Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 1-6, 2022

ArticlesUptake of 131I, 134Cs and 137Cs in tulip (Tulipa gesneriana L.) after the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident and their translocation from its above ground parts to the bulb
Keiko Tagami*, Shigeo Uchida, Yukio Uchihori, Hisashi Kitamura
National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Anagawa 4-9-1, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
Received October 5, 2022; Accepted December 5, 2022; Published online December 12, 2022
Radioiodine (131I) and radiocesium (134Cs and 137Cs) uptake through the above ground parts and transfer to the bulbof tulip (Tulipa gesneriana L.) was measured in April 2011, one month after the heavy depositions of radioactive
materials. Plant samples were collected from a flower garden of J Village on April 20 and 28, 2011. Each sampled above ground parts was equally divided into two portions and one portion was washed with detergent including surfactant to remove dust from the surface and the other portion was unwashed as a control. The averageretention factor after washing (activity concentration ratios after and before washing) for radioiodine and radiocesium were 0.97 and 0.58, which means more radioiodine was fixed on the plant surface. Activity of one sampled
tulip bulb was measured and the concentration ratios between the bulb to the directly contaminated above groundparts were 0.03 for 131I and 0.47 for radiocesium. It was clear that radiocesium was more mobile than iodine in theplant.

1. Introduction
Translocation of radiocesium in plants is well understoodbecause Cs behaves analogously to K, an essential element forplants.1, 2 In the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP), large amounts of radionuclides
were released to the environment, with the major nuclides
being radioiodine (131I, T1/2=8.02 d) and radiocesium (134Cs,
T1/2=2.06 y; 137Cs, T1/2=30.2 y). These radionuclides were
found for leafy vegetable samples which had directly received
radioactive fallout from the FDNPP accident; the concentrations exceeded the guidance levels at that time, that is, 2000
Bq kg-1 for 131I and 500 Bq kg-1 for total radiocesium (134+137Cs).3
In June 2011, about 3 months after the heavy depositions,131
I contamination was no longer being reported in agricultural
products mainly due to the short physical decay of 131I.
However, radiocesium concentrations remained high in some
agricultural foods, such as fruits, green tea leaves and shiitake
mushrooms,4,5 which drew public concern as people wanted to
avoid an internal dose by ingestion of contaminated foods.
Because radiocesium can translocate to non-directly contaminated edible parts of plants from directly contaminated partsor roots, how much radiocesium can be translocated from contaminated parts and taken up by roots is of interest. The root
uptake ability has been studied for rice and other crops andresults were reported.6-9 From these results, it was deduced
that the uptake of radiocesium through roots was usually very
low for the soils found in Japan, so that the root uptake pathway effect was limited to enhancement of the radiocesium
concentration in edible parts of crops. Radiocesium translocation from above ground parts has been studied for orchard
trees and some forest trees10-13; it is now considered that uptake
processes through the bark and leaves are the major transfer
pathways of radiocesium in trees.
Translocation is an important factor affecting radiocesium
concentration and effective half-life in plants14; however, thetranslocation of radiocesium from the above ground parts to
the root or bulb has not been reported yet after the FDNPP*Corresponding author. E-mail: tagami.keiko@qst.go.jp
Tel. +81 (0) 43 206 3256

accident. Moreover, it would be interesting to identify thetranslocation difference between radioiodine and radiocesium
since these are the major radionuclides in accidental releases
from nuclear power plants. In April 2011, we collected tulip(Tulipa gesneriana L.) samples at J Village, about 20 km southof the FDNPP; they consisted of both above ground and below
ground (bulb) parts. Here, we report the translocation factors(Ftr) from the above ground parts to the bulb for the radioactive FDNPP accident fallout. Although we could obtain only afew samples for analysis, particularly because of the relatively
short half-life of 131I, the data will be useful to understandradionuclide fates in the environment.
2. Materials and Methods
Two tulip samples were collected from a flower garden at J
Village on April 20 and 28, 2011 (one per sampling); the flowering time had almost finished on the former date. On April
20, we also collected a bulb with roots but without above
ground parts. The bulb was not dead but no shoot had
emerged. These tulip bulbs had been planted in soil just below
the surface, at 0-5 cm depths. The root part was distributed
deeper than 5 cm and the respective 131I and 137Cs concentrations in the soil 5-7 cm were 1850 and 630 Bq kg-1 dry soil on
April 20, and 590 and 330 Bq kg-1 dry soil on April 28. The
vertical distribution of the radionuclides in this garden soil has
been reported elsewhere.15
The samples were transferred into our laboratory in Chiba
within 2 days, and after the following treatments, their activity
concentrations were measured with a Ge detecting system(Seiko EG&G) for 2000 – 3600 s. A mixed gamma standard
solution (Amersham, QCY-46) was used for an efficiency correction and three reference standard materials IAEA-156, 373
and 375 were used for an accuracy check.
The weight of the above ground parts was 27.1 g-wet for
April 20 sample, and 41.3 g-wet for April 28 sample. Eachabove ground parts was divided into two as shown in Fig. 1.
One portion was not treated (control) and the other portion waswashed carefully by hand with liquid detergent including a© 2022 The Japan Society of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences
Published on Web 12/12/2022

