Transfer Factors for 

Contaminant Uptake 

by Fruit and Nut Trees

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

NUREG/CR-7174

PNNL-22975
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–

XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–

XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international 

agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures 

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal 

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and 

Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–

0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. 

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of 

such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed in this publication, or represents that 

its use by such third party would not infringe privately 

owned rights.
Transfer Factors for 

Contaminant Uptake 

by Fruit and Nut Trees

Manuscript Completed: November 2013

Date Published: July 2014

Prepared by: 

B. A. Napier

R. J. Fellows

L. D. Minc

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

P. O. Box 999

Richland, WA 99352

P. R. Reed, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Codes N6455 and V6237

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

NUREG/CR-7174

PNNL-22975

iii

ABSTRACT

Transfer of radionuclides from soils into plants is one of the key mechanisms for longterm contamination of the human food chain. Plants absorb nutrients through their roots 

and transport them via the phloem to active portions of the plant. Nearly all computer 

models that address soil-to-plant uptake of radionuclides use empirically-derived transfer 

factors to address this process. Essentially all available soil-to-plant transfer factors are 

based on measurements in annual crops. Very few measurements are available for tree 

fruits. 

In order to address this limitation, a sampling of various “standard” crops and fruit and 

nut trees from a single farm was made. This particular farm uses irrigation water from 

the local aquifer using surface irrigation (not overhead sprinklers) and is registered as an 

organic farm (no pesticides or refined fertilizers are used). Samples of alfalfa and oats 

(to compare with available transfer factors) and stems, leaves, and fruits and nuts of 

almond, apple, apricot, carob, fig, grape, nectarine, pecan, pistachio (natural and 

grafted), and pomegranate were collected, along with local surface soil. The samples 

were dried, ground, weighed, and analyzed for trace constituents through a combination 

of induction-coupled plasma mass spectrometry and instrumental neutron activation 

analysis for a wide range of naturally-occurring elements. 

Analysis results are presented and converted to soil-to-plant transfer factors. These are 

compared to commonly used and internationally recommended values. Those 

determined for annual crops (e.g., alfalfa, grain (oats)) are very similar to commonlyused values; those determined for fruits and nuts differ from the generic 

recommendations in the literature. In most cases, the results of the transfer factors in 

fruits and nuts from this study are the only data available. Transfer factors for most 

macro- and micronutrients are slightly reduced in fruits from the generic 

recommendations; transfer factors for non-essential elements are reduced further. The 

results tend to support the use of chemical analogues for elements that are not 

homeostatically regulated (i.e., those for which internal levels are not regulated by the 

plant at optimal concentrations). These different findings may allow development of 

tree-fruit-specific transfer models. 

v

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1-1

2.0 MODELING SOIL-TO-PLANT UPTAKE ..............................................................2-1

2.1 Radionuclide Behavior in Soils and Plant Uptake........................................2-1

2.2 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors .....................................................................2-2

2.3 Potential Non-Linear Uptakes .....................................................................2-4

2.4 Uptake in Fruit Trees ..................................................................................2-5

3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL AND FRUIT SAMPLES...........................3-1

3.1 Sampling and Analysis of Soil Samples ......................................................3-1

3.1.1 Characterization and Analysis of Bulk Soil Samples........................3-1

3.1.1.1 X-ray Diffraction ................................................................3-2

3.1.1.2 Elemental Analysis by X-ray Fluorescence .......................3-2

3.1.1.3 Particle Size Distribution ...................................................3-3

3.1.1.4 Moisture Content...............................................................3-5

3.1.1.5 Cation Exchange Capacity................................................3-5

3.1.1.6 Carbon Content.................................................................3-6

3.2 Sampling and Analysis of Crop and Fruit Samples......................................3-6

3.2.1 Methods for Analysis of Vegetation Samples...................................3-6

3.2.1.1 Mass Spectrometry ...........................................................3-7

3.2.1.2 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis ........................3-10

4.0 SOIL-TO-PLANT TRANSFER FACTORS............................................................4-1

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................5-1

6.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................6-1

APPENDIX A. RESULTS OF ANALYSES AND CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL, 

CROP, AND FRUIT SAMPLES .............................................................A-1

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Relationships between Tissue Concentrations and Environmental 

Concentrations for Non-nutrient and Nutrient Compounds. ...................2-4

Figure 3.1 Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Nye County Soil Sample .......3-3

Figure 3.2 Plants Sampled – Grafted and Natural Pistachio, Fig............................3-8

Figure 3.3 Plants Sampled – Field Crops Alfalfa and Oats, Fruits and Nuts 

Almond, Apricot, Carob, and Nectarine .................................................3-9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 A Biological Classification of Metals: Shaded Cells are Non-nutrient 

Analogs; Bold Cells are Nonessential Metals. .......................................2-5

Table 3.1 Concentrations of Major Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as 

Determined by XRF...............................................................................3-4

Table 3.2 Concentrations of Trace Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as 

Determined by XRF...............................................................................3-4

Table 3.3 Particle Size Analysis of the Bulk Soil Samples.....................................3-4

Table 3.4 Moisture Contents of the Bulk Soil Samples..........................................3-5

Table 3.5 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Values for the Soil Samples .............3-5

Table 3.6 Carbon Contents of the Soil Samples....................................................3-6

Table 3.7 Elemental Results from ICAP-MS analysis............................................3-7

Table 4.1 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Values for Forage and Grain from this Study, 

Compared to Those in Current Use (unitless) .......................................4-3

Table 4.2 Transfer Factors for Almonds (unitless).................................................4-4

Table 4.3 Transfer Factors for Apples (unitless)....................................................4-5

Table 4.4 Transfer Factors for Apricots (unitless)..................................................4-6

Table 4.5 Transfer Factors for Carob (unitless).....................................................4-7

Table 4.6 Transfer Factors for Figs (unitless)........................................................4-8

Table 4.7 Transfer Factors for Grapes (unitless)...................................................4-9

Table 4.8 Transfer Factors for Nectarines (unitless)............................................4-10

Table 4.9 Transfer Factors for Pecans (unitless).................................................4-11

Table 4.10 Transfer Factors for Grafted Pistachios (unitless)................................4-12

Table 4.11 Transfer Factors for Natural Pistachios (unitless)................................4-13

Table 4.12 Transfer Factors for Pistachios (Natural + Grafted) (unitless)..............4-14

Table 4.13 Transfer Factors for Pomegranates (unitless) .....................................4-15

Table 4.14 Transfer Factors for Generic Fruit and Nut Trees (unitless).................4-16

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transfer of radionuclides from soils into plants is one of the key mechanisms for longterm contamination of the human food chain. Plants absorb nutrients through their roots 

and transport them via the phloem to active portions of the plant. Nearly all computer 

models that address soil-to-plant uptake of radionuclides use empirically-derived transfer 

factors to address this process. Essentially all available soil-to-plant transfer factors are 

based on measurements in annual crops. Very few measurements are available for tree 

fruits. 

In order to address this limitation, a sampling of various “standard” crops and fruit and 

nut trees was made. Samples of alfalfa and oats (to compare with available transfer 

factors) and stems, leaves, and fruits and nuts of almond, apple, apricot, carob, fig, 

grape, nectarine, pecan, pistachio (natural and grafted), and pomegranate were 

collected, along with local surface soil. The samples were dried, ground, weighed, and 

analyzed for trace constituents through a combination of induction-coupled plasma mass 

spectrometry and instrumental neutron activation analysis for a wide range of naturallyoccurring elements. 

Analysis results are presented and converted to soil-to-plant transfer factors. These are 

compared to commonly used and internationally recommended values. Those 

determined for annual crops (e.g., alfalfa, grain (oats)) are very similar to commonlyused values; those determined for fruits and nuts differ from the generic 

recommendations in the literature. In most cases, the results of the transfer factors in 

fruits and nuts from this study are the only data available. 

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are particularly grateful for the technical guidance, review, and 

encouragement provided by P. R. Reed of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The authors thank NRC staff for detailed review comments on the draft of this report.

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Transfer of radionuclides from soils into plants is one of the key mechanisms for longterm contamination of the human food chain. Plants absorb nutrients through their roots 

and transport them via the phloem to active portions of the plant. Nearly all computer 

models that address soil-to-plant uptake of radionuclides use empirically-derived transfer 

factors to address this process. Essentially all available soil-to-plant transfer factors are 

based on measurements in annual crops. Very few measurements are available for tree 

fruits. In order to address this limitation, a sampling of various “standard” crops and tree 

fruits, and the soils that they were growing in, were made from a single farm. Analyses of 

stable element concentrations were performed for the soils and the crops and various 

parts of the trees and fruits. The concentrations of numerous elements have been 

compared to provide soil-to-plant transfer factors for a range of fruits under-represented 

in the radioecological literature. 

Section 2 of this report describes some key concepts in biosphere modeling including 

radionuclide behavior in soils and uptake from soil by plant roots. Each of these is an 

area addressed by research detailed in this report.

Section 3 of this report provides descriptions of the sampling location, sample collection 

and preparation, and sample analysis. Samples of several types of fruit trees, including 

branches, leaves, and fruits were collected and analyzed for stable element 

concentrations. The resulting concentration data are provided in Appendix A of this 

report.

Section 4 presents the results as soil-to-plant transfer factors for future use in 

radiological analyses. The results are compared to transfer factor values routinely used 

in radiological analyses, and observations are made related to uptakes of elements that 

are either nutrients or non-essential elements, as well as to the reliability of use of 

surrogate measures such as chemical similarity for chemically-similar but unmeasured 

materials. 

The results are expected to be useful in: 

• Supporting the development of regulatory criteria (e.g., guidance, technical 

positions) for food-chain pathway issues involving biosphere models

• Providing a basis for developing and evaluating biosphere and food-chain 

pathway data, information, analyses, conceptual models, and computer codes 

• Providing data and information for resolving biosphere issues involving possible 

future development of predictive models for radionuclide uptake in fruits. 

The results of the research program improve the understanding of the features and 

processes for some important long-lived radionuclides in biosphere modeling.

2-1

2.0 MODELING SOIL-TO-PLANT UPTAKE

The following discussion is adapted from a longer presentation in Napier (2006). There 

are a number of important features and processes that all biosphere models must 

address in some manner (UNSCEAR 2000). The primary inputs to estimating radiation 

doses to individuals and populations are the concentrations and availabilities of 

radionuclides in air, water, soil, and foods, and the level of exposure of the individuals or 

groups to each radionuclide in each medium. Because it is not possible to completely

characterize the radiological environment, and because in many practical cases the 

concentration of radionuclides in the environment resulting from reactor operations is too 

low to measure, mathematical models are employed to go from what is known to what

needs to be known. For terrestrial models, these include radionuclide behavior in soil 

and uptake from soil by plant roots. 

2.1 Radionuclide Behavior in Soils and Plant Uptake

Terrestrial plants, as immobile organisms, have adapted to derive essential nutrients 

from their environments. Plants absorb nutrients through their roots and transport them 

via the phloem to active portions of the plant. Biotic factors are likely the source of much 

of the variability seen in concentrations of contaminants in plants. This variability results 

from the nature of the sessile terrestrial plant and its relationship with its environment: 

the need to compete and acquire specific nutrient species from soils (or to avoid uptake 

of excesses of potentially toxic materials), the need of individual plant types for specific 

levels of individual nutrients, and the use of certain metals in tissues as agents to 

discourage herbivory. Thus, the uptake is affected by the following biotic factors:

1. The plant-available concentration in soils within the rhizosphere (the soil zone that 

surrounds and is influenced by the roots of plants), which is governed by soil 

adsorption processes, chemical solubility, microbial/fungal activity, and stability of the 

chemical complexes;

2. The chemical nature and stability of the cation-anion/complex with respect to the 

plant’s capability to metabolically alter and/or absorb the elemental form into the 

plant

3. A series of plant adaptive/evolutionary processes for survival; this can include, but 

not be limited to, protective root processes (exclusion or complexation of an ion for 

detoxification, sequestration within the plant to regulate both ion levels and for 

detoxification, redox to alter solubility and transport when necessary, organic 

complexation in the case of all but mono-cationic elements, and uptake capacity 

being dependent on metabolic needs).

Under these chemical and biotic constraints, uptake can be expected to vary based on 

source term, kinetics of solubilization/speciation, the relative ability of a plant to view a 

non-nutrient ion as an analogue to a nutrient species, and the relative need by the 

individual plant genus/species for specific levels of a particular ion. 
2-2

Transfer of radionuclides from soils into plants is one of the key mechanisms for longterm contamination of the human food chain. There are several methods that may 

potentially be used to simulate this process in radioecological models; the most common 

is through the use of soil-to-plant transfer factors (or concentration ratios), but others 

may also be used.

