR Ft AND THEPROCESSING EFFICIENCY Pe FOR MEAT

(Italic data denote expected values) [114, 139, 152-170]

Raw material

Meat ofmammals(cow, pigsheep, deerrabbit)

Birds

Fish

Method of

processing

Boiling meatBoiling boneFrying, roastingor grilling meatMincing meatMicrowave bakingPickling wet

dryMarinatingSausage production

Boiling meatBaking meat

Boiling meatFrying meat

Sr

0.5 0.4-0.90.990.8

0.5

0.9

Cs I Ru

0.4 0.2-0.7 0.6 0.30.2-0.3 0.98 0.70.5-0.8

0.40.4-0.50.1-0.70.80.1-0.60.4-1.0

0.7-0.8

0.7 0.2-0.90.8-0.9

Pe

0.71.00.4-0.7

0.4-0.70.9

0.5-0.90.7-0.8

TABLE XXVH. FOOD PROCESSING RETENTION FACTOR Ft AND THEPROCESSING EFFICIENCY Pe FOR-LOWER SEA ORGANISMS [170, 171]

Organism Method of processing Fr values

Crevette Cooking Ra: 0.04-0.5 Pb: 0.0-0.4Po: 0.04-0.8

0.35

Mussels Washing and removalof flesh

Ra: 0.01 Pb: 0.5 Po: 0.02 0.25

Algues Alginate productionSatiagum production

Tc: 0.02 Ru,Rh: 0.07 Sr: 0.6 0.04Ru,Rh:0.04 Co: 0.04 0.08

54

TABLE XXVHI. FOOD PROCESSING RETENTION FACTOR Ft AND THE

PROCESSING EFFICIENCY Pe FOR VEGETABLES AND FRUIT (Data are

based on total contamination of the plant) [115, 139, 172-196]

Plant

Spinach

Lettuce

Cabbage

Cauliflower

Beans

Tomatoes

Onions

Mushrooms

Cucumbers

Peaches

Strawberries

Berries

Mushrooms

Method of processing

WashingWashing and blanchingCooking and rinsingCanningFreezing

Removing inedible partsBlanching

MarinatingWashingWashing and blanchingCooking and rinsingFreezingCanning

Peeling

WashingBlanchingCanningFroth flotationBrine grading

WashingPeeling and slicingCanningFrying

Peeling, washing and boiling

BoilingBoiling in 2% NaClCanning

PicklingCanning

PeelingCanningLye peeling

Rinsing

Making purdeRinsing

ParboilingSoaking of dried mushroomsParboiling, salting and soaking

Sr

0.4-1.00.4-1.00.90.51.0

0.3-0.9

0.30.4-1.00.80.2-0.90.4

0.10.3-1.00.3-0.80.4-0.60.6

0.70.70.80.5

0.5

0.7-0.90.20.5

0.35

0.50.50.09

0.7

Cs

0.60.5-0.61.00.2

0.50.1-0.6

0.90.90.1-1.0

0.70.2

0.5

0.6-0.90.4-1.01.01.0

0.2-0.50.20.5

0.150.06

0.03

0.6

0.6-0.80.8

0.1-0.40.1-0.20.00

Other nuclides Pt

1.00.8

Co: 0.9 0.70.70.7

0.70.5

Ru: 0.5 0.91.00.70.70.70.7

0.7

1.00.9

1.00.9

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.0

0.6-0.8

55

TABLE X X K . FOOD PROCESSING RETENTION FACTOR FT AND THEPROCESSING EFFICIENCY P e FOR VEGETABLES AND FRUIT (Data arebased on external contamination only) [139, 172-196]

Plant

Spinach

Lettuce

Cabbage

Method ofprocessing

WashingWashing and blanchingCooking and rinsing

WashingRemoving inedible parts

Removing inedible partsWashingWashing and blanchingCooking and rinsing

Cauliflower Peeling

Beans

Tomatoes

Onions

WashingBlanchingFroth flotationBrine grading

WashingBoiling

Removing inedible partsWashing

Mushrooms Boiling in 2% NaCl

Berries RinsingMaking pur&Boiling

Sr

0.20.4-0.7

0.070.3

0.30.40.4

Cs

0.2-0.90.2-0.9

0.2-1.00.1-0.4

0.90.090.2-0.7

0.05-0.2

0.30.40.4

0.20.3

0.3

0.8-0.9

0.3-0.5

I

0.07-0.80.6-0.70.4

0.1-0.50.1-0.4

0.50.4

0.2-0.5

0.03

0.70.2

0.50.2

0.20.2

0.2

Othernuclides

Ru: 0.4-0.8Ru: 0.5-0.8

Ru: 0.2Ru: 0.01-0.3

Ru: 0.7-1.0

Ru: 0.02

Ru: 0.2

Ru: 0.8-1.0Ru: 0.7Te: 0.3-0.7Ba: 0.6-0.9Zr: 1.0

Pc

1.00.80.7

1.00.7

0.81.00.70.7

0.7

1.00.9

1.00.7

0.91.0

0.6-0.8

56

IuE

ozCO

5 £

Yn OO

2 ^

b OS*

CQ O< a :H u

U

u

OS OO 0 0 SO 0 0 SO • SO

d d d d d d doo oo o oo r-;© © oo © ©

d

00 Os ooo d d

oI

d

IT;

d d

<£

E

<£<£

os ood «?•00 IO >O

o d d

o

oo © © qo — — d

vi in h- ind o o d

E

7 ??OS W) f - VO

d d d dd d

oo «»-

d dood

SO so.,

d o"

r- Sd d

toU

57

TABLE XXXI. FOOD PROCESSING RETENTION FACTOR Fr AND THEPROCESSING EFFICIENCY Pt FOR CEREALS [125, 139, 172, 177, 196,199-209]

Raw material

Wheat grain

Durum wheatgrain

Rye grain

Barley grain

Oats grain

Pasta

Method of processing

Milling to white flourMilling to dark flourMilling to semolinaMilling to branCooking wheat sproutsShredding or puffing wheat

Milling to flourMilling to groat and groatdustMilling to bran

Milling to white flourMilling to dark flourMilling to branCooking rye sprouts

Milling to white flourMilling to semolinaMilling to bran

Milling to white flour

Cooking (of shelf products)

Sr

0.09-0.50.1-0.2

0.6-0.9

0.6

0.5

0.3

Cs

0.2-0.60.05-0.10.15-0.50.5-0.60.90.1-0.15

0.1-0.60.3-0.40.4-0.5

0.3-0.60.20.35-0.70.8-0.9

0.2-0.60.350.4

0.4

0.8-0.9

Pu, Am

0.1-0.2

0.2

0.1-0.2

0.4

ft,"

0.70.05-0.10.2-0.30.1-0.21.80.9-0.95

0.08-0.80.6-0.70.2

0.6-0.80.10.15-0.41.9-2.4

0.6-0.80.10.4

0.4

2.2

TABLE XXXH. POOD PROCESSING RETENTION FACTOR Fr AND THEPROCESSING EFFICIENCY Pe FOR DRINKS [139, 178, 210-215]

Raw material

Surface waste

Tea

Herb tea

Berries

Method of processing Sr

Conventional treatmentto tap water 1.0

Brewing 2 minutesBrewing 8 minutes

Brewing

Pressing to juiceSteaming to juice

Cs

0.7

0.40.6

0.04-0.6

0.8-0.90.2-0.6

Other radionudides

Ru: 0.3Co: 0.41:0.8

ft,"

0.8-0.90.3-0.7

58

REFERENCES

[1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Generic Models and Parametersfor Assessing the Environmental Transfer of Radionuclides from Routine Releases,Exposures of Critical Groups, Safety Series No. 57, IAEA, Vienna (1982).