2

J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci., Vol. 22, 2022

Figure 1. Schematic showing division of the tulip above groundparts into two portions.

surfactant to remove dust from the surface. The detergent on
the washed sample portion was then removed using reverse
osmosis (RO) water to avoid adding possible radioactive contamination from tap water. Both control portions were cut into
pieces and put into separate 100-mL plastic vessels for measurement of their radioactivity.
The two bulbs collected on April 20 were not cut for measurement. Each bulb sample was simply treated as follows:soil was removed with a paper towel and then the activity concentration was measured for 3600 s with the Ge detecting system (control). After the measurement, this control sample waswashed with detergent as described above to remove contaminated soil, and then rinsed with RO water. Water was removed
with a paper towel and then the sample was set in the sameplace in the Ge detecting system as before washing, and its
activity concentration was measured to obtain the washingeffect. The bulb without the above ground parts was similarly
treated: that is, soil was removed and the activity concentration was measured; then it was washed and the activity concentration was measured again. Unfortunately, we did notweigh these bulbs; but based on the April 28 bulb sample
weight, we assumed that these two bulbs had a similar weightof 30 g-wet. The bulb collected on April 28 was washed as
mentioned above and then cut into pieces for quantitative
radioactivity analysis. The weight of this bulb was 33.3 g-wet.
Radioactivity correction dates for all samples were the dateof sampling. Quantitative data were available for above
ground part samples for both dates and for the bulb collected
on April 28. Data for 131I (365 keV), 134Cs (605 keV and 796
keV), 137Cs (662 keV), and 129mTe (696 keV) were measured
when possible.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Activity ratios between 131I/137Cs in above groundparts of tulip. Activity concentrations of 131I and 137Cs inabove ground parts of tulip samples before washing are shownin Table 1. To compare the concentration data with other plant
species, concentration data were further corrected to March
11, 2011. The concentrations of 131I were similar on both sampling dates but the 137Cs concentration was lower in the April
28 sample than that in the April 20 sample. The activity ratiosof 131I/137Cs were 200-260. When the activity concentration