2.2 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Factors

The concept of soil-to-plant transfer factors has a long history. The document series 

Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices (Tamplin 

1967; Ng and Thompson 1966; Burton and Pratt 1968; Ng et al. 1968) was intended to 

provide input in the design of nuclear explosives to minimize the impacts of fallout; a 

series of appendices to Ng et al. (1968) described how global average concentrations of 

stable elements in soils and plants could be ratioed to give an estimate of uptake of 

radionuclides in plants from contaminated soils. In this description, Ng used the symbol 

(CP/CS) for what he called the plant-to-soil concentration ratio. The data in this report 

became the basis for many later models and calculations, such as NRC Regulatory 

Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977).

The concept pioneered by Ng has been given many names over the years.

• Plant-to-soil concentration ratio – a generic term in ecology, used by Whicker and 

Schultz (1982), Peterson (1983), Faw and Shultis (1999), and others;

• Soil-to-plant transfer factor – used to describe the direction of radionuclide 

migration “from soil into plants”, adopted by Martin Frissell and the International 

Union of Radioecologists (1989), IAEA (1994), and others;

• Vegetable/soil transfer factor – used in documents related to the RESRAD family 

of computer codes (e.g., Yang, Biwer, and Yu 1993; Yu et al. 2001); 

• Soil-to-plant concentration ratio – a variant used by NCRP (1984);

• Soil-to-plant concentration factor – a variant used by IAEA (1982), Ng, Colsher, 

and Thompson (1982);

• Concentration factor – a variant used by Soldat in Fletcher and Dotson (1971); 

Miller et al. (1980);

• Transfer ratio – Stannard (1988);

• Concentration ratio – a commonly-used variant (e.g., Cataldo, Wildung, and 

Garland 1983; Napier et al. 2012; numerous others);

• Plant uptake factor – Eisenbud (1987);

• Relative ratio – Dahlman and Van Voris (1976);

• Uptake ratio – Grummitt (1976);

• Plant bioconcentration factor – a definition more usually used for aquatic uptake 

processes, sometimes used with terrestrial vegetation (e.g., Wolterbeek, van der 

Meer, and Dielemans 2000);

• Plant bioaccumulation factor - a definition more usually used for aquatic uptake 

processes, sometimes used with terrestrial vegetation (e.g., Wolterbeek, van der 

Meer, and Dielemans 2000)

• Discrimination factor – the name sometimes given to the ratio of the steady state 

output to input of a compartment model, when applied to the ratio of 

concentration in soil to concentration in plant, also accumulation factor (Peterson 

1983; Faw and Shultis 1999).
2-3

All of these concepts are the same; the notation generally used for the transfer factor is 

Bv and is the unitless ratio of the concentration of an element in a plant of interest to the 

concentration in the source soil. The transfer factor applies to long-term, chronic 

exposures and is ideally measured at equilibrium. Transfer factors are used in risk 

assessments to estimate the amount of radioactivity that could be present in a food crop 

based on the calculated concentration in the source soil. By calculating the 

concentration in the food, the total intake can be estimated and a dose calculated as a 

result of the annual intake. In terms of radionuclides, the transfer factor is used to 

calculate how many becquerels per kilogram of soil are transferred to the edible dry 

plant product (Bq per kg). Although the concept is occasionally questioned for some of 

its underlying assumptions (e.g., Centofani et al. 2005), it is the most commonly used 

approach in radiological environmental assessments.

The transfer factor depends on the radionuclide, the soil type (which may include soil 

chemistry and concentrations of nutrients and analogues), and the plant type. The 

transfer factors are empirically derived; they are based on measurements made for 

various chemical forms of the radionuclide on selected types of plant in selected soil 

types. Experimental data are not available for all elements for all food types. 

Frequently, a few measurements on a very limited number of plant types are used to 

infer a transfer factor for all crops. Often, when no referenceable documents are 

available, data are derived based on chemical groupings in the periodic table of the 

elements, such that chemically similar elements are assigned similar values.

Since the handbook prepared by Ng et al. (1968), numerous studies have been 

undertaken to quantify transfer factors (or concentration ratios) for specific chemical 

elements as a function of food type. These studies have been compiled in several 

publications. Most computer codes reference one or more of these compilations as the 

source of their transfer factors. Several frequently referenced compilations include the 

International Atomic Energy Agency’s Technical Report Series #364, Handbook of 

Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate 

Environments (IAEA 1994). This document encompasses a wide variety of plant types 

and is the result of extensive background investigations. It is based on data compiled by 

the International Union of Radioecologists. This document has recently been updated 

(IAEA 2009; IAEA 2010). A second frequently cited reference is the NUREG/CR-5512, 

Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning: Technical Basis for 

Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Total Effective Dose Equivalent (Kennedy 

and Strenge 1992) because of its large set of data and traceable references. Other 

references include the National Council on Ionizing Radiation and Protection (NCRP) 

Report #123 (1996), Screening Models for Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, 

Surface Water, and Ground, and the series of documents by Coughtrey and Thorne 

(1983), Radionuclide Distribution and Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems, 

Vols. 1-6. 

Root uptake is important for biologically active or mobile contaminants; other 

contaminants unused or toxic to plants (e.g., plutonium) are discriminated against by

biological systems, and their root uptake is minimal. 

It is important to remember that the modeling of transfer of radionuclides from soils to 

plants is based entirely on empirical observation. For combinations of other plant and 

soil types that have not been directly observed, any factor used is at best an 

approximation.
2-4

2.3 Potential Non-Linear Uptakes

A key assumption of the transfer-factor approach is that the transfer factor is a constant 

as a function of concentration; that is, the uptake is linear. This may not be true for 

contaminants that are nutrients or are chemical analogues for them. Non-linear 

responses may be possible if plants scavenge essential elements at low concentrations 

but maintain a homeostatic balance (i.e., an internal level regulated by the plant at 

optimal concentrations) at higher soil concentrations (Sheppard and Sheppard 1985). 

The assumption of linearity may be appropriate for elements that are not essential to 

biological function, are not analogues of such elements, or are not absorbed by 

organisms via nutrient pathways. These latter elements seldom exhibit linearity at very 

low environmental concentrations (Figure 2.1). For such elements (Table 2.1), 

organisms often are able to homeostatically regulate their tissue concentrations over a 

range of environmental concentrations. In some cases, these concentrations may be 40 

to 200 times greater than the amount needed to sustain life (Förstner and Wittmann 

1981). There is generally little information to evaluate this concept except for a few 

radionuclides such as cesium or strontium which are thought to biologically mimic 

potassium and calcium, respectively. 

The differences in predicted effects between linear and homeostatic models can be 

substantial. Experience in assessing risks of metals in sediments and groundwater 

indicates that, for certain metals and species, the linear model can overestimate 

exposure by up to six orders of magnitude (DOE 1997). 

To date, few models have been developed to deal with this problem. A possible 

alternative for radionuclides with this behavior would be to treat them with a specificactivity type model, wherein the atom ratio of the radioactive to stable atoms of an 

element are assumed to be the same in the plant as in the soil. 

Figure 2.1. Relationships between Tissue Concentrations and Environmental 

Concentrations for Non-nutrient and Nutrient Compounds
2-5

Table 2.1. A Biological Classification of Metals: Shaded Cells are Non-nutrient Analogs; 

Bold Cells are Nonessential Metals.

Period Macronutrient Micronutrient Non-essential

3 Na Mg

4 K Ca Cr Mn Fe, 

Co, Ni Cu Zn

5 Sr Cd

6 Cs Hg Pb

7 Eu, U Np

(a) Period is from the Periodic Table of the Elements.

2.4 Uptake in Fruit Trees

The standard linear uptake model described above using transfer factors was originally 

developed for annual crops (leafy vegetables, root vegetables, forages, and grains). 

The vast majority of available observations, either laboratory or field studies, are for a 

limited number of crop types. In addition, observations are not available for all crop 

types for all chemical elements, and most compendiums of transfer factors use 

surrogates, relying on similar plant types, soil types, or chemical behavior to fill gaps in 

the knowledge (e.g., Staven et al. 2003; Yu et al. 2001). 

The standard model is also used for perennial plants, including fruit trees. The model 

may not be appropriate for trees, considering their longer life and potential for 

accumulating contaminants in roots, trunks, and leaves, with transport to fruits possibly 

delayed for periods of over 1 year. The British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and 

Food (MAFF, since 2001 called the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural 

Affairs) has noted that such “models for fruit are extremely conservative... Extensive 

research is underway to produce more appropriate data. However, a review for MAFF 

concludes that no better fruit models currently exist” (MAFF 1999).

The International Union of Radioecologists and the International Atomic Energy Agency 

jointly prepared a major review of soil-to-plant transfer factors (IAEA 1994), which is 

used as a basic reference world-wide. In this review, soil-to-plant transfer factors are 

presented for many radionuclides and crop types. None of them refer to fruit or nut 

trees. A more recent compilation for tropical ecosystems does include some fruit trees 

(primarily apples), but the only nut is the coconut (Carini 2001). This state of affairs has 

been discussed in the international arena for several years; the IAEA’s Validation of 

Model Predictions (VAMP) Program Multiple Pathways Assessment Working Group 

noted in the early 1990s that many participants overestimated concentrations of 137Cs in 

fruit trees, and that models for predicting the contamination of fruit were in need of 

further improvement (IAEA 1995). The sequel to VAMP, the IAEA’s Biosphere Modeling 

and Assessment (BIOMASS) Program, included a Fruits Working Group (IAEA 1996). 

As part of the work of the Fruits Working Group, a review was undertaken of the 

experimental, field and modeling information on the transfer of radionuclides to fruit. The 
2-6

results of this work were published as a special issue of the Journal of Environmental 

Radiation (Ventner et al. 2001). 

In this special issue, Mitchell (2001) reports that there are three generic types of models 

that are applicable to fruit trees:

• Simple mathematical functions describing declining concentration in fruit, based 

on observations following deposition (e.g., Antonopoulos-Domis et al. 1990);

• Models that attempt to predict temporal distribution in soil-plant systems through 

descriptions of the processes involved; e.g. a model postulated by Frissell at the 

1994 VAMP meeting in Vienna;

• Radiological dose assessment models that use a mixture of equilibrium and/or 

dynamic modeling approaches to predict concentrations in edible products; e.g. 

SPADE (Thorne and Coughtrey 1983).

Antonopoulos-Domis et al. (1990) developed a model structure for perennial fruit trees 

describing distribution, retention, transfer and rejection of radionuclides, based on 

experimental determinations of 137Cs in apricot fruit trees. The original concept for the 

model was based on the fact that the leaves and fruits developing each year are only 

contaminated by a portion of the 137Cs in the body of the tree. A fraction of this available 

reservoir is removed each year, part is lost from the tree through leaves and fruit and 

part becomes irretrievably associated with the body of the tree. This model requires 

knowledge of the contaminant inventory in the soil and the tree, as well as the 

deposition. The model is not immediately transferable to other types of trees, 

radionuclides, and locations, but it does indicate that at least two compartments are 

probably necessary to adequately describe the long-term accumulation and transfer of 

contaminants from trees into fruits.

A model for radiocesium transfer to tree fruit described by Frissel (1994) considers the 

homeostatic control of potassium within fruit trees. The model structure has four 

compartments and was designed to consider the long-term fate of cesium in soil as 

affected by changes in the supply of potassium to soil. The four compartments are soil, 

the easily accessible part of a tree, the poorly accessible woody part, and the fruit or 

leaf. The model is homeostatic; i.e., all cesium concentrations and fluxes are controlled 

by potassium concentrations and fluxes, respectively. In determining the various transfer 

parameters, it is assumed that there is no difference in the behavior of potassium and 

cesium, but that discrimination occurs between the compartments. The loss of plant 

material, termed debris by Frissel, via branches, leaf fall and fruit loss is included and 

returned to the soil, but because uptake is homeostatically controlled, this has minimal 

influence on the tree contents. Frissel (1994) concluded that the model was probably 

not sufficient to describe cesium transfer to fruit. In particular, the use of three 

compartments was not sufficient to model availability within the plant. The model results 

do indicate that important processes are likely to be the biological half time of cesium in 

wood, the discrimination between cesium and potassium, cycling of potassium (through 

falling leaves, etc.), and uptake of potassium.