[2] INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RADIOECOLOGISTS, Eight Report of the IURWorking Group on Soil-to-Plant Transfer, IUR, Balen, Belgium (1992).

[3] KIRCHMANN, R., Uptake Data of Cs by Maize, Fifth report of the IUR WorkingGroup on Soil-to-Plant Transfer, RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands (1987) 109.

[4] ANDERSEN, A.J., Investigations of the Plant Uptake of Fission Products from Con-taminated Soils, n. The Uptake of Radioactive Sr Placed at Different Depths in Soils,Rep. 174, Risd National Lab., Roskilde (1967) 1-18:

[5] CHAMBERLAIN, A.C., GARLAND J.A., Interception of Radioactive Fallout byVegetation, Rep. AERE R13826, Harwell (1991).

[6] CHAMBERLAIN, A.C., Interception and retention of radioactive aerosols by vegeta-tion, Atmos. Environ. 4 (1970) 57-58.

[7] CHAMBERLAIN, A.C., CHADWICK, R.C., Deposition of spores and other particleson vegetation and soil, Ann. Appl. Biol. 71 (1972) 141-158.

[8] PETERS, L.N., WITHERSPOON, J.P., Retention of 44-88 /an simulated fallout par-ticles by grasses, Health Phys. 22 (1972) 261-266.

[9] ERIKSSON, A., Direct Uptake by Vegetation of Deposited Materials, Rep. SLU-IRB-42, Agricultural College of Sweden, Uppsala (1977).

[10] PINDER. J.E., CIRAVOLO, T.G., BOWLING, J.W., The interrelationships amongplant biomass, plant surface area and the interception of particulate deposition ongrasses, Health Phys. 55 (1988) 51-58.

[11] AARKROG, A., The direct contamination of rye, barley, wheat and oats with Sr-85,Cs-134, Mn-54, and Ce-141, Radiat. Bot. 9 (1969) 357-366.

[12] VOIGT, G., PROHL, G., MULLER, H., Experiments on the seasonally of the cesiumtranslocation in cereals, potatoes and vegetables, J. Environ. Biophys. 30 (1991) 295.

[13] HOFFMAN, F.O., et al., Pasture Grass Interception and Retention of >3II, 7Be andInsoluble Microspheres Deposited in Rain, Rep."ORNL 6542, Oak Ridge Natl Lab.,TN (1989).

[14] MILBOURN, G.M., TAYLOR, R., The contamination of grassland with radioactivestrontium. I. Initial retention and loss, Radiat. Bot. 5 (1965) 337-347.

[15] HOFFMAN, F.O., Interception and retention of technetium by vegetation and soil, J.Environ. Quality 11 (1982) 134-141.

[16] ANGELETTI, L., LEVI, E., Etude comparative des factures de transfer de l'eau, del'iode et du strontium sur le ray-grass et le trefle, Rep. CEA-R-4860, Centre d'e'tudesde Bruyeres-le-Chatel (1977).

[17] AARKROG, A., Direct Contamination of Barley with Be-7, Na-22, Cd-115, Sb-125,Cs-134 and Ba-133, Rep. 256, Rise Natl Lab., Roskilde (1972) 163-175.

[18] AARKROG, A., LIPERT, J., Direct contamination of barley with Cr-51, Fe-59,Co-58, Zn-65, Hg-203 and Pb-210, Rad. Bot. 11 (1971) 463-472.

[19] AARKROG, A., Radionuclide levels in mature grain related to radiostrontium contentand time of direct contamination, Health Phys. 28 (1975) 557-562.

59

[20] MIDDLETON, L.J., Radioactive strontium and cesium in the edible parts of cropsafter foliar contamination, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 4 (1959) 387-402.

[21] MILLER, C.W., HOFFMAN, F.O., An examination of the environmental half-timefor radionuclides deposited on vegetation, Health Phys. 45 (1983) 731-744.

[22] PETERSON, H.T., "Terrestrial and aquatic food chain pathways", RadiologicalAssessment, A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis (TILL, J.E., MEYER,H.R., Eds), Rep. NUREG/CR-3322, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,DC (1984).

[23] GARLAND, J.A., PATTENDEN, K,., P L A Y F O R D , K., "Resuspension followingChernobyl", Modelling of Resuspension, Seasonality and Losses during Food Process-ing, IAEA-TECDOC-647, Vienna (1992) 27.

[24] FRISSEL, M.J., HEISTERKAMP, S., Geometric Mean TF-values Calculated with

Multilinear Regression Analyses, Sixth Report of IUR Working Group on Soil-to-PlantTransfer Factors, RIVM, Bilthoven (1989).

[25] NG. Y.C., COLSHER C.S., THOMPSON, S.E., Soil-to-Plant Concentration Factorsfor Radiological Assessments, Rep. NUREG/CR-2975 UCID-19463, Lawrence Liver-more Nat. Lab., CA (1982).

[26] FRISSEL, M.J., van BERGEUK, K.E., Mean Transfer Values Derived by SimpleStatistical Regression Analysis, Sixth Report of IUR Working Group on Soil-to-PlantTransfer Factors, RIVM, Bilthoven (1989).

[27] FRISSEL, M.J., An Update of the Recommended Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors,Eighth Report of the IUR Working Group on Soil-to-Plant Transfer, IUR, Balen, Bel-gium (1992).

[28] GERZABEK, M.H., HORAK, O., MOHAMAD, S., MUCK, K., GefaBversuche zumRadionuklidtransfer Boden-Pflanze, Fusionsreaktor — Erste Wand, Rep. OEFZSA-2531, Osterreichisches Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf (1993) 22-31.

[29] MYTTENAERE, C , BOURDEAU, P., MASSET, M., Relative importance of soiland water in the indirect contamination of flooded rice with radiocaesium, Health Phys.16(1969)701-707. . .,

[30] HOLZER, F., WICHTEREY, K., Ermittlung von Transferfaktoren fur den Ubergangnaturlicher Radionuklide vom Boden in die Pflanzen im Uranerzbergbaugebiet, Jahres-bericht des Bundesamtes fur Strahlenschutz (1991) 146.

[31] PIETRZAK-FLIS, Z., personal communication, .1993.[32] BILO, M., Untersuchungen zum Transfer des durch den Reaktorunfall von Tscher-

nobyl abgelagerten Radiocasiums vom Boden in die Pflanze, Thesis, Tubingen (1991);ZEZINA, N., personal communication.

[33] INTERNATIpNAL UNION OF RADIOECOLOGISTS, Soil Adhesion, SeventhReport of the Working Group on Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors, RTVM, Bilthoven(1990)4.

[34] McLEQD, K.W., ALBERTS, J.J., ADRIANO, D.C., PINDER, J.E., m, Plutoniumcontents of broadleaf vegetable crops grown near a nuclear fuel chemical separationsfacility, Health Phys. 46 (1984) 261-267.

[35] PINDER, J.E., m, McLEOD, K.W., Contaminant Transport in AgroecosystemsThrough Retention of Soil Particles on Plant Surfaces (1988).

[36] PINDER m, J.E., McLEOD, K.W., Mass loading of soil particles on plant surfaces,Health Phys. 57 (1989) 935-942.