Tagamiratio data were compared with our previously reported values
in soil 0-2 cm depth samples15 (data were corrected to March
11, 2011), it was clear that the ratios in soil were 3-4 times
lower than those observed on plants. Ratios of their amountsof gaseous forms to the total released were reported to be 0.50.7 for 131I and 0.02-0.07 for radiocesium.16 Unfortunately, thechemical forms of 131I and radiocesium were not known.
Because most depositions of the nuclides were observed into
be wet forms, chemical forms of 131I and radiocesium would
likely be I- or IO3- and Cs+. At least, the present results showedthat radioiodine and radiocesium were both retained on above
ground parts of tulip plants.
Radioiodine retention on plants was observed for several
plants collected in March to April 2011 in Chiba City, ca. 220
km south from the FDNPP. We previously reported washingeffect for the above ground parts of Japanese dock (Rumex
japonicas), mugwort (Artemisia indica var maximowiczii),
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium macrostemon), butterbur (leaf blades) (Petasites japonicus)17; thus
these measured activity concentration data are listed inTable 1. Further to compare, activity concentration data inleaves of two tree species, that is, red robin (mature leaves)(Photinia glabra) and sweet viburnum (Vibrnum odoratissimum), are also listed in Table 1 together with soil sample datacollected from the same sampling site. It was clear that activity ratios of 131I/137Cs in plant samples collected in Chiba
ranged from 15-60, and these values were similar to those insoil. According to model simulation results,18 heavy radioactive deposition occurred during March 21-22, 2011 at J Village
and in Chiba areas. The ratios of 131I/137Cs in two soil samples
in J Village (ratio=50-61), one soil sample in Chiba (ratio=26),
and 36 soil samples collected at the coastal areas of threemunicipalities in Fukushima Prefecture south of the FDNPP
from open data,19 are also listed in Table 1. Because these data
were in the same order of magnitude and considering the analytical results of radioactive material distribution and time ofdischarges from the FDNPP by Nagai et al.,20 it was assumed
that the 131I and 137C sources were similar in these areas.
3.2. Effect of Washing. To obtain washing effect, theretention factor after washing (Fr_washing) was calculated. The
factor is defined as the activity concentration ratio between
before and after washing, and the results are shown in Fig. 2
for above ground parts. Because only two samples were available, it is difficult to compare the Fr_washing data difference
between radionuclides statistically; however, averages of the
Fr_washing of the samples collected on April 20 and 28, 2011 wascalculated to be 0.97 for 131I, 0.58 for radiocesium (134Cs and137Cs), and 0.71 for 129mTe. The results showed 131I was lessmobile on the plant surface than the other nuclides. Probably
because one month had already passed since the heaviest
direct deposition in March 2011, the mobile portion on theplant surface had already been removed by weathering.
We previously reported the washing effect for these threeelements for some wild plants collected on March 28, 2011 andfound similar Fr_washing with the average values being 0.79 for
131
I, 0.79 for radiocesium and 0.71 for 132Te.17 It is highly probable that differences in leaf surface structures, plant shapes ofthe species and chemical forms of radionuclides could influence the washing effect, and we also cannot ignore the samples
were collected at different times. However, it was clear thatiodine, which was thought to be in anionic forms when it was
deposited,18 was not mobile on the plant surface. The IAEA21
noted that the key parameters of plant surface retention ofradionuclides are valence state of the radionuclide and particle
size. For radiocesium, if the size of deposited material wasvery small such as Cs micro-particles in several µm size, thenit could retain on the plant surface physically, and if ionic form
radiocesium was deposited then it could bound weakly with

J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci., Vol. 22, 2022

Uptake of 131I, 134Cs and 137Cs in tulip (Tulipa gesneriana L.) after the3

TABLE 1: Activity Concentrations (Bq g-1) of 131I and 137Cs and the Ratios of 131I/137Cs in Soil Samples and Tulip Above Ground
Samples (control) Collected in J Village, One Soil Sample and Seven Plant Species Collected in Chiba, and Soil Data Collectedfrom Coastal Area of Naraha, Hirono and Iwaki in Fukushima Prefecture Reported by MEXT.19 Activity Concentrations was
Decay Corrected to March 11, 2011. Units for Soil were on Dry Mass Basis and Those for Plants were on Wet Mass Basis Unless
Otherwise Indicated.
SampleCollection date

Tulip, above ground
Soil (J Village), 0-2 cmaTulip, above ground
Soil (J Village), 0-2 cm

I, Bq g-1 c

131

Cs, Bq g-1 c

137

I/137Cs

131

April 20, 2011225±2

1.11±0.03

202

April 20, 2011699±4111.5±0.6

61

April 28, 201229±40.88±0.04

261

April 28, 2011587±2711.8±0.2

50

Soil (Naraha), 0-5 cmb(N=1)

June 7, 20111.18 × 107(Bq m-2)

1.31 × 105(Bq m-2)

90

Soil (Hirono), 0-5 cmb(Geometric mean, N=9)

June 7, 20115.97 × 106(Bq m-2)

8.52 × 104(Bq m-2)

70(Range: 31-113)

Soil (Iwaki), 0-5 cmb(Geometric mean, N=26)

June 5-6, 20113.34 × 106(Bq m-2)

4.97× 104
(Bq m-2)

67(Range: 37-127)

Japanese dock
(Rumex japonicas)

March 28, 201141.8±0.8

2.49±0.13

17

Mugwort(Artemisia indica var maximowiczii)

March 28, 201137.3±0.52.32±0.07

16Dandelion(Taraxacum officinale)

March 28, 201128.9±0.3

1.88±0.05

15

Butterbur, leaf blade(Petasites japonicus)