The fruit plant model in the SPADE computer code (Thorne and Coughtrey 1983) has six 

compartments, representing internal leaf, external leaf, stem, fruit, storage organs and 

root. Movement of radionuclides within the plant model is controlled by empirically 

derived rate constants and parameters are derived for three broad categories of fruit 

plant: herbaceous, shrub and tree. Foliar absorption is represented by transfers between 

the external leaf and internal leaf compartments. Interception by plants takes account of 
2-7

changes in plant biomass with season. The original default parameters were based 

largely on data for cereals but were modified in the case of tree and shrub fruits to allow 

for more rapid transfer from stem to root so that the root store could serve as a reservoir 

through subsequent seasons. Loss of radionuclides from external plant surfaces to the 

soil is modeled as transfer to the surface layer of the soil model. The process of root 

uptake is modeled as the transfer of radionuclides from soil solution to the plant root 

compartment. The transfer rate is also assumed to vary with soil layer depth, both as a 

function of the root distribution throughout the soil profile and as a function of the deposit 

distribution in soil. Consequently, the transfer of radionuclides from the soil solution to 

root is represented by a discrete transfer from each of the 10 layers in the soil model. 

The soil solution to root rate constant in each soil layer is a function of the root uptake 

rate constant and the assumed distribution of root activity in each layer. Three plant 

absorption mechanisms are responsible for the transfer of radionuclides at the soil-root 

interface: plant-base absorption, main root system absorption and tap root absorption. 

The actual value of the soil solution to root transfer coefficient for each root layer

corresponding to the soil layer of the soil model is calculated as the product of the 

specified rate coefficient and the normalized root shape modifier.

None of these models appears to be suitable for generic use in long-term radiological 

assessments without substantial modification and simplification, and all require 

additional development of parameters before general use. Again, it was noted that 

measurements of radionuclide uptake in trees were lacking (Carini 2001), and 

recommended that “There is a need for research on the behavior of radionuclides in fruit 

crops to drive model development, not simply to parameterize existing models. 

Research should focus on understanding the key processes” (Coughtrey et al. 2001). 

As a result of these recommendations, the IAEA initiated the Environmental Modeling for 

Radiation Safety (EMRAS) program in 2003. This program had a Working Group on 

Revision of IAEA Technical Report Series No. 364 “Handbook of Parameter Values for 

the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments” and attempted to 

establish another Fruits Working Group. However, the participation in the Fruits group 

was so low that these participants joined with the Handbook group.

The IAEA handbook has recently been issued as Technical Reports Series Number 472 

(IAEA 2009), supported with a larger compendium (IAEA 2010). These documents 

indicate that there remains a paucity of information about radionuclide uptake in fruits.

3-1

3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL AND FRUIT 

SAMPLES

Soil and vegetation samples were collected from a single farm in southern Nevada growing a 

wide variety of crops of interest. The soil samples were collected for use in plant radionuclide 

uptake studies. The information on soil in this section is a replication of that originally reported 

in Napier et al. (2005) so that the soil and transfer factor information could be easily found within 

a single reference.

The farm has been used for exploratory cultivation of a wide variety of tree species and other 

food crops. Standing crops include pistachio, almond, fig, carob, alfalfa, grapes, apples, 

pomegranate, pecan, field oats, apricots, and nectarines. All are irrigated from the underlying 

aquifer, using surface irrigation (not overhead sprinklers), and are registered as organic farm 

products (no pesticides or refined fertilizers). A sampling trip was taken to collect soil cores and 

up to six replicates of leaves, stems, and fruits of alfalfa, almond, apple, apricot, carob, fig, 

grape, nectarine, oats, pecan, pistachio, and pomegranate.

In addition to the soil and vegetation, samples were also taken of local groundwater used for 

irrigation and 1:1 soil-water extracts. Because these water samples were generally determined 

to have concentrations of materials too low for use in generation of transfer factors, they are not 

further discussed in this report.

3.1 Sampling and Analysis of Soil Samples

Uncontaminated soil samples were collected. The latitude and longitude position of each 

sampling location was recorded by using a global positioning system (GPS) unit to provide 

traceability and the opportunity to provide duplicate samples if required.

The sampling site is located in Nye County, Nevada, in a desert valley approximately 110 miles 

west of Las Vegas in the Amargosa Valley. The soil samples were collected from private land. 

The farmland was used to grow alfalfa for about 14 years up until about 1996, when it was 

allowed to turn to pasture. According to the land owner, the soil was originally conditioned using 

approximately 10 tons/acre of gypsum. No commercial fertilizer was used on the pasture. The 

soil was approximately 2.5 feet thick at the sample site, and consists of a light brown silty sand. 

Near the base, the occurrence of white streaks (calcareous materials) in the soil increased until 

the soil transitioned into broken-up calcrete. 

3.1.1 Characterization and Analysis of Bulk Soil Samples

Detailed information about the soil is provided here, to provide background information for future 

researchers. In the following tables, analyses are listed for primary and duplicate samples. A 

duplicate sample is selected at random when a set of samples is submitted for analyses as part 

of the standard laboratory quality-assurance operating procedures used by the analytical 

laboratories in the PNNL Applied Geology and Geochemistry Group.
3-2

3.1.1.1 X-ray Diffraction

The primary crystalline minerals present in each bulk soil sample were identified using a Scintag 

X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) unit equipped with a Pelter thermoelectrically cooled detector 

and a copper X‐ray tube. The diffractometer was operated at 45 kV and 40 mA. Individual 

scans were obtained from 2 to 65° 2θ with a dwell time of 2 seconds. Scans were collected 

electronically and processed using the JADE® XRD pattern-processing software. Identification 

of the mineral phases in the background-subtracted patterns was based on a comparison of the 

XRD patterns measured for the samples with the mineral powder diffraction files (PDFTM) 

published by the Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards (JCPDS) International 

Center for Diffraction Data (ICDD).

The background-subtracted XRD patterns for the soil sample are shown in Figure 3.1. Each 

XRD pattern is shown as a function of degrees 2θ based on Cu Kα radiation (λ=1.5406 Å). The 

vertical axis in each pattern represents the intensity in counts per second (cps) of the XRD 

peaks. In order to conveniently scale the XRD patterns on the vertical axes and visualize the 

minor XRD peaks, it was necessary to cutoff the intensity of the most intense XRD peak in each 

pattern. These intensity cutoffs are labeled on each XRD pattern, and correspond to the largest 

XRD peak for quartz. 

At the bottom of the XRD pattern, schematic database PDF patterns considered for phase 

identification are also shown for comparison purposes. The height of each line in the schematic 

PDF patterns represents the relative intensity of an XRD peak (i.e., the most intense [the 

highest] peak has a relative intensity [I/Io] of 100%). As noted previously, a crystalline phase 

typically must be present at greater than 5 wt% of the total sample mass (greater than 1 wt% 

under optimum conditions) to be readily detected by XRD.

The following minerals were identified in the soil sample: quartz, plagioclase feldspar, microcline 

feldspar, amphibole, zeolite, and mica. More detailed analyses would be required to refine the 

identities of the general mineral identifications (e.g., plagioclase, amphibole, zeolite, mica, etc.) 

to specific compositions. The soil sample appears to contain a zeolite mineral. Although the 

pattern for this soil sample (Figure 3.1) was a good match to the database pattern for 

clinoptilolite (PDF 47-1870), other compositions of zeolites may also match this pattern.

3.1.1.2 Elemental Analysis by X-ray Fluorescence

 

Elemental analysis of the bulk soil samples was determined by X-ray fluorescence (XRF). The 

XRF analyses were completed for PNNL by staff at the GeoAnalytical Laboratory in the 

Department of Geology at Washington State University using a Thermo-ARL Advant' XP+ 

automated spectrometer. The sequential, wavelength dispersive spectrometer contains a Rhtarget X-ray tube operated at 60 kV, 60 mA. Samples were prepared for XRF analysis using a 

lithium tetraborate flux fusion method which includes double fusing (for homogeneity) in carbon 

crucibles at 1000°C. Preparation time and analytical time were both approximately one hour per 

sample. Except for now using diamond-impregnated metal disks to improve the lapping of 

specimen surfaces to flatness, the details of sample preparation are essentially those described 

in Johnson et al. (1999). Concentrations of major constituents are provided in Table 3.1; 

concentrations of trace elements are listed in Table 3.2. 
3-3

3.1.1.3 Particle Size Distribution

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures ASTM D1140-00 (ASTM 2000) 

and D422-63 (ASTM 2003) were used for particle size analysis of the soil samples. In ASTM 

D422-63, a sedimentation process using a hydrometer is used to determine the distribution of 

particle sizes smaller than 75 μm, while sieving was used to measure the distribution of particle 

sizes larger than 53 μm (retained on a No. 270 sieve). A No. 10 sieve, which has sieve size 

openings of 2.00 mm, was first used to remove the fraction larger than “very coarse” prior to 

particle size analysis. Particle size results are shown in Table 3.3; the soil is essentially 99% 

sand.

Figure 3.1. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Nye County Soil Sample

°2θ

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Relative Intensity (cps)

Nye County

Soil Sample

Quartz

Plagioclase

Microcline

Amphibole

Mica

Zeolite

Intensity Cutoff
3-4

Table 3.1. Concentrations of Major Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as Determined by XRF

Al2O3 CaO FeO* K2O MgO MnO** Na2O P2O5 SiO2 TiO2 Total

(wt% – dry basis, normalized to 100%)

13.44 6.23 2.04 4.31 1.55 0.064 3 0.071 68.95 0.347 100

*

 Concentrations of total iron are normalized to FeO. XRF determines the concentrations of 

total iron and manganese, but does not provide any data regarding the oxidation states of such 

redox sensitive elements present in the sample.

** Concentrations of total manganese are normalized to MnO. 

Table 3.2. Concentrations of Trace Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as Determined by XRF

Ba Ce Cr Cu Ga La Nb Nd Ni

(ppm)

694 95 13 9 17 53 19 36 10

Pb Rb Sc Sr Th V Y Zn Zr

(ppm)

24 136 6 413 19 24 27 53 256

Table 3.3. Particle Size Analysis of the Bulk Soil Samples

Gravel

(x > 2 mm)

Sand

(2 > x > 0.050 mm)

Silt/Clay

(x < 0.050 mm)

(wt%)

0.0 98.99 1.01
3-5

3.1.1.4 Moisture Content

Gravimetric water contents of the soil samples were determined using PNNL procedure PNLMA-567-DO-1 (PNL 1990).1

 This procedure is based on the ASTM Method D2216-98 (ASTM 

1998). One representative subsample of each soil sample was placed in tared containers, 

weighed, and dried in an oven at 105°C (221°F) until constant weight was achieved, which took 

at least 24 hours. The containers then were removed from the oven, sealed, cooled, and 

weighed. Two weighings, each after a 24-hour heating, were performed to ensure that all 

moisture was removed. The gravimetric water content shown in Table 3.4 was computed as the 

percentage change in soil weight before and after oven drying.

Table 3.4. Moisture Contents of the Bulk Soil Samples

Soils

Moisture (wt%)

First 

Weighing

Second

Weighing

Primary 2.51 2.30

Duplicate 2.57 2.38

3.1.1.5 Cation Exchange Capacity

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of each of the soil samples was determined using the 

method described in American Society of Agronomy (ASA) (1982). This method is particularly 

suited to arid land soils, including those containing carbonate, gypsum, and zeolites. This 

procedure involves two steps. The first step consists of saturation of the cation exchange sites 

with Na by reaction of the soil with pH 8.2, 60% ethanol solution of 0.4-N NaOAc–0.1 N NaCl. 

This is then followed by extraction of 0.5 N MgNO3. The concentrations of dissolved Na and Cl 

are then measured in the extracted solution so that the dissolved Na from the excess saturation 

solution, carried over from the saturation step to the extraction step, is deducted from the total 

Na. This provides the amount of exchangeable Na, which is equivalent to the CEC. Results for 

three replicates are shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Values for the Soil Samples

CEC (meq/100 g)

#1 #2 #3 Average

27.3 28.5 29.3 28.4

 1 PNL. 2000. “PNNL Technical Procedure SA-7. Water Content.” Procedure approved in 

May 2000, in Procedures for Ground-Water Investigations, PNL-MA-567, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 
3-6

3.1.1.6 Carbon Content

The total carbon and the inorganic carbon contents of the soil samples were measured using a 

Shimadzu Carbon Analyzer Model TOC-V csn. The method used to measure the carbon 

contents of the soil samples is similar to ASTM Method E1915-01 (ASTM 2001). Known 

quantities of calcium carbonate standards were analyzed to verify that the instrumentation was 

operating properly. Inorganic carbon content was determined through calculations performed 

using the microgram per-sample output data and sample weights. The organic carbon content 

of the soil samples was calculated by subtracting the inorganic carbon contents from the 

respective total carbon contents for each sample. Results are shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6. Carbon Contents of the Soil Samples

Soil

Total Carbon Total Inorganic

Carbon

Total 

Inorgani

c

Carbon 

As 

CaCO3

Total 

Organic 

Carbon

(by 

difference)

#1 #2 Ave #1 #2 Ave Ave Ave

(wt%)

Primary 1.10 1.08 1.09 0.97 0.98 0.97 8.11 0.12

Duplicate 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.26 1.22 1.24 10.31 0.14

3.2 Sampling and Analysis of Crop and Fruit Samples

Up to six replicates were collected of leaves, stems, and fruits of alfalfa, almond, apple, apricot, 

carob, fig, grape, nectarine, oats, pecan, pistachio, and pomegranate. The sampled plants are 

shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3.