60

[37] SHEPPARD M.E., THIBAULT D.H., Default soil solid/liquid partition coefficients,krfS, for four major soil types: A compendium, Health Phys. 59 4 (1990) 471-482.

[38] COUGHTREY, P.J., Radioactivity Transfer to Animal Products, Rep. EUR 12608EN, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1990).

[39] NG, Y.C., COLSHER, C.S., THOMPSON, S.E., Transfer Coefficients for Assessingthe Dose from Radionuclides in Meat and Eggs, Final Rep. to USNRC,NUREG/CR-2976, UCID-19464, Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab., CA (1982).

[40] KOLB, E., GURTLER, H., Emahrungsphysiologie landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere,

Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena (1971).[41] MA YES, R.W., The quantification of dietary intake, digestion and metabolism in farm

livestock and its relevance to the study of radionudide uptake, Sci. Total Environ. 85(1989) 29-51.

[42] HEALY, W.B., Ingestion of soU by dairy cows, N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 11 (1968)487-499.

[43] BERESFORD, N.A., HOWARD, B.J., The importance of soil adhered to vegetationas source of radionuclides ingested by grazing animals, Sci. Total Environ. 107 (1991)237-254.

[44] RAFFERTY, B., DAWSON, D.E., Soil and radiocaesium contamination of winter

fodders, Sci. Total Environ, (in press).

[45] ZACH, R., MAYOH, K.R., Soil ingestion by cattle: A neglected pathway, HealthPhys. 46 (1984) 426-431.

[46] GREEN, N., DODD, N. J., The uptake of radionuclides from inadvertent consumptionof soil by grazing animals, Sci. Total Environ. 69 (1988) 367-377.

[47] HANSEN, H.S., HOVE, K., Radiocaesium bioavailability: Transfer of Chernobyl andtracer radiocaesium to goat milk, Health Phys. 60 (1991) 665-673.

[48] BELLI, M., et al., Ingested soil as a source of >31Cs to ruminants, Sci. Total Environ.136 3 (1993) 243-250.

[49] CROUT, N.M.J., BERESFORD, N.A., HOWARD, B.J., Does soU adhesion matterwhen predicting radiocaesium transfer to animals? J. Environ. Radioact. 20 (1993) 201.

[50] ASSIMAKOPOULOS, P.A., et al., Radiocaesium transfer to sheep's milk as a resultof soil ingestion, Sci. Total Environ. 136 1, 2 (1993) 13-24.

[51] WARD, G.M., JOHNSON, J.E., The Cs-137 content of beef from dairy and feed-lotcattle, Health Phys. 11 (1965) 95-100.

[52] WARD, G.E., JOHNSON, J.E., Validity of the term Transfer Coefficient, HealthPhys. 50(1986)411-414.

[53] JOHNSON, J.E., WARD, G.M., FIRESTONE, E., KNOX, K.L., Metabolism ofradioactive cesium (l34Cs and 137Cs) and potassium of dairy cattle as influenced byhigh and lower forage diets, J. Nutr. 94 (1968) 282-288.

[54] DESMET, G.M., VON LOON, L.R., HOWARD, B.J., Chemical speciation andbioavailability of elements in the environment and their relevance to radioecology, Sci.Total Environ. 100 (1990) 105-124.

[55] BERESFORD, N.A., LAMB, C.S., MAYES, R.W., HOWARD, B.J., COLGROVE,P.M., The effect of treating pastures with bentonite on the transfer of 137Cs fromgrazed herbage to sheep, J. Environ. Radioact. 9 (1989) 251-264.

61

[56] HOVE, K., SOLHEIM HANSEN, H., in: NLVFs Forskningsprogram om RadioaktivtNedfeU, Seminar Nov. 1989 (GUNNEROD, T.B., GARMO, T.H., Eds), No. 1 (1990)107-116.

[57] WARD, G.M., KESZTHELY1, Z., KANYAR, B., KRALONVANSZKY, U.P.,JOHNSON, J.E., Transfer of l37Cs to milk and njeat in Hungary from Chernobyl fall-out with comparisons of worldwide fallout in the 1960s, Health Phys. 57 (1989)587-592.

[58] NG, Y.C., A review of transfer factors for assessing the dose from radionuclides inagricultural products, Nucl. Saf. 23 (1982) 57-71.

[59] COUGHTREY, P.C., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distribution and Transport inTerrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A Critical Review of Data, Vol. 1, Balkema, Rot-terdam (1982).

[60] COUGHTREY, P.C., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distribution and Transport inTerrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A Critical Review of Data, Vol. 2, Balkema, Rot-terdam (1983).

[61] COUGHTREY, P.C., JACKSON, D., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distributionand Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A Critical Review of Data, Vol.3 , Balkema, Rotterdam (1983).

[62] COUGHTREY, P.C., JACKSON, D., JONES, C.H., THORNE, M.C., RadionuclideDistribution and Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A Critical Reviewof Data, Vol. 4, Balkema, Rotterdam (1984).

[63] COUGHTREY, P.C., JACKSON, D., JONES, C.H., THORNE, M.C., RadionuclideDistribution and Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A Critical Reviewof Data, Vol. 5, Balkema, Rotterdam (1984).

[64] COUGHTREY, P.C., JACKSON, D., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distributionand Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. A Critical Review of Data, Vol.6, Balkema, Rotterdam (1985).

[65] VAN DEN HOEK, J., TEN HAVE, M.H.J., GERBER, G.B., The metabolism oftritium and water in the lactating dairy cow, Health Phys. 44 (1983) 127-133.

[66] VAN DER HOEK, J.J., TEN HAVE, M.H.J., GERBER, G.B.R., KIRCHMANN, R.,The transfer of tritium labelled organic material from grass into cow's milk, Radiat.Res. 103 (1985) 105-113.

[67] VOIGT, G., HENRICHS, K., PROHL, G., PARETZKE, H.G., Measurements oftransfer coefficients for l37Cs, "Ca, MMn, ^Na, 13II and 95lnTc from feed into milkand beef, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 27 (1988) 143-152.

[68] NG, Y.C., COLSHER, C.S., QUINN, D.J., THOMPSON, S.E., Transfer Coeffi-cients for the Prediction of the Dose to Man via the Forage-Cow-Milk Pathway fromRadionuclides Released to the Biosphere, Rep. UCRL-51939, Lawrence LivermoreNatl Lab., CA (1977),

[69] BISHOP, G.P., BEETHAM, C.J., CUFF, Y.S., Review of Literature for Chlorine,Technetium, Iodine and Neptunium, Nirex Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety Studies,Rep. NSS/R193, UK Nirex Ltd, Harwell (1989).

[70] JOHNSON, J.E., WARD, G.M., ENNIS, M.E., Jr., BOAMAH, K.N., Transfercoefficients of selected radionuclides to animal products. 1. Comparison of milk andmeat from dairy cows and goats, Health Phys. 54 (1988) 161-166.

62

[71] VAN BRUWAENE, R., GERBER, G.B., KIRCHMANN, R., COLARD, J., VANKERKOM, J., Metabolism of 31Cr, 54Mn, ^ e and *°Co in lactating daily cows,Health Phys. 46 (1984) 1069-1082.

[72] BAES, C.F., SHARP, R.D., SJOREEN, A.L., SHOR, R.W., A Review and Analysisof Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclidesthrough Agriculture, Rep. ORNL-5786, Oak Ridge Natl Lab., TN (1984).