March 28, 201137.7±0.3

1.51±0.04

25

Wild onion(Allium macrostemon)

March 28, 201122.0±0.4

0.63±0.04

32

Red robin(Photinia glabra)

April 26, 201118.6±0.7

1.01±0.02

18

Sweet viburnum(Vibrnum odoratissimum)

April 28, 201112.0±1.2

0.20±0.02

60

Soil (Chiba), 0-5 cm(N=1)

April 25, 2011
(Major deposition observedon March 20-21, 2011)

2.2 × 105
(Bq m-2)

8.3 × 103
(Bq m-2)

26

Data from Tagami et al., 2011.15 bData from MEXT.19 c±: Counting error

1.5

Retention factor after washingaaApril 20, 2011
April 28, 2011

1.0

0.5

0.0
I-131

Cs-134

Cs-137

Te-129m

Radionuclide
Figure 2. Retention factor after washing (activity concentration ratios between afterand before washing) of above ground parts of tulip samples collected on April 20 and
28, 2011 for 131I, 134Cs, 137Cs and 129mTe. Bar shows one sigma error from counting.

TagamiJ. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci., Vol. 22, 2022

Activity concentration in tulip bulbs-1
Bq g wet mass

4with above ground parts, before wash (20th)with above ground parts, after wash (20th)
without above ground parts, before wash (20th)
without above ground parts, after wash (20th)with above ground parts, before wash (28th)
with above ground parts, after wash (28th)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
I-131

Cs-134

Cs-137

Radionuclide
Figure 3. Activity concentration of 131I, 134Cs and 137Cs in before and after washing tulip bulb
samples with the above ground parts collected on April 20 and 28, 2011 and without theabove ground parts collected on April 20, 2011. Bar shows one sigma error from counting.

organic matter on the plant surface. It was highly probablethat radiocesium in these forms are not readily mobile byweathering, but some could be removed by washing. However,further study is needed to identify the mechanism.
For the two tulip bulbs collected on April 20 and one bulb
collected on April 28, activity concentrations of 131I and radiocesium before and after washing are shown in Fig. 3. 129mTe
was not detected in any of these bulb samples. As explained in
the Materials and method section, we assumed that the bulbs
with and without the above ground parts had the same weight;
yet we compared the concentration between bulbs with andwithout the above ground parts. When the bulb with the above
ground parts was washed, 131I and radiocesium activity concentration ratios decreased to 0.49 and 0.30, respectively.
Thus, washing effect was higher for both elements just as wefound for the above ground parts, probably due to contaminated soil particles that were retained on the samples before
wash for the April 20 sample. Interestingly, for the April 28
sample, no further washing effect was observed for 131I andradiocesium, although it was difficult to explain this discrepancy.
When the activity concentrations of 131I and radiocesium forthe bulb without the above ground parts was compared tothose for the bulb with the above ground parts for April 20
samples, the level was even smaller for the samples before
wash. When the bulb without above ground parts was washed,
all the radionuclide concentrations were near the detection
limit. The root uptake pathway of these radionuclides may not
be the major contributor to the radioactivity in the tulip bulbs;
however, it is also true that only a small root uptake could be
expected for the bulb sample without the above ground parts.
3.3. Translocation Factor from Above Bround Parts to
Bulb. Using the concentration data for 131I and radiocesium,
we calculated the translocation factor (Ftr, dimensionless),which is defined as follows,
Ftr = Abulb / Aabove
Abulb is activity concentration in the bulb (Bq g-1) and Aaboveis activity concentration in the above ground parts of the same
tulip (Bq g-1). This is similar to the definition used in the
IAEA Technical Report Series No. 472.21 For this calculation,
we only used the washed part data to avoid any effect fromcontaminants attached on the plant above ground part surface.
The data for April 20, 2011 in the washed bulb were roughly
estimated assuming that the weight was approximately 30 g, as
the sample, which had not been destroyed (i.e., cut into pieces)
but measured in its original form, gave the concentrations ofradionuclides as just information values.
The results are listed in Table 2. Considering the 131I halflife, the 131I concentration in the above ground parts wasalmost the same for both sampling dates and the radiocesium
concentration was also similar. For the sample collected on
April 28, 2011, the Ftr for 131I was 0.03 while that for radiocesium was 0.47. Thus more Cs was translocated from the above
ground parts to the bulb. Oestling et al.1 reported similar
results from leaves to edible part of crops in radiotracer experiments.
Hurtevent et al.22 investigated translocation of 125I- in wheatby changing contamination timing; they reported the translocation factor of less than 0.01, which was similar to the present
result. It should be noted that the iodine Ftr was higher fromthe flowering stage to the stage closest to grain ripening. We
can apply this condition to the tulip samples in this study; it
was highly probable that most of the 131I was deposited on thetulips just before they flowered in March and the time of collection was at the bulb growing stage (the end of April), whichcorresponds to grain ripening. Thus the Ftr observed in thisstudy was similar to that of the previous work.22
As we already noted, the data for April 20 were just information values; therefore, it would be invalid to compare thesevalues with those observed on April 28, 2011. At least, however, we can conclude that the tendency was the same, that is,the Ftr for 131I was much lower than that for radiocesium. Thisis a rare finding from actual field observations after the
FDNPP accident. The Cs Ftr for root crops and tubers havebeen compiled in the IAEA publication, 21 and for root crops
are 0.007-0.13 (mean = 0.046) and for tubers are 0.013 to 0.46
(mean=0.12). Thus what we observed in the present study is