The samples were collected July of 2004 at the farm, placed in paper bags, and shipped 

overnight to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. They were then unpacked, a fresh 

weight taken, the samples transferred to tared glass jars, and dried at 80°C for 72- to 96-h. Dry 

weights were then taken and the samples stored at room temperature in the closed jars.

The dried samples were then ground with a Wiley Mill (Sargent Welch, Inc. Philadelphia, PA) to 

a 20 mesh size. The samples were again stored at room temperature.

3.2.1 Methods for Analysis of Vegetation Samples

The primary interest was to obtain information about the concentrations of as many constituent 

elements in as many samples as possible, within budgetary constraints. Some initial range 

finding efforts were undertaken with mass spectrometry, these were followed up by a larger 

analysis using neutron activation analysis.
3-7

3.2.1.1 Mass Spectrometry

Based on soil sampling results, a small range finding effort was made to obtain leaf and fruit/nut 

concentrations for selected stable analogue and other specific chemical elements. This range 

finding was based on single replicates of those fruit and nut species for which both leaves and 

fruit/nuts were available. The elements selected for Induction-Coupled Argon Plasma Mass 

Spectrometry (ICAP) analysis were Cs, Co (+2, 3), Ga (+3 ion), I, Mg (+2 ion), Ni, P (+3, 5, -3), 

Se (+4, 6, -2), Ag (+1) and Sr. Selected samples (10-g aliquots) were sent to Huffman Labs, 

Inc. (Golden, Colorado) for wet digestion and ICAP analysis. The results are given in Table 3.7. 

These results verify the neutron activation analysis results discussed in Section 3.2.1.2; they 

were not used in the derivation of the transfer factors.

Table 3.7 Elemental Results from ICAP-MS analysis.

Element 

(μg/g)

Alfalfa 

Leaf/Stem

Almond 

Leaf

Almond 

Fruit

Apple 

Leaf Apple Fruit Apricot Leaf

Apricot 

Fruit

Cs 0.02 0.079 0.029 0.059 0.005 0.058 0.046

Co 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.07

Ga 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.1 0.09

I 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 <0.5 1 0.9

Mg 2630 5940 1260 2850 481 3430 877

Ni 1.5 1.5 5.7 2.4 3.2 0.6 2.3

P 212 903 1840 1350 945 2700 2640

Se 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.09 <0.05 0.07 0.06

Ag 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.01

Sr 107 117 14 81 1.9 91 6.8

Element 

(μg/g)

Carob 

Leaf

Carob 

Fruit Fig Leaf Fig Fruit Grape Leaf

Grape 

Fruit

Oat 

Leaf/Seed 

Cs 0.066 0.014 0.095 0.009 0.059 0.014 0.012

Co 0.14 0.04 0.19 0.36 0.16 0.03 0.13

Ga 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04

I 1 1.3 0.7 0.3 1.3 <0.5 0.3

Mg 1840 1010 4380 1620 3760 1250 1610

Ni 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 0.7 0.2 3

P 1520 1810 1260 1660 3640 2350 2230

Se 0.14 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.12 <0.05 0.08

Ag 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sr 126 24 153 42 160 21 14
3-8

Figure 3.2. Plants Sampled – Grafted and Natural Pistachio, Fig.

Natural Pistachio

Fig

Grafted Pistachio
3-9

Figure 3.3. Plants Sampled – Field Crops Alfalfa and Oats, Fruits and Nuts Almond, Apricot, 

Carob, and Nectarine.

Alfalfa

Almond

Field Oat

Apricot

Carob Nectarine
3-10

3.2.1.2 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis

A total of 93 botanical samples (tree branches, tree leaves, and tree fruit/nuts for several types 

of trees, along with samples of alfalfa and oats) were evaluated by instrumental neutron 

activation analysis (INAA) at the Radiation Center at Oregon State University. Neutron 

activation analysis is a non-destructive, highly precise and accurate analytical technique 

capable of determining up to 48 elements in almost all types of sample matrices. The INAA 

procedure involves irradiating the samples and appropriate standard reference materials with 

neutrons to produce unstable radioactive nuclides. Many of these radionuclides emit gammarays with characteristic energies that can be measured utilizing high-resolution semiconductor 

detectors. The rate that the gamma-rays are emitted from an element in the sample is directly 

proportional to its concentration. Detection limits are in the parts per million to parts per billion 

range depending on the element and sample matrix. Three aliquots of soil were also included. 

Standard multi-element trace-element analysis typically includes three suites of elements: those 

with very short half-lives (ranging from minutes to less than about 15 hours), those with 

intermediate half-lives (15 hours to several days), and those with long half-lives (on the order of 

several weeks to years). Effective characterization therefore requires a minimum of two 

irradiations, each followed by several counts of resultant gamma activity. These protocols are 

tailored to the type of material and the overall sample activity expected, and thus differ between 

botanical and soil samples. 

Botanical Samples. Botanical samples have notoriously low concentrations of many elements, 

and thus are a challenge for multi-element analysis. One common solution is to dry ash the 

materials in order to reduce both the mass and volume of organic compounds and preconcentrate other elements, resulting in increased analytical sensitivity (Harju et al. 2004; Koh 

et al. 1999). However, a number of elements of interest - including Br and Cl - are highly 

volatile and can be lost in the ashing process. The solution advanced here was to analyze both 

unashed material and ashed materials, for different suites of elements as appropriate. 

To dry ash the samples, approximately 5-25 g of plant material (depending on availability) was 

placed in a covered porcelain crucible, and heated to 550° C in a muffle furnace, using a slow 

ramp of about 200° C per hour and a soak time of 20 hours. As soon as samples were cool 

enough to handle, the ash was lightly ground and homogenized using a ceramic mortar and 

pestle, and transferred to tightly-capped liquid scintillation vials to prevent re-hydration. 

Concentration factors were determined from the ratio of pre-fire to post-fire mass, and used to 

determine the equivalent mass of unashed plant material that was irradiated. The standard 

reference material NIST1571 (orchard leaves) was similarly subjected to the ashing process, 

and both ashed and unashed aliquots of this standard reference material were included in the 

analysis to track the effects of ashing on element concentrations.

Analyses of elements analyzed via short half-life isotopes utilized unashed plant material. 

Approximately 700-850 mg of sample plant material was packed into high-purity polyethylene 

4/5 D vials, weighed to the neared 0.1 mg, and then heat-sealed to ensure closure. Samples 

were irradiated for 60 s at 1 MWth using the OSU TRIGA reactor pneumatic tube system, which 

delivers samples to an in-core location with a thermal flux of 1013 n cm-2 ∙s-1

. Following a decay 

of 14 minutes, each sample was then placed on a 25% relative efficiency HPGe detector at a 

distance of 14 cm from the detector face. Gamma activity was recorded for a period of 500 s 

(real time). 
3-11

Element concentrations were determined using the direct comparison method, with values 

calculated on a weight ratio basis relative to activities obtained in the standard reference 

material NIST1571 (orchard leaves). Three replicates of NIST1571 were included with every 

batch of 20-25 samples; a fourth replicate of NIST1571 was included in each batch as a checkstandard and treated as an unknown, in order to evaluate precision and accuracy of results. All 

data reductions were based on consensus values for the standard reference materials as 

reported in Glascock 2006 (Appendix B). These protocols resulted in data on concentrations of 

Al, Br, Ca, Cl, Cu, Dy, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ti, and V. However, Cu and Ti were consistently below 

detection limits in the NIST1571 standards, resulting in missing data for these elements in the 

botanical samples.

Dry-ashed material was utilized for analysis of elements determined through longer half-life 

isotopes. Ashed materials were encapsulated as above in high-purity polyethylene vials. In this 

case, encapsulated sample masses ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 g of ashed material, a range 

equivalent to 2-18 g of unashed material, depending on the concentration factor. The materials 

were organized in batches of ca. 25 samples, and subjected to a 21-hr irradiation in the rotating 

rack of the OSU TRIGA reactor, a location which experiences a nominal thermal neutron flux of 

3 x 1012 n cm-2 s-1

. Two separate counts of gamma activity were made using a 32-38% relative 

efficiency detector, and a counting geometry of 3 inches. The first count of 5000 s (live-time) 

began 5 days after the end of irradiation, while the second count for 15,000 s followed a 4-week 

decay. These two counts provided data on As, Ba, La, Lu, K, Na, Sm, U, Yb, and Ce, Co, Cr, 

Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Nd, Rb, Sb, Sc, Ta, Tb, Th, Zn, and Zr, respectively.

As above, element concentrations were determined via the direct comparison method. Three 

replicates of the standard reference material NIST1633a (coal fly ash) were included as 

standards. All data reductions were based on consensus values for the standard reference 

materials as reported in Glascock (2006). NIST1571 (orchard leaves) and NIST1570 (spinach) 

were included as check standards to verify accuracy and precision of results.

Soil Samples. Soils were irradiated and analyzed using standard protocols for the analysis of 

mineral samples. Approximately 250 mg of material was placed in a 400 μL polyvial, weighed to 

the nearest 0.1 mg, and then heat-sealed to ensure closure. The samples were then subjected 

to two irradiations, both followed by two separate counts of gamma activity. In this case, the 

data for short half-live isotopes (Al, Ca, Cu, Ti, V, K, Mn, Na) result from a 7 s irradiation 

delivered via pneumatic tube to an in-core location with an average thermal flux of 1013

n cm-2 s-1

. Two separate counts were necessary, one after a 15-minute decay (for Al, Br, Ca, 

Cu, Ti, and V) using a 28% relative efficiency HPGe detector, and a second count after 2-hr 

decay (for K, Mn, and Na) on a 38% relative efficiency HPGe detector. Both counts were for 

540 seconds (real time). 

The concentrations of most elements were determined based on comparison with three 

replicates of the standard reference material NIST1633A (coal fly ash). In addition, the 

determination of Ca content was based on NIST688 (basalt rock), while Br content was 

evaluated relative to NIST1648 (urban particulate). All data reductions were based on 

consensus values for the standard reference materials as reported in Glascock (2006). 
3-12

In contrast, the data for elements with intermediate and long half-life isotopes (including As, Ba, 

La, Lu, K, Na, Sm, U, Yb, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Nd, Rb, Sc, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th, Zn, Zr), result 

from an extended (7 hr) irradiation in the rotating rack, which experiences an average thermal 

neutron flux of 2 x 1012 n cm-2 s-1

. Following irradiation, two separate counts of gamma activity 

were recorded using a 32% relative efficiency HPGe detector. These include a 5000-second 

count (live time) of each sample after a 1-week decay period, and a 10,000-second count (live 

time) after a period of 4 weeks decay. 
4-1

4.0 SOIL-TO-PLANT TRANSFER FACTORS

Soil-to-plant transfer factors for the nine crops, fruits, and nuts are estimated from the data 

prepared by this study. The transfer factors were evaluated from ratio of the arithmetic means

of the concentrations of the available samples to the average concentrations of the three soil 

replicates. Uncertainties were propagated assuming that the measurements are uncorrelated 

(i.e., that there are no covariance terms).

In a few instances, the INAA analysis of the soil samples reported concentration values less 

than the reliable detection level. The INAA method was insufficiently sensitive for measuring Br, 

Cl, and Ni in soil samples. The x-ray fluorescence measurements of soil provide a moresensitive measure for these elements, so these measurements were used for the estimation of 

transfer factors. A generic uncertainty of 10% was assumed for the x-ray fluorescence 

measurements for this purpose as a conservative approximation (IAEA 2004). 

For several elements, there were a large number of less-than or zero measurements in the 

vegetation samples. The elements for which this occurred include Ti, V, Lu, U, Yb, Nd, Ta, Tb, 

and Zr. These are all trace elements with no known biological function. The less-than values 

were not used in the estimation of the transfer factors, and as a result there are several plant 

types for these elements for which no transfer factors are reported.

The transfer factors derived from the data discussed in Section 3 are presented in Tables 4.1 

through 4.14. The transfer factors (soil-to-plant concentration ratios) are calculated by dividing 

the average measured concentration of the element in the plant portion by the average 

measured concentration in the soil. The uncertainties presented incorporate the variability in 

the plant and soil measurements and the measurement errors. The measurement uncertainties 

reflect counting uncertainty for net peak areas. The measurements of the plant concentration 

and the soil concentration are assumed to be uncorrelated (the covariance is assumed to be 

zero.) The reported uncertainty in the concentration ratio is then estimated as:

σCR

2

CR = σP

2

CP

+

σS

2

Cs

Where CR = concentration ratio

CP = concentration in plant

CS = concentration in soil

σCR

2 = variance of the concentration ratio

σP

2 = variance of the concentration in the plant

σS

2 = variance of the concentration in the soil.