[73] VOIGT, G., The transfer of *°Co from feed into vitamin B12 in cow liver, milk andbeef, J. Environ. Radioact. 8 (1988) 209-215:

[74] CRAMP, T,J., CUFF, Y.S., DAVIS, A., MORGAN, J.E., Review of Data for Ura-nium, Nickel and Cobalt, Rep. 2150-RI, Associated Nuclear Services Ltd, Epsom(1990).

[75] COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Radionuclide Transfer Fac-tors for Animal Feedingstuffs and Animal Products, Doc. 7682/87, CEC, Luxembourg(1987).

[76] VAN BRUWAENE, R., GERBER, G.B., KIRCHMANN, R., COLARD, J., Metabo-lism of antimony-124 in lactating dairy cows, Health Phys. 43 (1982) 733-738.

[77] HOFFMAN, F.O., AMARAL, E., MOHRBACHER, D. A., DEMING, E., The com-parison of generic model predictions with Chernobyl fallout data on the transfer ofradioiodine over the air-pasture-cow-milk pathway, J. Environ. Radidact. 8 (1988)53-71.

[78] HANDL, J., PFAU, A., Long-term transfer of 1-129 into the food chain, Sci. TotalEnviron. 85 (1989) 245-252.

[79] HOFFMAN, P.O., A review of measured values of the milk transfer coefficient ( f jfor iodine, Health Phys. 35 (1978) 413-416.

[80] MORGAN, J.E., BEETHAM, C.J., Review of Literature for Radium, Protactinium,Tin and Carbon, Nirex Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety Studies, UK Nirex Ltd, Har-well (1990).

[81] BERESFORD, N.A., The transfer of Ag-llOm to sheep tissues, Sci. Total Environ.85 (1989) 81-90.

[82] VANKERKOM, J., et al., "Transfer to farm animals (ruminants) and their productsof Cs-134 and 1-131 after the Chernobyl accident", Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Radio-ecology on the Impact of Accidents of Nuclear Origin oh the Environment, March1988, CEN-CEA, Cadarache, France (1988) 111-119:

[83] ASSIMAKOPOLOUS, P.A., IOANNIDES, K.G., PAKOU, A.A., MANTZIOS, A.,Decrease in ovine milk radiocaesium following removal of sheep from a contaminatedpasture, Health Phys. 57 (1989) 183-186.

[84] HOWARD, B.J., BERESFORD, N.A., MAYES, R.W., LAMB, C.S., Transfer of131I to sheep milk from vegetation contaminated by Chernobyl fallout, J. Envir.Radioact. 19 (1993) 155-161;

[85] HOWARD, B.J., MAYES, R.W., BERESFORD, N.A., LAMB, C.S., Transfer ofradiocesium from different environmental sources to ewes and suckling lambs, HealthPhys. 57 (1989) 579-586.

[86] VAN DER HOEK, J., Tritium metabolism in animals. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 16 (1986)117-121.

63

[87] JOHNSON, J.E., WARD, G.M., Screening Models to Predict Food-chain Transfer ofEnvironmental Toxicants, Final Rep. DOE/ER/60531-1, Colorado State Univ., FortCollins, CO (1989).

[88] ENNIS, M.E., JOHNSON, J.E., WARD, G.M., VOIGT, G.M., A specific activityeffect in the metabolism of Tc, Health Phys. 54 (1988) 157-160.

[89] GARMO, T.H., EKERN, A., HOVE, K., •'Radiocaesium contamination of Nor-wegian mountain pasture and grazing animals after the Chernobyl accident", paperpresented at 6th Conf, on Animal Production, Helsinki, June-July 1988.

[90] VOIGT, G., et al., Experimental determination of transfer coefficients of 137Cs andI31I from fodder into milk of cows and sheep after the Chernobyl accident, HealthPhys. 257 (1989) 967-973.

[91] BRULAND, W., et al., "Transfer of organically bound radionuclides through foodchains to man. Model — example with radiocobalt and vitamin B12", BiologicalImplication of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries (Proc. Symp. Vienna,1979), Vol. 2, IAEA, Vienna (1979) 279-292.

[92] OUGHTON, D.H., DAY, P.J., BERESFORD, N.A., HOWARD, B.J., personalcommunication.

[93] BERESFORD, N.A., MAYES, R.W., CROUT, N.M.J., HOWARD, B.J.,KANYAR, B., Dynamic behaviour of Ag-llOm in sheep tissues (submitted forpublication).

[94] BUSTAD, L.K., et al., Biological effects of 1-131 continuously administered to sheep,Radiat. Res. 6 (1957) 380-413.

[95] BUROV, N.I., ANTAKORA, N.N., PANCHEKO, I.Ya., SARAPUL'TSEV, I.A.,Buildup and distribution of Sr-90 in sheep and goats under single and chronic adminis-tration, Radioactive Isotopes and the Body (MOSCALEV, Yu.I., Ed.), Rep. AEC-tr-7195, Department of Energy, Washington, DC (1969) 19-24.

[96] VOIGT, G., HEINRICHS, K. PROEHL, G., PARETZKE, H.G., The transfer ofl37Cs and "Co from feed to pork, J. Environ. Radioact. 8 (1988) 195-207.

[97] ENNIS, M.E., Jr., WARD, G.M., JOHNSON, J.E., BOAMAH, K.N., Transfercoefficients of selected radionuclides to animal products. U. Hen eggs and meat, HealthPhys. 54 (1988) 167-170.

[98] HOWARD, B.J., A comparison of radiocaesium transfer coefficients for sheep milkand muscle derived from both field and laboratory studies, Sci. Total Environ. 85(1989) 189-198.

[99] VANDECASTEELE, CM., VAN HEES, M., CULOT, J.P., VANKERKOM, J.,Radiocaesium metabolism in pregnant ewes and their progeny, Sci. Total Environ. 85(1989) 213-223.

[100] ONISHI, Y., SERNE, R.J., ARNOLD, E.M., COWEN, C.E., THOMPSON, F.L.,Critical Review: Radionuclide Transport, Sediment Transport, and Water QualityMathematical Modeling; and Radionuclide Adsorption/Desorption Mechanisms,Rep. NUREG/CR-1322, PNL-2901, Pacific Nortwest Lab., Richmand, WA (1981).

[101] VANDERPLOEG, H.A., PARZYCK, D.C., WILCOX, W.H., KERCHER, J.R.,KAYE, S.V., Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota,Rep. ORNL-5002, ESD Publication No.783, Oak Ridge Natl Lab., TN (1975).

64

[102] BLAYLOCK, B.G., Radionuclide data bases available for bioaccumulation factors forfreshwater biota, Nucl. Saf. 234 (1982) 427-438.

[103] KILLOUGH, G., McKAY, L., BIORA2 Bioaccumulation Factors for FreshwaterBiota, Rep. ORNL-4992, Oak Ridge Natl Lab., TN (1976).

[104] THOMPSON, S.E., BURTON, C:A., QUINN, D.J., NG, Y.C., Concentration Fac-tors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms, Rep. UCRL-50567,Lawrence Livermore Lab., CA (1972).

[105] OPHEL, I.L., personal communication to K.Y. Wong, 1980.

[106] NEWMAN, G., Concentration Factors for Stable Metals and Radionuclides in Fish,Mussels, and Crustaceans: A Literature Survey, Rep. SNUPM 1976E, National Swed-ish Environmental Protection Board, Solna (1985) 36.