J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci., Vol. 22, 2022

Uptake of 131I, 134Cs and 137Cs in tulip (Tulipa gesneriana L.) after the5

TABLE 2: Activity Concentrations of 131I, 134Cs and 137Cs in Washed Tulip Parts and Translocation Factor (Ftr) from Above
Ground Parts to Bulb on the Sampling Date. The Data for the Bulb Collected on April 20, 2011 were Roughly Estimated, andConsequently, the Ftr in Italics are Roughly Estimated Values.
Sampling date
April 20, 2011

April 28, 2011

Plant part
Above ground
Bulb
Ftr
Above ground
Bulb
Ftr

Wet massg
27.1(ca. 30)
41.3
33.3

I
7.66±0.05
0.38±0.01
0.05±0.00
3.11±0.06
0.09±0.01
0.03±0.00
131

Activity concentration, Bq g-1wet mass
134
137
Cs
Cs
0.61±0.03
0.59±0.02
0.12±0.01
0.13±0.01
0.20­±0.010.21­±0.02
0.54±0.02
0.50±0.03
0.22±0.01
0.27±0.01
0.41±0.02
0.53±0.04

Te
0.80±0.17
Not detected
0.73±0.25
Not detected
129m±: Counting error
among the highest values. This high Ftr can be explained by
the plant physiological condition at the time. After flowering,
photosynthesized materials in the above ground parts of thetulip plants translocate mainly to the bulb part to produce
bulblets.23 The bulblets are highly active parts in the plant atthat time, therefore potassium and its analogue, radiocesium,translocate to the tissue. Our results indicate that plant physiological conditions affect the radiocesium translocation.
4. Conclusions
131
I and radiocesium attachment by plant surface structures
and then translocation of these radionuclides from the above
ground parts to the bulbs were observed in tulip samples collected at J Village in April 2011. It was clear that 131I and radiocesium were attached to the tulip plant surface; similar
results were found in several plant species collected in Chiba
Prefecture. However, their Ftr were completely different for131
I and radiocesium. Much more radiocesium was taken up by
plants than 131I from the above ground parts and transferred tothe bulbs.
These findings will help us to identify the chemical formsof 131I released at the time of the accident and to understand theimportance of the Cs supply timing, including when it is taken
up through the plant surface and its translocation. Such data
are important to explain the effect of radiation on plants thathas been reported.24 Further studies are necessary to clarify
the fates of 131I and radiocesium in plants after the FDNPP
accident.

Acknowledgements
We thank Mr. H. Koiso and Mr. J. Shirasaka (Tokyo
Nuclear Services Co., Ltd.) for their technical support in theradioactivity measurement. We are grateful to J Village forkindly providing us with the plant and soil samples.
References[1] O. Oestling, P. Kopp, and W. Burkart, Radiat. Phys.
Chem. 33, 551 (1989).
[2] H. Hasegawa, H. Tsukada, H. Kawabata, Y. Chikuchi, Y.
Takaku, and S. Hisamatsu, J. Environ. Radioactiv. 100,
54 (2009).
[3] Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW),
Levels of Radioactive Contaminants in Foods Tested in
Respective Prefectures, http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/
topics/2011eq/index_food_radioactive.html (accessed 2
December 2022).
[4] N. Hamada, and H. Ogino, J. Environ. Radioactiv. 111,
83 (2012).
[5] K. Tagami, S. Uchida, and N. Ishii, J. Radioanal. Nucl.
Chem. 292, 243 (2012).