Table 4.1 presents transfer factors for a forage (alfalfa) and a grain (oats) developed in this 

report. These are compared with similar transfer factors used in environmental modeling; the 

complete set of transfer factors used in the GENII Version 2.10 model (Napier et al. 2012) which 

are primarily based upon the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Technical Report 

Series No. 364 (IAEA 1994). These are also compared with the newer values for temperate 

environments for all soil types compiled in IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 472 (IAEA 2009),
4-2

supported with a larger compendium (IAEA 2010). It can be seen in Table 4.1 that the values 

found for this one location in Nevada are of the same general magnitude as the IAEA 

recommendations, although generally slightly lower as might be expected for a site-specific, 

rather than conservatively generic, analysis.

Tables 4.2 through 4.13 present the results for the specific fruit and nut trees evaluated herein –

almond, apple, apricot, carob, figs, grapes, nectarines, pecans, pistachios, and pomegranates. 

The results for pistachios are given for natural pistachios, grafted pistachios, and the two 

combined (there are minor differences – the uptake appears to be generally a little greater in the 

grafted variety). Table 4.14 presents a summary of the average of these fruits and nuts as 

generic transfer factors, which may be more appropriate for most general environmental 

analyses.

In the following tables, a double dash (--) indicates a combination for which there was 

insufficient data above detection limits to make an estimate.
4-3

Table 4.1 Soil-to-Plant Transfer Values for Forage and Grain from this Study, Compared to 

Those in Current Use (unitless)

Current Study Values TRS-364 Values TRS-472 Values

Element Forage ± 1σ Grain ± 1σ Forage Grain Fruit Forage Grain Fruit

Al 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018

Br 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.002 1.5 1.5 1.5

Ca 0.495 0.152 0.108 0.031 3.5 0.35 0.35 8.7 20

Cl 0.514 0.206 0.302 0.107 70 70 70 0.36

Mg 0.342 0.187 0.231 0.113 1 0.55 0.55

Mn 0.098 0.015 0.149 0.019 0.7 0.3 0.05 1.5 0.28 0.31

K 1.073 0.298 0.278 0.071 1 0.55 0.55 0.74 0.74

Na 0.041 0.012 0.044 0.010 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.01 0.03

Ti -- -- -- -- 5.40E-05 5.40E-05 5.40E-05

V -- -- -- -- 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013

As 0.028 0.006 -- -- 0.04 0.006 0.006

La 0.002 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0052 0.004 0.004 0.02 0.00002 0.006

Lu -- -- -- -- 0.02 0.02 0.02

Sm 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.0004 0.02 0.02 0.02

Na 0.042 0.004 0.047 0.004 0.3 0.3 0.3

U -- -- -- -- 0.0083 0.0013 0.004 0.015 0.0062 0.015

Yb -- -- -- -- 0.02 0.02 0.02

Sb 0.074 0.028 0.043 0.014 0.00013 0.03 8.00E-05 0.007 0.0018 0.00013

Ba 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.15 0.015 0.015 0.91 0.001 0.005

Ce 0.002 0.0004 0.002 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.008 0.003

Cs 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.46 0.026 0.22 0.16 0.029 0.021

Cr 0.010 0.004 0.025 0.006 0.0075 0.0045 0.0045 0.002 0.0002 0.001

Co 0.027 0.003 0.022 0.002 0.23 0.0037 0.007 0.066 0.0085 0.14

Eu 0.001 -- 0.002 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.02

Hf 0.001 0.0004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Fe 0.005 0.0003 0.004 0.0003 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.002 0.0002 0.001

Nd -- -- -- -- 0.02 0.02 0.02

Ni 0.102 0.060 0.309 0.155 0.28 0.03 0.06 0.4 0.027

Rb 0.124 0.023 0.052 0.009 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.61 0.9

Sc 0.002 0.0002 0.003 0.0002 0.006 0.001 0.001

Sr 0.277 0.131 0.049 0.022 3 0.21 0.2 3.7 0.11 0.36

Ta 0.003 0.0004 0.002 0.001 0.025 0.025 0.025

Tb -- -- -- -- 0.02 0.02 0.02

Th 0.001 0.0002 0.002 0.0003 0.0018 3.40E-05 0.00025 0.0026 0.0021 0.00078

Zn 0.159 0.032 0.211 0.039 1.3 1.6 0.9 1 1.8 0.42

Zr -- -- -- -- 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.001 0.004
4-4

Table 4.2 Transfer Factors for Almonds (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Nut ± 1σ

Al 0.007 0.003 0.001 0.0005 0.003 0.002

Br -- -- -- -- -- --

Ca 1.588 0.309 0.734 0.156 0.105 0.033

Cl 0.022 0.006 0.008 0.002 0.016 0.006

Mg 0.680 0.238 0.084 0.029 0.142 0.079

Mn 0.048 0.005 0.022 0.002 0.019 0.003

K 0.712 0.125 0.146 0.026 0.793 0.218

Na 0.118 0.023 0.022 0.005 0.027 0.007

Ti 0.005 0.005 -- -- 0.004 0.003

V 0.013 0.006 -- -- 0.011 0.008

As 0.176 0.043 0.163 0.043 0.024 0.010

La 0.008 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 0.004 0.0002

Lu 0.008 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002

Sm 0.011 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.005 0.001

Na 0.128 0.009 0.022 0.002 0.024 0.003

U 0.015 0.005 -- -- 0.004 --

Yb 0.015 0.004 -- -- 0.009 0.003

Sb 0.035 0.008 0.176 0.038 0.098 0.033

Ba 0.016 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.002

Ce 0.009 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.004 0.0004

Cs 0.013 0.001 0.003 0.0003 0.005 0.001

Cr 0.055 0.008 0.012 0.002 0.028 0.007

Co 0.023 0.002 0.006 0.0004 0.010 0.001

Eu 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.0003 0.005 0.001

Hf 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.006 0.001

Fe 0.018 0.001 0.004 0.0002 0.007 0.0005

Nd 0.008 0.003 -- -- -- --

Ni 0.288 0.070 0.271 0.111 0.295 0.165

Rb 0.077 0.009 0.016 0.002 0.122 0.022

Sc 0.017 0.001 0.003 0.0001 0.006 0.001

Sr 0.494 0.148 0.344 0.110 0.045 0.022

Ta 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.0004 0.004 0.001

Tb 0.008 0.003 -- -- 0.004 0.002

Th 0.010 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.005 0.0003

Zn 0.099 0.013 0.051 0.007 0.118 0.024

Zr 0.010 0.005 -- -- 0.006 0.004
4-5

Table 4.3 Transfer Factors for Apples (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.0004 0.001 0.0002

Br 0.001 0.00002 -- -- -- --

Ca 0.687 0.141 0.793 0.154 0.015 0.003

Cl 0.039 0.011 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.001

Mg 0.381 0.131 0.122 0.042 0.059 0.020

Mn 0.101 0.009 0.032 0.003 0.006 0.001

K 0.700 0.122 0.190 0.034 0.468 0.081

Na 0.017 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.0004

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V 0.023 0.012 -- -- -- --

As 0.160 0.038 0.035 0.009 0.033 0.008

La 0.009 0.0002 0.001 0.00004 0.001 0.00004

Lu 0.007 0.002 -- -- -- --

Sm 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Na 0.016 0.001 0.004 0.0003 0.002 0.0002

U 0.012 0.006 -- -- -- --

Yb 0.012 0.004 -- -- -- --

Sb 0.047 0.010 0.045 0.010 0.090 0.021

Ba 0.017 0.004 0.011 0.002 -- --

Ce 0.010 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.0002

Cs 0.013 0.001 0.002 0.0003 0.002 0.0003

Cr 0.096 0.014 0.010 0.002 0.011 0.002

Co 0.028 0.002 0.007 0.0004 0.003 0.0003

Eu 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.0003 0.002 0.0003

Hf 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.0001

Fe 0.019 0.001 0.003 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Nd 0.017 0.005 -- -- -- --

Ni -- -- 0.083 0.033 0.126 0.054

Rb 0.136 0.016 0.046 0.005 0.139 0.017

Sc 0.018 0.001 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Sr 0.232 0.075 0.286 0.089 0.004 0.002

Ta 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.0003 -- --

Tb 0.009 0.003 -- -- -- --

Th 0.009 0.0003 0.001 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001

Zn 0.171 0.022 0.225 0.033 0.022 0.003

Zr 0.008 0.005 -- -- -- --
4-6

Table 4.4 Transfer Factors for Apricots (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.001 0.0002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001

Br -- -- -- -- -- --

Ca 0.617 0.084 0.662 0.135 0.323 0.009

Cl 0.006 0.001 0.017 0.005 0.006 0.002

Mg 0.144 0.035 0.258 0.103 0.109 0.030

Mn 0.040 0.003 0.079 0.009 0.024 0.001

K 0.163 0.020 0.832 0.182 0.502 0.148

Na 0.003 0.0003 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.001

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- 0.019 0.008 -- --

As 0.050 0.009 0.060 0.016 0.035 0.006

La 0.001 0.00005 0.003 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Lu -- -- 0.004 0.001 -- --

Sm 0.001 0.0001 0.004 0.0003 0.002 0.0004

Na 0.003 0.0002 0.005 0.0004 0.003 0.0004

U -- -- 0.005 0.000 -- --

Yb -- -- 0.012 0.003 -- --

Sb 0.026 0.004 0.075 0.017 0.032 0.009

Ba 0.005 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.005 0.001

Ce 0.001 0.0002 0.004 0.0003 0.001 0.0004

Cs 0.002 0.0002 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.001

Cr 0.009 0.001 0.026 0.005 0.009 0.003

Co 0.005 0.0003 0.010 0.001 0.006 0.001

Eu 0.002 0.0002 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001

Hf 0.001 0.0002 0.003 0.0004 0.001 0.001

Fe 0.003 0.0001 0.008 0.0004 0.003 0.0003

Nd -- -- -- -- -- --

Ni 0.063 0.019 -- -- 0.112 0.061

Rb 0.044 0.004 0.140 0.019 0.144 0.036

Sc 0.002 0.0001 0.007 0.0004 0.002 0.0003

Sr 0.249 0.053 0.182 0.056 0.133 0.006

Ta -- -- 0.007 0.001 -- --

Tb -- -- -- -- -- --

Th 0.001 0.0001 0.003 0.0002 0.001 0.0002

Zn 0.189 0.017 0.128 0.017 0.133 0.015

Zr -- -- -- -- -- --
4-7

Table 4.5 Transfer Factors for Carob (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001

Br 0.002 0.001 -- -- -- --

Ca 0.668 0.132 0.409 0.082 0.225 0.063

Cl 0.106 0.027 0.025 0.006 0.057 0.020

Mg 0.254 0.088 0.075 0.027 0.139 0.068

Mn 0.092 0.009 0.014 0.001 0.031 0.004

K 0.409 0.071 0.134 0.025 0.559 0.137

Na 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.0002

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- -- -- -- --

As 0.036 0.011 0.016 0.004 -- --

La 0.003 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Lu 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001

Sm 0.005 0.0003 0.003 0.0002 0.001 0.0002

Na 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.0003 0.001 0.0002

U 0.002 -- -- -- -- --

Yb 0.005 0.002 -- -- -- --

Sb 0.029 0.007 0.150 0.032 0.022 0.007

Ba 0.009 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.001

Ce 0.004 0.0003 0.002 0.0002 0.001 0.0003

Cs 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.0004 0.002 0.001

Cr 0.044 0.006 0.014 0.002 0.020 0.005

Co 0.014 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.007 0.001

Eu 0.005 0.0005 0.004 0.0004 0.002 0.001

Hf 0.004 0.0004 0.002 0.0003 0.001 0.0003

Fe 0.010 0.0004 0.004 0.0002 0.003 0.0002

Nd -- -- -- -- -- --

Ni 0.141 0.038 0.253 0.113 0.242 0.129

Rb 0.093 0.011 0.026 0.003 0.135 0.023

Sc 0.008 0.0004 0.004 0.0002 0.002 0.0002

Sr 0.173 0.055 0.173 0.057 0.073 0.032

Ta 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.0005 0.001 0.0004

Tb 0.004 0.002 -- -- -- --

Th 0.004 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0002

Zn 0.168 0.022 0.104 0.014 0.222 0.041

Zr -- -- -- -- -- --
4-8

Table 4.6 Transfer Factors for Figs (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.017 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001