[107] COPELAND, R.A., BEETHE, R.H., PRATER, W.W., Trace Element Distributionsin Lake Michigan Fish: A Baseline Study with Calculations of Concentration Factorsand Equilibrium Radioisotope Distributions, ERG Special Report No.2, University ofMichigan (1973) 139.

[108] BLAYLOCK, G., personal communication, 1990.[109] POSTON, T.M., KLOPFER, D.C., A Literature Review of the Concentration Ratios

of Selected Radionuclides in Freshwater and Marine Fish, Rep. PNL-5484, PacificNorthwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (1986).

[110] LAMBRECHT, A., Essai de modelisation du transfert du Cs-137 dans les comparti-ments d'un ecosysteme d'eau (1984).

[111} ROWAN, D.J., RASMUSSEN, J.B., The bioaccumulation of fadiocaesium by fish:The influence of physico-chemical factors and trophic structure, Ecology (submitted forpublication).

[112] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Second Report of the VAMPTerrestrial Working Group (to be published).

[113] NOORDUK, H., QUINAULT, J.M., "The influence of food processing and culinarypreparation on the radionuclide content of foodstuffs: A review of available data",Modelling of Resuspension, Seasonally and Losses during Food Processing, Firstreport of the VAMP Terrestrial Working Group, IAEA-TECDOC-647, Vienna (1992)35-59.

[114] ANNEKOV, B., Radiobiology and radioecology of farm animals, Radiobiol.Radioekol. Sel'skokhoz. Zhivotn. (1973) (in Russian).

[115] ARNAUD, M.J., "The removal and/or reduction of radionuclides in the food chain",Radionuclides in the Food Chain, ILSI Monographs, Berlin (1988) 195-213.

[116] ASSIMAKOPOULOS, P.A., IOANNIDES, K.G., PAKOU, A.A., PARADOPOULOU,C.V., Transport of the radioisotopes iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137 from thefallout following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor into cheese and othercheesemaking products, J. Dairy Sci. 70 (1987) 1338-1343.

[117] ANTILA,V,KANKARE,V.,PAHKALA,E.,Radionuklidien siirtyminen meijeriprosesseissa eritioihin, Meijeriteollisuus 3 (1987) 36-37.

[118] BALES, R.E., HICKEY, J.L.S., Commercialremoval of cationic and anionic radionuclides,Proc. Semin. (1966) 121-145.

65

[119] BUMA, T.J., MEERESTRA, J., Transfer of radiostrontium from milk to cheese andwhey, Nature (London) 202 (1964) 310-311.

[120] CALAPAJ, G.G., ONGARO, D., Sul comportamento del " V e del l37Cs neiprocessi di burrificazione e caseificazione del latte, Minerva Nucleate 9 (1965) 93-98.

[121] CIGNA, A., MARIANI, A., SPADONI, M.A., TOMASSI, G., Research on radiocon-tamination transport in food chains: ?°Sr in Parmigiano Reggiano cheese during 1957to 1963, Nucl. Sci. 23 (1969) 297.

[122] DUBROVINA, S.V., BELOVA, O.M., Transfer of strontium-90 from milk intoseveral milk products by different technological processes, Gig. Sanit. 28 (1963)105-108 (in Russian).

[123] EASTERLY, D.G., BROOKS, J.B., HASUKE, J.K., WEAVER, C.L., Developmentof Ion Exchange Processes for the Removal of Radionuclides from Milk, US Environ-mental Protection Agency Techn. Rep. RO/EERL 71-1, Washington, DC (1971).

[124] FOOKS, LH., TERRILL, J.G., HEINEMANN, B.H., BALDI, E.J., WALTER,H.E., Evaluation of full scale strontium removal system for fluid milk, Health Phys.13 (1967) 279-286.

[125] FRIEDLI, C , GEERING, J.J., LERCH, P., "Strontium-90 measurements in Switzer-

: land", Impact des Accidents d'Origine Nucleaire sur l'Environnement (Proc. Sem.Cadarache), Centre d Etudes nucleaires de Cadarache (1988) F114-F121.

[126] KANDARAKIS, J.K., ANIFANTAKIS, E.M., Distribution of 131I, 134Cs and 137Csin ewes milk during processing into different products, Deltio-Ethnikes EpitropesGalaktos 3 (1986) 20-23 (in Greek).

[127] KANKARE, V., ANTILA, V., PAHKALA, E., RANTAVAARA, A., PAAKKOLA,O., Cesium 137:N Ja 134:N Siirtyminen Maidon Fraktioihin, Posteri Eleintar-vikepaivilla, Food Congress, Helsinki (1987).

[128] KANKARE, V., ANTILA, V., PAHKALA, E., RANTAVAARA, A., PAAKKOLA,O., Transfer of Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 into Milk Fractions, Kemia-Kemi 14(1987). .

[129] KIRCHMANN, R., ADAM, V., VAN PUYMBROECK, S., Radiocontamination desderives du lait de vache, Radioisot. Radiation Dairy Sci. Technology, Proc. Seminar(1966) 189-201.

[130] LAGONI, H., Dekontamination yon Milchprodukten mit Hilfe von Molkereitech-nischen Verfahren, Strahlenschutz 86 (1965).

[131] LENGEMANN, E.W., Distribution of radiostrontium and radiocesium in milk andmilk products, J. Dairy Sci. 45 (1962) 538-539.

[132] MARSHALL, R.O.,; SPARLING, E.M., HEINEMANN, B., BALES, R.E., Largescale fixed bed ion-exchange system for removing iodine-131 and strontium-90 frommilk, J. Dairy Sci. 51 (1965) 673-678.

[133] McENRI, CM., MITCHELL, PJ. , CUNNINGHAM, J.D., "The transfer of radi-ocesium from whole milk and milk products. Radioactivity Transfer during FoodProcessing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Sem. Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg(1989) 251-273.

[134] McENRI, C.,, MITCHELL, P.I., CUNNINGHAM, J.D., An Experimental Study ofthe Transfer of Radiocesium from Raw Whole Milk to a Wide Range of Milk ProductsProduced by the Irish Dairy Industry, Nuclear Energy Board Interim Rep. Dublin(1988) 1-28.

66

[135] KERKHOF-MOGOT, M.F., VERINGA, H.A., MOL, J.J., The processing of wholemilk, powder from milk contaminated with 1J1I and its consequences for the environ-ment, Health Phys. 47 (1984) 644-648.

[136] OBINO, A.M., Radiocontamination de l'homme par la chaine alimentaiie: le cas desproducts laitiers dans les diffgrehtes regions de la CEE en 1977, CEPN EURATOMSC/14-099-78-P.S.A.F. (1979) 49-51.

[137] OMOMO, Y., TSUGO, T., Distribution of radioactive strontium and cesium in milk,J. Agric. Chem. Soc. (Japan) 37 (1963) 725-728 (in Japanese).

[138] PIRHONEN, T., UUSI-RAUVA, E., RANTAVAARA, A.N., RAURAMAA, A.,The radioactivity of milk and milk products in Finland, MeyeritieteellinenAikakauskirja 45 (1987) 62-75.

[139] RANTAVAARA, A.H., "Transfer of radionuclides during processing and preparationof foods; Finnish studies since 1986," Radioactivity Transfer during Food Processingand Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989)69-94.