[6] T. Saito, Y. Suzuki, S. Fujimura, and H. Tsukada,
Radiation Monitoring and Dose Estimation of the
Fukushima Nuclear Accident, edited by S. Takahashi(Springer, Tokyo, 2014), p. 135.
[7] A. Takeda, H. Tsukada, N. Yamaguchi, M. Takeuchi, M.
Sato, A. Nakao, and S. Hisamatsu, J. Environ.
Radioactiv. 137, 119 (2014).
[8] T. Eguchi, T. Ohta, T. Ishikawa, H. Matsunami, Y.
Takahashi, K. Kubo, N. Yamaguchi, and T. Shinano, T.,
J. Environ. Radioactiv. 147, 33 (2015).
[9] S. Fujimura, Y. Muramatsu, T. Ohno, M. Saitou, Y.
Suzuki, T. Kobayashi, K. Yoshioka, and Y. Ueda, J.
Environ. Radioactiv. 140, 59 (2015).
[10] T. Nishikiori, M. Watanabe, M.K. Koshikawa, T.
Takamatsu, Y. Ishii, S. Ito, A. Takenaka, K. Watanabe,and S. Hayashi, Sci. Total Environ. 502, 611 (2015).
[11] M. Sato, D. Takata, K. Tanoi, T. Ohtsuki, and Y.
Muramatsu, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 61, 156 (2015).
[12] K. Tagami, S. Uchida, N. Ishii, and S. Kagiya, J.
Environ. Radioactiv. 111, 65 (2012).
[13] T. Yoshihara, H.Matsumura, S. Hashida, and T.
Nagaoka, J. Environ. Radioactiv. 115, 60 (2013).
[14] F. Carini, J. Environ. Radioactiv. 46, 77 (1999).
[15] K. Tagami, S. Uchida, Y. Uchihori, N. Ishii, H.
Kitamura, and Y. Shirakawa, Sci. Total Environ. 409,
4885 (2011).
[16] H. Amano, M. Akiyama, B. Chunlei, T. Kawamura, T.
Kishimoto, T. Kuroda, T. Muroi, T. Odaira, Y. Ohta, K.
Takeda, Y. Watanabe, and T. Morimoto, J. Environ.
Radioactiv. 111, 42 (2012).
[17] K. Tagami, and S. Uchida, Proceedings of the 13thWorkshop on Environmental Radioactivity. KEK
Proceedings 2012-6, edited by K. Bessho, K. Tagami, K.
Takamiya, and T. Miura (KEK, Tsukuba, 2012), p. 154.
[18] H. Terada, G. Katata, M. Chino, and H. Nagai, J.
Environ. Radioactiv. 112, 141 (2012).
[19] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT), Results of the Nuclide Analysis ofSoil Sampling at 2,200 Locations in Fukushima
Prefecture and Neighboring Prefectures, https://emdb.
jaea.go.jp/emdb_old/en/portals/1020101001/(accessed 2
December 2022).
[20] H. Nagai, G. Katata, H. Terada, and M. Chino, M.,
Radiation Monitoring and Dose Estimation of the
Fukushima Nuclear Accident, edited by S. Takahashi(Springer, Tokyo, 2014), p. 155.
[21] International Atomic Energy Agency, Handbook of
Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide
Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments,
Technical Report Series No. 472 (IAEA, Vienna, 2010).
[22] P. Hurtevent, Y. Thiry, S. Levchuk, V. Yoschenko, P.
Henner, C. Madoz-Escande, E. Leclerc, C. Colle, and V.
Kashparov, J. Environ. Radioactiv. 121, 43 (2013).

6

J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci., Vol. 22, 2022
[23] T. Ohyama, T. Ikarashi, T. Matsubara, and A. Baba, Soil
Sci. Plant Nutr. 34, 405 (1988).
[24] Y. Watanabe, S. Ichikawa, M. Kubota, J. Hoshino, Y.

Tagami
Kubota, K. Maruyama, S. Fuma, I. Kawaguchi, V. I.
Yoschenko, and S. Yoshida, Sci. Rep. 5, Article number
13232 (2015).