Br 0.001 0.0004 0.001 0.0003 0.001 0.0005

Ca 0.908 0.174 0.631 0.121 0.317 0.101

Cl 0.174 0.044 0.150 0.042 0.171 0.068

Mg 0.534 0.183 0.255 0.092 0.248 0.140

Mn 0.098 0.009 0.044 0.004 0.026 0.004

K 0.691 0.120 0.405 0.073 0.520 0.144

Na 0.045 0.007 0.013 0.002 0.013 0.003

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V 0.030 0.015 -- -- -- --

As 0.050 0.010 0.010 0.003 -- --

La 0.021 0.0005 0.002 0.00005 0.001 0.0001

Lu 0.025 0.004 -- -- -- --

Sm 0.024 0.001 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0002

Na 0.060 0.004 0.013 0.001 0.014 0.001

U 0.031 0.013 0.001 -- -- --

Yb 0.034 0.010 0.002 0.001 -- --

Sb 0.066 0.015 0.043 0.010 0.119 0.042

Ba 0.027 0.006 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.002

Ce 0.022 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.001 0.0002

Cs 0.023 0.002 0.002 0.0002 0.002 0.001

Cr 0.079 0.011 0.010 0.002 0.010 0.003

Co 0.044 0.003 0.008 0.001 0.007 0.001

Eu 0.024 0.002 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.0004

Hf 0.025 0.002 0.002 0.0002 0.001 0.0003

Fe 0.035 0.001 0.003 0.0001 0.003 0.0002

Nd 0.021 0.008 -- -- -- --

Ni 1.049 0.259 0.110 0.041 0.266 0.164

Rb 0.106 0.013 0.051 0.006 0.080 0.015

Sc 0.032 0.002 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Sr 0.346 0.104 0.261 0.078 0.109 0.053

Ta 0.022 0.003 0.001 0.0003 0.004 0.001

Tb 0.024 0.006 0.001 0.001 -- --

Th 0.021 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0002

Zn 0.200 0.026 0.101 0.013 0.165 0.034

Zr 0.020 0.014 -- -- -- --
4-9

Table 4.7 Transfer Factors for Grapes (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.0004 0.001 0.0003

Br 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001

Ca 1.045 0.200 0.352 0.083 0.241 0.061

Cl 0.103 0.026 0.321 0.104 0.160 0.072

Mg 0.398 0.138 0.206 0.092 0.175 0.076

Mn 0.179 0.016 0.067 0.007 0.044 0.005

K 0.265 0.047 0.541 0.122 0.679 0.144

Na 0.026 0.004 0.217 0.045 0.093 0.028

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- -- -- -- --

As 0.164 0.040 0.088 0.029 0.064 0.023

La 0.006 0.0001 0.001 0.00005 0.001 0.0001

Lu -- -- -- -- -- --

Sm 0.007 0.0004 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0002

Na 0.028 0.002 0.242 0.018 0.101 0.011

U -- -- -- -- -- --

Yb -- -- -- -- -- --

Sb 0.072 0.015 0.260 0.101 0.110 0.037

Ba 0.012 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.002

Ce 0.006 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.0002

Cs 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.0004

Cr 0.025 0.004 0.017 0.004 0.012 0.003

Co 0.023 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.007 0.001

Eu 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.0002 - --

Hf 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.0003

Fe 0.014 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.003 0.0002

Nd -- -- -- -- -- --

Ni -- -- 0.222 0.089 0.174 0.068

Rb 0.047 0.006 0.151 0.024 0.154 0.022

Sc 0.012 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Sr 0.373 0.111 0.178 0.065 0.111 0.047

Ta 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.0003 -- --

Tb 0.005 0.001 -- -- -- --

Th 0.006 0.0003 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0002

Zn 0.198 0.025 0.314 0.050 0.144 0.026

Zr -- -- -- -- -- --
4-10

Table 4.8 Transfer Factors for Nectarines (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.0003 0.001 0.0002

Br 0.001 0.0002 -- -- -- --

Ca 0.554 0.107 0.754 0.155 0.049 0.007

Cl 0.057 0.015 0.007 0.002 0.006 0.001

Mg 0.378 0.131 0.124 0.043 0.110 0.027

Mn 0.132 0.012 0.058 0.006 0.020 0.001

K 1.239 0.214 0.148 0.028 0.653 0.080

Na 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.0004 0.001 0.0002

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- -- -- -- --

As 0.062 0.015 0.034 0.009 0.005 0.001

La 0.006 0.0001 0.001 0.00004 0.002 0.00003

Lu 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.0004 -- --

Sm 0.007 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Na 0.006 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.00005

U 0.011 0.005 -- -- -- --

Yb 0.012 0.004 -- -- -- --

Sb 0.051 0.011 0.138 0.029 0.167 0.025

Ba 0.011 0.003 0.004 0.001 -- --

Ce 0.007 0.0003 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.0002

Cs 0.012 0.001 0.002 0.0002 0.002 0.0003

Cr 0.063 0.009 0.011 0.002 0.008 0.001

Co 0.020 0.001 0.005 0.0004 0.005 0.0003

Eu 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.0003 0.001 0.0002

Hf 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.0002

Fe 0.015 0.001 0.003 0.0001 0.003 0.0001

Nd -- -- -- -- -- --

Ni 0.141 0.042 0.260 0.112 0.375 0.095

Rb 0.293 0.034 0.054 0.007 0.302 0.025

Sc 0.014 0.001 0.002 0.0001 0.002 0.0001

Sr 0.136 0.041 0.251 0.080 0.013 0.003

Ta 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.0004 -- --

Tb 0.007 0.002 -- -- -- --

Th 0.007 0.0003 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Zn 0.134 0.017 0.155 0.023 0.123 0.011

Zr -- -- -- -- -- --
4-11

Table 4.9 Transfer Factors for Pecans (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.0002 -- --

Br 0.003 0.001 -- -- -- --

Ca 0.734 0.099 0.504 0.068 0.042 0.006

Cl 0.553 0.098 0.083 0.015 0.066 0.012

Mg 0.358 0.087 0.087 0.021 0.060 0.015

Mn 0.088 0.006 0.024 0.002 0.009 0.001

K 0.724 0.089 0.193 0.024 0.397 0.049

Na 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0001

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- -- -- -- --

As 0.020 0.004 0.077 0.013 -- --0

La 0.003 0.0001 0.001 0.00000 0.0002 0.00001

Lu -- -- -- -- -- --

Sm 0.004 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 -- --

Na 0.005 0.0002 0.004 0.00010 0.001 0.00005

U -- -- -- -- -- --

Yb -- -- -- -- -- --

Sb 0.023 0.004 0.935 0.137 0.060 0.009

Ba 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.001 -- --

Ce 0.004 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 -- --

Cs 0.006 0.0004 0.002 0.0002 -- --

Cr 0.026 0.003 0.016 0.002 0.003 0.001

Co 0.011 0.0005 0.005 0.0003 0.002 0.0002

Eu 0.004 0.0003 -- -- -- --

Hf 0.003 0.0002 0.001 0.0001 -- --

Fe 0.009 0.0003 0.003 0.0001 0.001 0.0001

Nd -- -- -- -- -- --

Ni -- -- 0.191 0.049 0.275 0.069

Rb 0.088 0.007 0.031 0.003 0.085 0.007

Sc 0.008 0.0003 0.003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000

Sr 0.208 0.044 0.208 0.044 0.015 0.003

Ta 0.004 0.0004 -- -- -- --

Tb 0.004 0.001 -- -- -- --

Th 0.004 0.0001 0.001 0.0001 -- --

Zn 0.193 0.017 0.121 0.011 0.211 0.019

Zr 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001
4-12

Table 4.10 Transfer Factors for Grafted Pistachios (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Nut ± 1σ

Al 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.0004 0.0002

Br 0.003 0.001 -- -- -- --

Ca 0.893 0.244 0.586 0.164 0.034 0.010

Cl 0.364 0.133 0.015 0.006 0.035 0.013

Mg 0.640 0.314 0.116 0.057 0.070 0.034

Mn 0.117 0.015 0.067 0.009 0.009 0.001

K 0.608 0.150 0.207 0.053 0.481 0.118

Na 0.008 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.0003

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- 0.013 0.008 -- --

As 0.142 0.050 0.021 0.008 0.020 0.008

La 0.006 0.0002 0.006 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003

Lu 0.005 0.002 0.008 0.002 -- --

Sm 0.007 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.0005 0.0002

Na 0.008 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.0001

U 0.010 0.004 0.007 0.005 -- --

Yb 0.013 0.003 0.012 0.004 -- --

Sb 0.061 0.021 0.179 0.066 0.209 0.064

Ba 0.016 0.005 0.011 0.004 -- --

Ce 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.0005 0.001 0.0002

Cs 0.010 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.0004

Cr 0.056 0.011 0.034 0.008 0.009 0.003

Co 0.015 0.001 0.014 0.002 0.003 0.001

Eu 0.006 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.001

Hf 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.0008 0.0002

Fe 0.012 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.002 0.0002

Nd -- -- 0.009 0.004 -- --

Ni 0.052 0.025 0.040 0.021 0.489 0.258

Rb 0.075 0.013 0.030 0.005 0.094 0.016

Sc 0.011 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.0001

Sr 0.347 0.154 0.300 0.133 0.018 0.009

Ta 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.002 -- --

Tb 0.007 0.003 0.008 0.004 -- --

Th 0.007 0.0004 0.006 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001

Zn 0.148 0.028 0.115 0.022 0.140 0.027

Zr -- -- 0.019 0.011 -- --
4-13

Table 4.11 Transfer Factors for Natural Pistachios (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Nut ± 1σ

Al 0.005 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.0004

Br 0.002 0.001 -- -- 0.001 0.0002

Ca 0.573 0.139 0.788 0.186 0.086 0.021

Cl 0.138 0.044 0.022 0.007 0.077 0.024

Mg 0.476 0.206 0.175 0.074 0.121 0.052

Mn 0.093 0.010 0.057 0.006 0.018 0.002

K 0.344 0.074 0.252 0.055 0.559 0.119

Na 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.0004

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V 0.014 0.005 0.016 0.007 -- --

As 0.087 0.029 0.026 0.009 0.028 0.010

La 0.004 0.0001 0.007 0.0002 0.001 0.00005

Lu 0.006 0.001 0.008 0.002 -- --

Sm 0.006 0.0005 0.009 0.001 0.001 0.0002

Na 0.005 0.0004 0.004 0.0004 0.001 0.0001

U 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.004 -- --

Yb 0.007 0.003 0.007 0.003 -- --

Sb 0.047 0.013 0.062 0.018 0.054 0.016

Ba 0.019 0.004 0.019 0.005 -- --

Ce 0.005 0.0004 0.008 0.0004 0.001 0.0003

Cs 0.008 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.002 0.0004

Cr 0.023 0.005 0.023 0.005 0.006 0.002

Co 0.015 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.004 0.0005

Eu 0.008 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.0003

Hf 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.0003

Fe 0.010 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.003 0.0002

Nd 0.011 0.004 0.005 0.003 -- --

Ni 0.275 0.138 0.070 0.027 0.156 0.075

Rb 0.099 0.017 0.045 0.007 0.101 0.016

Sc 0.010 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.002 0.0001

Sr 0.156 0.071 0.362 0.136 0.027 0.012

Ta 0.007 0.001 0.006 0.002 -- --

Tb 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.003 -- --

Th 0.005 0.0003 0.007 0.0003 0.001 0.0002

Zn 0.114 0.018 0.049 0.009 0.089 0.016

Zr 0.004 0.002 -- -- -- --
4-14

Table 4.12 Transfer Factors for Pistachios (Natural + Grafted) (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Nut ± 1σ

Al 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.0004

Br 0.003 0.002 -- -- -- --

Ca 0.733 0.281 0.687 0.248 0.060 0.023

Cl 0.251 0.140 0.018 0.009 0.056 0.027

Mg 0.558 0.376 0.145 0.093 0.095 0.062

Mn 0.105 0.018 0.062 0.011 0.014 0.002

K 0.476 0.168 0.229 0.076 0.520 0.167

Na 0.007 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.0005

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V 0.014 0.005 0.015 0.010 -- --

As 0.115 0.058 0.023 0.012 0.024 0.013

La 0.005 0.0003 0.007 0.0003 0.001 0.0001

Lu 0.005 0.003 0.008 0.003 -- --

Sm 0.006 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.0002

Na 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.0001

U 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.007 -- --

Yb 0.010 0.004 0.009 0.005 -- --

Sb 0.054 0.025 0.121 0.068 0.132 0.066

Ba 0.018 0.007 0.015 0.006 -- --

Ce 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.0003

Cs 0.009 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.002 0.001

Cr 0.039 0.012 0.028 0.009 0.007 0.004

Co 0.015 0.002 0.016 0.002 0.004 0.001

Eu 0.007 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.001

Hf 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.0003

Fe 0.011 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.003 0.0003

Nd 0.011 0.004 0.007 0.005 -- --

Ni 0.164 0.140 0.055 0.034 0.322 0.269

Rb 0.087 0.022 0.038 0.009 0.097 0.022

Sc 0.010 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.001 0.0002

Sr 0.251 0.169 0.331 0.191 0.023 0.015

Ta 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.003 -- --

Tb 0.007 0.004 0.008 0.005 -- --

Th 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.0002

Zn 0.131 0.033 0.082 0.024 0.114 0.031

Zr 0.004 0.002 0.019 0.011 -- --
4-15

Table 4.13 Transfer Factors for Pomegranates (unitless)