[140] RAYMOND, A.E., WILLIAMS, G.W., Effect of the evaporation arid powderingprocesses on the iodine-131 content of milk, Radiol. Health Data 5 (1964) 70-72.

[141] REAVEY, T.C., Distribution of radionuclides in products from two milk processingplants, I. Environm. Health 27 (1965) 809-817.

[142] VRIGASOV, A., MARINOV, V., Distribution of strontium-90 and cesium-137 indairy products in the processing of ewe's milk, Veterinarnomed. Nauki 5 (1968) 83-86(in Russian).

[143] WALKER, J.P., EDMONDSON, F.L.; Studies on ion exchange resins for the removalof radionuclides from milk, Health Phys. 16 (1969) 85-61.

[144] WALTER, H.E., SADLER, A.M., EASTERLY, D.G., EDMONDSON, L.F., Pilotplant fixed-bed ion exchange resin system for removing iodine-131 and radiostrontiumfrom milk, J. Dairy Sci. 50 (1967) 1221-1225.

[145] WALTER, H.E., Pilot plant and commercial scale development of processes forremoving radionuclides from milk, Radioisot. Radiat. Dairy Sci. Technol. Proc.Semin. (1966)99-110.

[146] WHELLER, S.M., FLEET, G.H., ASHLEY, R.J., Effect of processing upon concen-tration and distribution of natural and iodophor-derived iodine in milk, J. Dairy Sci.66 (1983) 187-195.

[147] WHITE, M.M., MOGHISSI, A.A., Transfer of I31U from milk into cheese, HealthPhys. 21 (1971) 116-118.

[148] WILSON, L.G., BOTTOMLEY, R.C., SUTTON, P.M., SISK, C.H., Transfer ofradioactive contamination from milk to commercial dairy products, J. Soc. Dairy Tech-nol. 41 (1988) 10-13.

[149] WOOD, G.M., WILSON, L.G., BOTTOMLEY, R.C., SUTTON, P.M., SISK, C.H.,"Transfer of radioactive contamination from milk to commercial dairy products,"Radioactivity Transfer during Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Semi-nar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 275-294.

[150] YASHCHENKO, V.F., Transfer of strontium-90 from milk into milk products,Veterinariya 8 (1969) 93-95 (in Russian).

67

£151] YASHCHENKO, V.F., Some regularities in the passage of ^Sr from milk to milkproducts during commercial processing, Gig. Sank. 36 (1971) 108-109 (in Russian)

[152] BARTLEY, J.C., RABER, E.F., Effect of roasting on radiostrontium in fresh ham,J. Am. Dietetic Assoc. 37 (1960) 466-467.

[153] BELL, M.C., BUESCHER, R.G., Effect of bone on Sr-89 and Ca-45 in beef roasts,J. Am. Dietetic Assoc. 39 (1961) 567-568.

[154] BELOVA, O.M., Transfer of strontium-90 from meat to broth when applying differenttechnological processes and treatments, Gig. Sanit. 31 (1966) 111-112 (in Russian).

[155] BELOVA, O.M., DIBOBES, J.K., DUBROVINA, Z.V., Correlation of strontium-90content in raw and thermally treated food products, Gig. Sanit. 32 (1967) 40-42 (inRussian).

[156] DUBROVINA, Z.V., BELOVA, O.M., Changes in the strontium-90 content of foodproducts after cooking, Gig. Sanit. 29 (1964) 40-43 (in Russian).

[157] EYMAN, L.D., Changes in 137Cs concentration in fish flesh during preparation forhuman consumption, Health Phys. 28 (1975) 475-477.

[158] GERNON, G.D., Removal of radiocesium from beef, Nature (London) 203 (1964)1189-1190.

[159] HALFORD, D.K., Effect of cooking on radionuclide concentration in waterfowl tis-sues, J. Env. Radioact. 5 (1987) 229-233.

[160] HECHT, H., Dekontamination radioaktive belasteten Wildbrets mittels Beizverfahren,Fleischwirtsch. 67 (1987) 250-256.

[161] HEMBRY, F.G., BELL, M.C., *°Sr phytate and "Sr chloride in sheep and swine androasting effect on wSr in meat, J. Animal Sci. 25 (1966) 199-202.

[162] MEYER, B., FORRESTER, J., Effects of three cooking methods on cesium-134 con-tent of beef from orally dosed steers, Food Technol. 16 (1962) 110-112.

[163] PAKULO, A.G., Changes in the 137Cs concentration offish by culinary preparations.Gig. Sanit. 36 (1971) 49-51 (in Russian).

[164] PAKULO, A.G., The influence of different food preparation procedures on the transferof 137Ce from crawfish to men, Gig. Sanit. 46 (1981) 86-87 (in Russian).

[165] STEGER, U., BURGER, A., ZffiGLER, W., WALLNOFER, P.R., Verteilung vonCs-134 und Cs-137 bei der kuchentechnischen Verarbeitung verschiedener Lebensmit-tel, Deutsche Lebensm. Rundschau 83 (1987) 85-88.

[166] WAGNER, H., Ubergang von radioaktiven Stoffen vom Futter in das Fleisch vonSchlachttieren, Fleischwirtsch. 68 (1988) 656-664.

[167] WAHL, R., KALLEE, E., Decontamination puts meat in a pickle, Nature (London)323 (1986) 208.

[168] WOOD, G.M., CLARK, S.A., WILSON, L.G., SUTTON, P.M., "The effect ofprocessing on the radiocesium content of lamb," Radioactivity Transfer during FoodProcessing and Culinary Preparation (Prop. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg(1989) 403-408.

[169] WORSECK, M., NIEPEL, J., KRUGER, I., Dekontamination von Fleisch, Monatsh.Veterinarmed. 25 (1970) 439-440.

[170] VAN GELDER, E., HURTGEN, G., KIRCHMANN, R., "Etude experimentale dela contamination r6siduelle des aliments prepares a partir des fruits de mer'', Radioac-tivity Transfer during Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. SeminarCadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 445-455.

68

[171] MASON, M., GERMAIN, P., EYSSANTEER, B., GRAUBY, A., "Evolution de laradioactivity de produits marins des cdtes de la Manche au cours de la transformationagroalimentaire (algues) ou au cours de la preparation culinaire (moules)," Radioactiv-ity Transfer during Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. SeminarCadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 457-468.

[172] DELMAS, J., GRAUBY, A., Influence des technologies de transformationagroalimentaire sur la radioactivity des aliments, Foodstuffs Intervention Level Follow-ing Nuclear Accident (Proc. Sem. Luxembourg), Rep. Eur. 11232, CEC, Luxembourg(1987) 183-197 (in French).

[173] ENDRES, O., FISCHER, E., Untersuchungen zur Dekontamination von Genriise,Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau 65 (1969) 1-5.

[174] FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, Strontium-90 in food at intermediate stagesof preparation for canning and freezing, Radiol. Health Data 5 (1964) 222-226.

[175] GRUETER, H., Radioactive fission product Cs-137 in mushrooms in West Germanyduring 1963-1970, Health Phys. 20 (1971) 655-656.

[176] HISAMATSU, S., TAHZAWA, Y., ABE, T., Reduction of 131I content in leafyvegetables and seaweed by cooking, J. Radiat. Res. 28 (1987) 135-140.

[177] LAUG, E.P., Temporal and geographical distributions of strontium-90 and cesium-137in food, Radiol. Health Data (1963) 448-455.