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ

Al 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.0005 -- --

Br 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001

Ca 0.830 0.197 0.566 0.132 0.090 0.022

Cl 0.531 0.165 0.192 0.060 0.318 0.097

Mg 0.253 0.107 0.088 0.038 0.093 0.040

Mn 0.078 0.009 0.023 0.003 0.013 0.001

K 0.367 0.080 0.236 0.051 0.521 0.110

Na 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.004 0.001

Ti -- -- -- -- -- --

V -- -- -- -- -- --

As 0.061 0.019 0.011 0.004 -- --

La 0.004 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 -- --

Lu 0.003 -- 0.001 0.001 -- --

Sm 0.005 0.0004 0.003 0.0002 -- --

Na 0.004 0.0003 0.006 0.0004 0.004 0.0004

U -- -- 0.001 -- -- --

Yb -- -- 0.002 0.001 -- --

Sb 0.039 0.011 0.173 0.049 0.133 0.036

Ba 0.010 0.003 0.007 0.002 -- --

Ce 0.004 0.0004 0.002 0.0003 -- --

Cs 0.008 0.001 0.003 0.0005 0.001 0.0003

Cr 0.031 0.006 0.021 0.004 0.009 0.003

Co 0.014 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.004 0.001

Eu 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 -- --

Hf 0.003 0.0005 0.002 0.0003 -- --

Fe 0.009 0.0005 0.004 0.0002 0.001 0.0001

Nd -- -- -- -- -- --

Ni 0.067 0.020 0.062 0.032 0.587 0.272

Rb 0.037 0.006 0.024 0.004 0.059 0.009

Sc 0.008 0.0005 0.004 0.0002 0.00009 0.00002

Sr 0.340 0.129 0.291 0.110 0.034 0.013

Ta 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.0004 -- --

Tb 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.001 -- --

Th 0.004 0.0002 0.002 0.0002 -- --

Zn 0.123 0.020 0.142 0.023 0.151 0.024

Zr -- -- -- -- -- --
4-16

Table 4.14 Transfer Factors for Generic Fruit and Nut Trees (unitless)

Generic Fruit Generic Nut

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ 

Al 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.0038 0.0026 0.0031 

Br 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0018 0.0016 0.0003 0.0002 

Ca 0.759 0.344 0.595 0.270 0.180 0.134 1.0183 0.4294 0.6418 0.3007 

Cl 0.145 0.062 0.102 0.112 0.103 0.101 0.2754 0.1706 0.0364 0.0174 

Mg 0.334 0.283 0.161 0.173 0.133 0.177 0.532 0.4533 0.1052 0.1001 

Mn 0.103 0.022 0.045 0.012 0.023 0.008 0.0802 0.0193 0.0358 0.0112 

K 0.548 0.196 0.355 0.235 0.557 0.299 0.6372 0.2274 0.1892 0.0842 

Na 0.015 0.009 0.036 0.045 0.017 0.028 0.043 0.0233 0.0103 0.0049 

Ti -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0054 0.0047 -- -- 

V 0.026 0.019 0.019 0.008 -- -- 0.0136 0.0074 0.0145 0.0103 

As 0.083 0.058 0.036 0.035 0.034 0.025 0.1035 0.0719 0.0875 0.0464 

La 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.0001 0.001 0.0002 0.0055 0.0004 0.0031 0.0003 

Lu 0.007 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0068 0.0034 0.0046 0.0028 

Sm 0.009 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0072 0.0011 0.004 0.0009 

Na 0.018 0.004 0.039 0.018 0.018 0.011 0.0463 0.0086 0.0102 0.0018 

U 0.014 0.014 0.003 -- -- -- 0.0114 0.0076 0.0068 0.0065 

Yb 0.016 0.011 0.005 0.003 -- -- 0.0121 0.0057 0.0092 0.005 

Sb 0.047 0.025 0.126 0.109 0.096 0.061 0.0371 0.026 0.4106 0.1575 

Ba 0.013 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.0129 0.0074 0.0073 0.0062 

Ce 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0061 0.0007 0.0035 0.0007 

Cs 0.010 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.0095 0.002 0.0043 0.0016 

Cr 0.050 0.020 0.016 0.007 0.011 0.008 0.0402 0.0151 0.019 0.0093 

Co 0.021 0.004 0.009 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.0164 0.0025 0.0088 0.0022 

Eu 0.008 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.0067 0.0017 0.0045 0.0018 

Hf 0.008 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0057 0.0014 0.0029 0.0013 

Fe 0.015 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.0005 0.0127 0.0012 0.0059 0.0009 
4-17

Table 4.14 Transfer Factors for Generic Fruit and Nut Trees (unitless) (Continued)

Generic Fruit Generic Nut

Element Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ Fruit ± 1σ Leaf ± 1σ Stem ± 1σ 

Nd 0.019 0.01 -- -- -- -- 0.0095 0.0051 0.007 0.0049 

Ni 0.292 0.263 0.165 0.153 0.269 0.249 0.2261 0.1567 0.1721 0.1261 

Rb 0.108 0.025 0.07 0.032 0.145 0.053 0.0842 0.0247 0.0283 0.0095 

Sc 0.013 0.002 0.003 0.0005 0.001 0.0004 0.0114 0.0013 0.0051 0.001 

Sr 0.264 0.188 0.232 0.16 0.068 0.078 0.3177 0.2287 0.2944 0.2242 

Ta 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.0067 0.0025 0.0037 0.0025 

Tb 0.009 0.007 0.002 0.001 -- -- 0.0063 0.0047 0.008 0.0046 

Th 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0004 0.0065 0.0006 0.0031 0.0006 

Zn 0.169 0.051 0.167 0.065 0.137 0.062 0.1411 0.0395 0.0845 0.0267 

Zr 0.014 0.015 -- -- -- -- 0.0069 0.0052 0.019 0.0108 

5-1

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Several of the elements reported in the tables in Section 4 (Ca, Cl, Mg, K, Na) are well known 

macronutrients. These have relatively high transfer factors (with the exception of Na); however, 

these may all be homeostatically regulated as discussed in Section 2.2. It is apparent that 

these macronutrients are preferentially taken up from soils. Several other elements (Mn, Cr, 

Co, Fe, Ni, Zn) are micronutrients. The average uptake of the micronutrients is about one-fifth 

that of the average macronutrient. Both sets of nutrient classes have higher uptakes than those 

of the remaining trace elements, as would be expected. In addition, for the macronutrients and 

micronutrients, the average uptakes in leaves are greater than in stems, which in turn are 

greater than in fruits/nuts. In the other non-essential elements, the uptake in leaves and stems 

are about equal, but both are still greater than in fruits/nuts. Thus, it appears that the plants are 

using the nutrients in photosynthesis and respiration, but not storing them in the fruits.

Some observations may be made about the use of ‘surrogate’ elements for others with few or 

no measurements. It is often asserted that strontium can be expected to mimic calcium and that 

cesium can be expected to mimic potassium. In this series of measurements, the transfer 

factors for cesium are quite unlike those for potassium. Potassium uptake factors are high and 

very similar across the plant compartments, but the cesium uptake factors are much lower 

(nearly a factor of 50) and show non-essential-element discrimination between leaves, stems, 

and fruits. (The transfer factors for sodium, also a member of period I-A of the periodic table, are 

not comparable to potassium and cesium.) The transfer of calcium is also high and shows slight 

decrease from leaf to stem to fruit; strontium has the same pattern but the transfer is lower than 

that for calcium by about a factor of 4. (The transfer factors for magnesium, also a member of 

periodic table II-A, are more similar to strontium than to calcium.) The limited information about 

chemical periods V-B (As and Sb) and VIII-A (Fe, Co, and Ni) also does not indicate a strong 

influence of chemical similarity, although this may be because of the mixed influences of the 

micronutrients in these categories.

The members of the lanthanide series are also assumed to behave similarly because of 

chemical similarity. For instance, in the GENII computer code data library (Napier et al. 2012), 

many lanthanide transfer factors are assumed to parallel that of cerium, and in these 

experiments that assumption appears to be more defensible. The measurements for Nd, Sm, 

Eu, Tb, Yb, and Lu are all relatively similar. The only actinide elements in this experimental 

series are Th and U, and the lack of significance of the U measurements makes any 

comparison difficult. Overall, chemical similarity may be appropriate for larger-atomic-radius, 

non-essential elements, but potentially misleading for analogues for homeostatically-controlled 

nutrients.

The generic transfer factors developed in this report may be implemented in radioecological and 

biosphere models, such as GENII (Napier et al. 2012). The transfer factors for various specific 

fruit and nut varieties developed in this report may be useful in the development of models for 

tree fruits. The results indicate that, overall, transfer is highest to leaves, medium to the woody 

stems, and lowest to fruits and nuts.

6-1

6.0 REFERENCES 

Antonopoulos-Domis M, Clouvas A, Gagianas A. 1990. Compartment model for long-term 

contamination prediction in deciduous fruit trees after a nuclear accident. Health Physics

58(6):737-741.

ASA (American Society of Agronomy). 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Chemical and 

Microbiological Properties. SSSA Book Series 9 (Part 2), AL Page (ed.), Soil Science Society of 

America, Madison, Wisconsin.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1998. Method D2216-98. Standard Test 

Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. 

American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2000. Method D1140-00. Standard Test 

Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 (75 μm) Sieve. American 

Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2001. Method E1915-01. Test Methods for 

Analysis of Metal Bearing Ores and Related Materials by Combustion Infrared Absorption 

Spectrometry. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2003. Method D422-63. Standard Test 

Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Revised 1998). American Society for Testing and 

Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Burton CA, Pratt MW. 1968. Prediction of the maximum dosage to man from the fallout of 

nuclear devices III.Biological Guidelines for Device Design. UCRL-50163 Pt. III. Lawrence 

Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California.

Carini F, Bengtsson G. 2001. “Post-deposition transport of radionuclides in fruit,” J. Environ. 

Radioact. 52:215–236.

Cataldo DA, Wildung RE, Garland TR. 1983. “Root Absorption and Transport Behavior of 

Technetium in Soybean”, Plant Physiol. 73(3): 849–852. 

Centofani T, Penfield R, Albrecht A, Pellerin S, Fluhler H, Frossard E. 2005. “Is the Transfer 

Factor a Relevant Tool to Assess the Soil-to-Plant Transfer of Radionuclides under Field 

Conditions?” J. Env. Quality 34(6): 1972-1979.

Coughtrey PC, Thorne MC. 1983. Radionuclide Distribution and Transport in Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Ecosystems, a Critical Review of Data. Vols. 1-6. AA Balkema, Rotterdam.

Coughtrey PJ, Carini F, Venter A. 2001. “Conclusions and recommendations”, Journal of

Environmental Radioactivity 52:309-314.
6-2

Dahlman RC, van Voris P. 1976. “Cycling of 137Cs in Soil and Vegetation of a Flood Plain 30 

Years after Initial Contamination,” in Cushing CE (Ed.). Radioecology and Energy Resources, 

Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Department of Energy (DOE). 1997. Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations, Richland, Washington.

Eisenbud M. 1987. Environmental Radioactivity from Natural, Industrial and Military Sources. 

3rd Edition, Academic Press, New York.

Faw RE, Shultis JK. 1999. Radiological Assessment: Sources and Doses. American Nuclear 

Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.

Fletcher JF, Dotson WL. 1971. HERMES – A Digital Computer Code for Estimating Regional 

Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Power Industry, HEDL-TME-71-168, Hanford Engineering 

Development Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Förstner U, Wittmann GTW. 1981. Metal pollution in the aquatic environment. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Germany.

Frissel MJ. 1994. “A homeostatic partly dynamic model for 137Cs in trees.” In Soil-plant 

relationships.Proceedings of the XXIVth Annual ESNA/IUR Meeting. September 12-16, 1994, 

Varna, Bulgaria. OEFZS-4728, Austria: Forschungszentrum Seibersdorf.

Glascock, M. D. (2006) Tables for Neutron Activation Analysis (6th Edition). University of 

Missouri Research Reactor Center (MURR), Columbia.