[178] MURAMATSU, Y., UCHIDA, S., SUMIYA, M., YOSHIDA, S., 0HM0M0, Y.,"Decontamination of radioiodine from waste and vegetables", Radioactivity Transferduring Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC,Luxembourg (1989) 341-349.

[179] PAULUS, K., Beurteilung pflanzlicher Lebensmittel nach Behandlungen zurBeseitigung der radioaktiven Kontamination, Z. Lebensmitt.-Untersuch. 142 (1969)17-24.

[180] PAULUS, K., Dekontamiantion von mit 137Cs and MSr kontaminiertem Blattgemuse(Salat, Kohl, Spinal), Z. Lebensmitt.-Untersuch. 138 (1969) 329-334.

[181] PAULUS, K., Dekontamination von mit >37Cs and MSr kontaminiertem Blattgemuse(Salat, Kohl, Spinat), Z. Lebensmitt.-Untersuch. 139 (1969) 7-12.

[182] PAULUS, K., Dekontamination von pflanzlichen Lebensmitteln, insbesondere vonObst und Gemiise, sowie damit zusammenhangende Probleme. Kontamin. Decontamin.Lebensmitt. (Proc. Conf. Karlsruhe) (1974) 197-228.

[183] PAULUS, K., Die Dekontamination von mit radioaktiven Stoffen oberflachig ver-seuchtem Gemuse und Obst, Industr. Obst- u. Gemuseverwert. 53 (1968) 85-88.

[184] PAULUS, K., Zur Dekontamination von Rote Beete, Kohlrabi und Rosenkohl, Industr.Obst- u. Gemuseverwert. 53 (1968) 635-638.

[185] RANTAVAARA, A., Radioactivity of Vegetables and Mushrooms in Finland after theChenobyl Accident in 1986, Suppl. 4 to Annual Rep. STUK-A55, Finnish Centre forRadiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki (1987).

[186] RALLS, J.W., MAAGDENBERG, H.J., GUCKEEN, T.R., MERCER, W.A.,Removal of radioactive strontium and cesium from vegetables and fruits during prepa-ration for preservation, J. Food Sci. 36 (1971) 653-656.

[187] RALLS, J.W., et al., Distribution of strontium and calcium in major vegetable and fruitcrops and criteria for use of fallout-contaminated foods, Radiol. Health Data Rep. 8(1967) 355-358.

69

[188] RALLS, J.W., MAAGDENBERG, H.J., GUCKEEN, T.R., MERCER, W.A.,Removal of radioactive strontium and cesium from certain vegetables and fruits duringnormal preparation for preservation, Isot. Radiat. Technol. 6 (1969) 146-149.

[189] ROHLEDER, K., Uber die radioaktive Dekontamination von Speisepilzen durch Blan-chieren, Industr. Obst.- u. Gemiiseverwert. 52 (1967) 64-66.

[190] ROHLEDER, K., Untersuchungen fiber die Aumahme radioaktiver Stoffe durchGriinkohl aus dem Boden and aus der Atmosphare und Versuche zur Dekontamination,Z. Lebensmitt.-Untersuch. 149 (1972) 223-227.

[191] THOMPSON, J.C., HOWE, M., Retention and removal of 13II from contaminatedvegetables, Health Phys. 24 (1973) 345-351.

[192] THOMPSON, J.C., Sr removal in vegetables prepared for home consumption, HealthPhys. 11 (1965) 136-137.

[193] WEAVER, C M . , HARRIS, N.D., Removal of radioactive strontium and cesium fromvegetables during laboratory scale processing, J. Food Sci. 44 (1979) 1491-1493.

[194] WILKINS, B.T., BRADLEY, E.J., DODD, N.J., The effects of culinary preparationon radionuclides levels in vegetable foodstuffs, Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 20 (1987)187-190.

[195] Werkdocumenten CCRX-rapport: De radioactieve besmetting in Nederland t.g.v. hetkernongeval in Tsjernobyl. Part 1, Chapter 12 (1986).

[196] BRADLEY, E.J., POPPLEWELL, D.S., WILKINS, B.T., "The influence of simpleculinary preparation on the radionuclide content of vegetables", Radioactivity Transferduring Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC,Luxembourg (1989) 311-324.

[197] PAULUS, K., Zur Dekontamination totalkontaminierter Kartoffeln. Z. Lebensmitt.-Untersuch. 139 (1969) 282-287.

[198] PERKINS, H.J., STRACHAN, J., Decontamination of potato tubers containingcesium-137, Science 144 (1964) 59-60.

[199] APOSTOLATOS, G., HADJIANTONIOU, A., "Cesium contamination transfer inwheat products", Radioactivity Transfer during Food Processing and Culinary Prepa-ration (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 377-400.

[200] ARAPIS, G., MARTI, J.M., KOUSKOUTOPOULOS A., KARANDINOS, M.,IRANZO, E., "Low radioactivity contribution of cereals to diet due to their specificcomposition and processing", Radioactivity Transfer during Food Processing and Culi-nary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989).

[201] BUNZL, K., KRACKE, W., Soil to plant transfer of »»+M0Pu, ^ P u , M1Am, "7Csand *°Sr from global fallout in flour and bran from wheat, rye, barley and oats, asobtained by field measurements, Sci. Total Environm. 63 (1987) 111-124.

[202] BUNZL, K., KRACKE, W., Transfer of l37Cs and "Sr to flour, bran and straw fromwheat, rye, barley and oats during the years 1982, 1986 (reactor accident at Chernobyl)and 1987 in field measurements, Z. Lebensmitt.-Untersuch (in press).

[203] LIU, D.J., ROBBINS, G.S., POMERANZ, Y., Composition and utilization of milledbarley products, Cereal Chem. 51 (1974) 309-316.

[204] LOFTI, M., NOTARO, M., A23MI-GARAKANI, D., PBERMATTEI, S., TOM-MASINO, L., Loss of radioactivity in cooked spaghetti, Sci. Total Environm. 79(1989) 291-293.

70

[205] MULLER, H., Radiaktivitats-Kontamination von Brotgetreide nach Tschernobyl, DieMuhle+Mischfuttertechnik 123 (1986) 392-393.

[206] OHMOMO, Y., et al., "Transfer of radioiodine into rice grains", Impact des Acci-dents d'Origine Nucleaire sur l'Environnement (Proc. Symp. Cadarache), Part 1,Centre d'&udes nucldaires de Cadarache (1988) D68-D74.

[207] PFEIFER, V.F., PEPUNSKI, A. J., HUBBARD, J.E., Strontium-90 in plant parts andmilling fractions from a 1963 Illinois wheat, Radiol. Health Data 5 (1964) 283-284.

[208] RIVERA, J., "Sr-90 in U.S. wheat and flour produced in 1962 and predictions of levelsin the 1963 crop", Fallout Program Quarterly Summary Report HASL-140, Office ofTechnical Services, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (1964) 276-282.

[209] VOIGT, G., MULLER, H., PROHL, G., PARETZKE, H.G., "Cesium activity dis-tribution in cereals after milling processes", Radioactivity Transfer during FoodProcessing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg(1989) 351-360.

[210] BOVARD, P., BENARD, P., DELMAS, J., GRAUBY, A., Transfert des produits defission dans le vigne et le vin, C.R. Seances Acad. Agric. Fr. (1968) 989-995.

[211] CASTRO, J., SANCHO, A., VEIGA, E., DIAS YUBERO, J., MURIAS, B.S.F.,"Transfert de Cs-134 et Cs-137 dans les infusions d'herboristerie", RadioactivityTransfer during Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache),CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 205-218.

[212] GEDKOGLU, A., SIPAHI, B.L., OSKAY, T., KURUGLU, M., "Chernobyl radio-activity in Turkey", Radioactivity Transfer during Food Processing and CulinaryPreparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 193-204.

[213] MASSCHELEIN, W.J., "Eliminationd'isotopes radioactifsparies filieresconvention-nelles de traitement des eaux potables", Radioactivity Transfer during Food Processingand Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Luxembourg (1989)167-192.

[214] MIRIBEL, J.,DELMAS, J., "Utilisationdetraceursactivablespourl'etudededevenirde la contamination radioactive au cours de la vinification", Radioactivity Transfer dur-ing Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache), CEC, Lux-embourg (1989) 219-227.

[215] GIESE, W., SCHIMANSKY, K., KLUGE, K., ROINER, F., "Radiocesium transferto whey and whey products: whey decontamination on an industrial scale", RadiactivityTransfer during Food Processing and Culinary Preparation (Proc. Seminar Cadarache),CEC, Luxembourg (1989) 295-308.

[216] COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Underlying Data forDerived Emergency Reference Levels. Post Chernobyl Action, Rep. EUR 12553-EN,CEC, Luxembourg (1991).

[217] Nederlandse Voedingsmiddelentabel. Voorlichtlingsbureau voor de Voeding, 33rd edn,'s-Gravenhage, Netherlands (May 1981) (in Dutch).

[218] PEQUIGNOT, et al., Etude des dechets normaux d'aliments: Les legumes frais, Bull,de l'INSERM 24 6 (1969) 1597-1644.

[219] PEQUIGNOT, et al., Etude sur les changements de poids des legumes frais et sees ala cuisson, Ann. Nutr. Alim. 29 (1975) 439-458.

71

CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW*

Aarkrog, A.

Amaral, E.

Benes, P.

Blaylock, G.

Cadwell, L.L.

Cigna, A.

Coughtrey, P.J.

Dela Paz, L.R.

Dreicer, M.

Frissel, M.J.

Hoffman, F.O.

Homma, T.

Horyna, J.

Howard, B.

Iijima, T.

Kanyar, B.

Koehler, H.

Kistner, G.

Rise National Laboratory, Denmark

Institute for Radioprotection and Dosimetry,Brazil

Technical University of Prague, Czechoslovakia

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United Statesof America

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, UnitedStates of America

ENEA, Italy

Associated Nuclear Services, United Kingdom

Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Philippines

International Atomic Energy Agency

National Institute of Public Health and EnvironmentalProtection, Netherlands

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States ofAmerica

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Japan

Nuclear Research Institute, Czechoslovakia

Merlewood Research Station, United Kingdom

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Japan

National Research Institute for Radiobiology andRadiohygiene, Hungary

International Atomic Energy Agency

Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz, Germany

73

Linsley, G.

Ng, Y.C.

Noordijk, H.

Ortins de Bettencourt, A.

Prohl, G.

Sheppard, S.C.

Van den Hoek, J.

Wilkins, B.T.

Williams, A.R.

Voigt, G.

International Atomic Energy Agency

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,United States of America

National Institute of Public Health and EnvironmentalProtection, Netherlands

National Laboratory for Energy and IndustrialTechnology, Spain

Gesellschaft fur Strahlen und Umweltforschung,Germany

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Canada

Agricultural University, Netherlands

National Radiological Protection Board, United. Kingdom

Australian Nuclear Science and TechnologyOrganisation, Australia

Gesellschaft fur Strahlen und Umweltforschung,Germany

* Affiliations given are those that pertained at the time of the meetings.

Consultants Meetings

Carmel, California, United States of America: 16-23 June 1986Vienna, Austria: 14-18 November 1988, 9-13 October 1989, 21-22 May 1990,

14-19 September 1992

74

HOW TO ORDER IAEA PUBLICATIONS

•fr ir In the United States of America and Canada, the exclusive sales agent forIAEA publications, to whom all orders and inquiries shouldbe addressed, is:

UNIPUB, 4611-F Assembly Drive, Lanham, MD 20706-4391, USA

it •& In the following countries IAEA publications may be purchased from the sourceslisted below, or from major local booksellers. Payment maybe made in local currency or with UNESCO coupons.

ARGENTINA

AUSTRALIABELGIUM

CHILE

CHINA

FRANCE

GERMANY

HUNGARYINDIA

ISRAELITALY

JAPANNETHERLANDS

PAKISTANPOLAND

ROMANIARUSSIAN FEDERATION

SLOVAK REPUBLICSOUTH AFRICA

SPAIN

SWEDENUNITED KINGDOM

YUGOSLAVIA

Comision Nacional de Energfa Atomica, Avenida del Libertador 8250,RA-1429 Buenos AiresHunter Publications, 58A Gipps Street, Collingwood, Victoria 3066Service Courtier UNESCO, 202, Avenue du Roi, B-1060 BrusselsComision Chilena de Energla Nuclear, Venta de Publicaciones,Amunategul 95, Casllla 186-D, SantiagoIAEA Publications in Chinese:China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, Translation Section,P.O. Box 2103, BeijingIAEA Publications other than in Chinese:China National Publications Import & Export Corporation,Deutsche Abteilung, P.O. Box 88, BeijingOffice International de Documentation et Ubrairie, 48, rue Gay-Lussac,F-75240 Paris Cedex 05UNO-Verlag, Vertriebs- und Verlags GmbH, Dag Hammarskjflld-Haus,Poppelsdorfer Allee 55, D-53115 BonnLibrotrade Ltd., Book Import, P.O. Box 126, H-1656 BudapestOxford Book and Stationery Co., Scindia House, New Delhi-110 001YOZMOT Literature Ltd., P.O. Box 56055, IL-61560 Tel AvivUbreria Scientifica Dott. Lucio di Blasio "AEIOU",Via Coronelli 6, 1-20146 MilanMaruzen Company, Ltd, P.O. Box 5050, 100-31 Tokyo InternationalMartlnus Nijhoff International, P.O. Box 269, NL-2501 AX The HagueSwets and Zeitlinger b.v., P.O. Box 830, NL-2610 SZ LisseMlrza Book Agency, 65, Shahrah Quald-e-Azam, P.O. Box 729, Lahore 3Are Polona, Foreign Trade Enterprise,Krakowskie Przedmiescte 7, PL-00-068 Warsawllexim, P.O. Box 136-137, BucharestMezhdunarodnaya Kniga, Sovinknlga-EA,Dimltrova 39, SU-113 095 MoscowAlfa Publishers, Hurbanovo namestie 3, SQ-815 89 BratislavaVan Schaik Bookstore (Pty) Ltd, P.O. Box 724, Pretoria 0001Diaz de Santos, Lagasca 95, E-28006 MadridDfaz de Santos, Balmes 417, E-08022 BarcelonaFritzes Information Centre, S-106 47 StockholmHMSO, Publications Centre, Agency Section,51 Nine Elms Lane, London SW6 5DRJugoslovenska Knjiga, Terazije 27, P.O. Box 36. YU-11001 Belgrade

-if Orders (except for customers in Canada and the USA) and requests for informationmay also be addressed directly to:

Sales and Promotion UnitInternational Atomic Energy AgencyWagramerstrasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria

ISBN 92-0-101094-XISSN 0074-1914