Grummitt WE. 1976. “Transfer fo Cobalt-60 to Plants from Soils Treated with Sewage Sludge,” 

in Cushing CE (Ed.). Radioecology and Energy Resources, Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, 

Inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Harju, L., J. Rajander, K-E. Saarela, J-O. Lill, S-J. Heselius, and A. Lindroos (2004) Losses of 

elements during dry ashing of biological materials. 10th International Conference of Particle 

Induced X-ray Emission and its Analytical Applications, PIXE 2004, Portoroz, Slovenia, June 4-

8, 2004. Http://pixe2004.ijs.si/.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1982. Generic Models and Parameters for 

Assessing the Environmental Transfer of Radionuclides from Routine Releases, Safety Series 

No. 57, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1994. Handbook of Parameter Values for the 

Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments, Technical Report Series No. 

364, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1995. Validation of models using Chernobyl fallout 

data from the Central Bohemia region of the Czech Republic–Scenario CB. First Report of the 

VAMP Multiple Pathways Assessment Working Group. IAEA-TECDOC-795, International 

Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
6-3

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1996. Validation of models using Chernobyl fallout 

data from southern Finland–Scenario S. Second Report of the VAMP Multiple Pathways 

Assessment Working Group. IAEA-TECDOC-904. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2004. Quantifying uncertainty in nuclear analytical 

measurements, IAEA-TECDOC-1401. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2009. Quantification of Radionuclide Transfer in 

terrestrial and Freshwater Environments for Radiological Assessments, IAEA TECDOC Series 

No. 1616, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 2010. Handbook of Parameter Values for the 

Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments, IAEA Technical 

Reports Series No. 472, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

International Union of Radioecologists (IUR). 1989. VIth Report of the Working Group Soil-toPlant Transfers, IUR, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Johnson, DM, PR Hooper, and RM Conrey. 1999. “XRF Analysis of Rocks and Minerals for 

Major and Trace Elements on a Single Low Dilution Li-tetraborate Fused Bead. Advances in 

X-ray Analysis, Vol. 41, JV Gilfrich TC Huang, CR Hubbard, IC Noyan, PK Predecki, DK Smith, 

and RL Snyder (eds.), p. 843-867. International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD), Newtown 

Square, Pennsylvania.

Kennedy WE Jr, Strenge DL. 1992. Residual Radioactive Contamination from 

Decommissioning: Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Total 

Effective Dose Equivalent, Vol. 1. NUREG/CR-5512, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C.

Koh, S., T. Aoki, Y. Katayama, J. Takada (1999) Losses of elements in plant samples under the 

dry ashing process. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 239, No. 3, 591-

594.

Miller CW, Baes C F III, Dunning DE Jr, Etnier EL, Kanak KK, Kocher DC,

Little CA, McDowell-Boyer LM, Meyer HR, Rupp EM, Shor RW. 1980. Recommendations 

Concerning Models and Parameters Best Suited to Breeder Reactor Environmental Radiological 

Assessments. ORNL-5529. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF). 1999. Guidance for Assessing the Potential 

Impact of Radionuclide Discharges to the Environment, Joint Food Safety and Standards 

Group, Department of Health, London, England.

Mitchell NG. 2001. Models for radionuclide transfer to fruits and data requirements. Journal of 

Environmental Radioactivity, Vol. 52, No. 2-3, 291-307.

Napier BA, KM Krupka, MM Valenta, and TJ Gilmore. 2005. Soil and Groundwater Sample 

Characterization and Agricultural Practices for Assessing Food Chain Pathways in Biosphere 

Models . NUREG/CR-6881, PNNL-15244, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, 

WA.
6-4

Napier BA. 2006. Alternative Conceptual Models for Assessing Food Chain Pathways in 

Biosphere Models, NUREG/CR-6910, PNNL-15872, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC.

Napier BA, DL Strenge, JV Ramsdell, Jr, PW Eslinger, and CJ Fosmire. 2012. GENII Version 2 

Software Design Document. PNNL-14584 Rev.4, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, WA. 

National Council on Ionizing Radiation and Protection (NCRP). 1984. Radiological 

Assessment: Predicting the Transport, Bioaccumulation, and Uptake by Man of Radionuclides 

Released to the Environment. NCRP Report No. 76, Bethesda, MD.

National Council on Ionizing Radiation and Protection (NCRP). 1996. Screening Models for 

Releases of Radionuclides to Atmosphere, Surface Water and Ground. NCRP Report No. 123, 

Vol. I., Bethesda, MD.

Ng YC, Thompson SE. 1966. Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of 

Nuclear Devices II. Estimation of the Maximum Dose from Internal Emitters, UCRL-50163 Part 

II, University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California.

Ng YC, Burton CA, Thompson SE, Tandy RK, Kretner HK, Pratt MW. 1968. Prediction of the 

maximum dosage to man from the fallout of nuclear devices IV. Handbook for Estimating the 

Maximum Internal Dose from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere. UCRL-50163 Pt. IV. 

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California.

Ng YC, Colsher CS, Thompson SE. 1982. Soil-to-Plant Concentration Factors for Radiological 

Assessments: Final Report. NUREG/CR-2975, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC. 

Peterson HT Jr. 1983. “Terrestrial and Aquatic Food Chain Pathways,” in Till JE, Meyer HR.

Radiological Assessment, A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis, NUREG/CR-3332, US 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

Sheppard MI, Sheppard SC. 1985. “The Plant Concentration Ratio Concept as Applied to 

Natural U.” Health Physics 48:494-500.

Stannard JN. 1988. Radioactivity and Health, A History. DOE/RL/01830-T59, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Staven LH, Napier BA, Rhoads K, Strenge DL. 2003. A Compendium of Transfer Factors for 

Agricultural and Animal Products. PNNL-13421.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington. 

Tamplin AR. 1967. Prediction of the maximum dosage to man from the fallout of nuclear 

devices. I. Estimation of the maximum contamination of agricultural land. UCRL-50163 Pt. I. 

Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California.

Thorne MC, Coughtrey PJ. 1983. “Dynamic models for radionuclide transport in soils, plants and 

domestic animals.” In: Coughtrey PJ, Bell JNB, Roberts TM, Ecological aspects of radionuclide 

release (pp. 127-139). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
6-5

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2000. 

Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radation, Vol. 1: Sources, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the 

General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

50 Appendix I, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards 

Development, Washington, DC.

Ventner A, Coughtrey PJ, Carini F, Inoue Y. 2001. “Foreword,” Journal of Environmental 

Radioactivity, 52:309-314.

Whicker FW, Schultz V. 1982. Radioecology: Nuclear Energy and the Environment. CRC Press, 

Boca Raton, Florida. Vol. I: 212 pp; Vol. II: 228 pp.

Wolterbeek HT, van der Meer AJ, Dielemans U. 2000. “On the variability of plant bioconcentration factors (BCF) of environmental radionuclides: a case study on the effects of 

surface film and free space on the interpretation of 99mTcO4

- sorption in duckweed.” Sci Total 

Environ. 257(2-3):177-90.

Wang Y-Y, Biwer BM, Yu C. 1993. A Compilation of Radionuclide Transfer Factors for the Plant, 

Meat, Milk, and Aquatic Food Pathways and the Suggested Default Values for the RESRAD 

Code. ANL/EAIS/TM-103, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

Illinois.

Yu C, AJ Zielen, J-J Cheng, DJ Lepoire, E Gnanapragasam, S Kambof, J Arnish, A Wallo III, 

WA Williams and H Peterson. 2001. User’s Manual for RESRAD Version 6, ANL/EAD-4. 

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.

A-1

APPENDIX A. RESULTS OF ANALYSES AND 

CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL, CROP, 

AND FRUIT SAMPLES

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) was used to determine the 

concentrations of trace elements in the samples. Concentrations for 35 elements (Al, 

As, Ba, Br, Ca, Ce, Cl, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, K, La, Lu, Mg, Mn, Na, Nd, Ni, Rb, Sb, Sc, 

Sm, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th, Ti, U, V, Yb, Zn, and Zr) are presented in Table A.1. All values are 

reported in parts per million (ppm); associated error values reflect counting uncertainty 

(± 1 sigma) for net peak areas. Note that less-than (<) values indicate concentrations 

below detection limits; the value given represents the minimum detectable concentration 

(MDC) and varies according to the continuum or background in the region of the peak in 

question, which in turn is a function of sample matrix composition. 

Detection limits vary strongly by isotope, and are a function of activation yield and 

gamma branching ratios. In spite of the preconcentration via dry ashing, many elements 

were below detection limits for a significant number of cases. Only 17 elements were 

detected in at least 90% of the cases, while two others were detected in 87% of cases; 

this suite includes Al, Ca, Cl, Co, Cr, Cs, Fe, K, La, Mg, Mn, Na, Rb, Sb, Sc, Sm, Sr, Th, 

and Zn. 

The soils were also characterized earlier with use of X-ray Fluorescence (Section 

3.1.1.2). The results of the XRF determination are shown in the last line of Table A.1 for 

comparison. Three of the XRF values were also used in the determination of transfer 

factors because the INAA methods were insufficiently sensitive for Br, Cl, and Ni. For 

that analysis, the uncertainty on each XRF measurement was assumed to be 10 

percent.

Because of the number of elements reported, Table A.1 is divided into 8 parts. The 

following elements are reported alphabetically in each part:

Part 1: Al, As, Sb, Ba, Br

Part 2: Ca, Ce, Cs, Cl, Cr

Part 3: Co, Eu, Hf, Fe, La

Part 4: Lu, Mg, Mn, Ni, Nd

Part 5: K, Ru, Sm, Sc, Na (from unashed samples)

Part 6: Na (from ashed samples), Sr, Ta, Tb, Th

Part 7: Ti, U (from 228 keV emission), U (from 277 keV emission), V

Part 8: Yb, Zn, Zr
A-2

Table A.1, Part 1. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Aluminum ± 1σ Arsenic ± 1σ Antimony ± 1σ Barium ± 1σ Bromine ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa 42 15 <0.09 0 0.042 0.002 6.83 0.66 15.16 1.91

AF2 Alfalfa 205 54 0.13 0.02 0.057 0.002 4.79 0.68 11.7 1.45

AF3 Alfalfa <39 10 <0.06 0 0.09 0.003 4.91 0.63 8.85 1.2

AF4 Alfalfa <38 9 <0.08 0 0.042 0.002 5.54 0.71 12.42 1.57

AF5 Alfalfa <42 10 <0.08 0 0.006 0.001 4.92 0.66 17.83 2.06

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 316 78 0.94 0.03 0.016 0.001 10.41 0.87 0.65 0.5

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 110 28 1.16 0.02 0.141 0.004 3.51 0.49 <1.00 0.1

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 152 38 0.09 0.01 0.073 0.003 3.13 0.62 0.21 0.28

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 603 150 0.75 0.04 0.029 0.002 13.04 1.15 <1.66 0.17

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 72 15 0.41 0.01 0.086 0.002 2.29 0.27 <0.70 0.06

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 332 67 0.12 0.01 0.074 0.002 4.96 0.67 <0.92 0.08

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 265 54 0.11 0.01 0.051 0.002 4.1 0.66 <0.89 0.08

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 232 47 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.002 3.53 0.53 <0.87 0.08

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 155 32 0.13 0.01 0.077 0.002 2.5 0.49 <0.86 0.08

APL1 Apple Tree 1 424 86 0.83 0.02 0.028 0.001 13.17 0.87 <1.64 0.14

APS1 Apple Tree 1 58 12 0.21 0.01 0.027 0.001 7.13 0.61 <0.90 0.08

APF1 Apple Tree 1 9 2 0.17 0.01 0.029 0.002 <0.8 0.03 <0.49 0.04

APL2 Apple Tree 2 786 159 0.71 0.03 0.032 0.002 11.63 1.22 3.08 0.81

APS2 Apple Tree 2 99 21 0.13 0.01 0.031 0.002 8.63 0.63 <0.87 0.08

APF2 Apple Tree 2 59 12 0.15 0.01 0.087 0.003 <0.92 0.05 <0.53 0.05

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 50 11 0.17 0.01 0.029 0.001 2.06 0.38 <0.81 0.07

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 415 84 0.12 0.01 0.023 0.002 4.86 0.78 <0.76 0.07

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 60 13 0.24 0.01 0.017 0.001 3.4 0.49 <0.92 0.08

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 395 80 0.41 0.02 0.068 0.003 8.31 1.21 <1.72 0.15

ARF5 Apricot Composite 81 17 0.09 0.01 0.024 0.002 <1.36 0.06 <0.61 0.05

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 266 54 0.19 0.02 0.023 0.001 8.66 0.81 10.83 1.26

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 132 27 0.09 0.01 0.072 0.003 4.4 0.62 0.94 0.25

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 136 28 <0.03 0 0.015 0.001 3.67 0.62 <0.98 0.09

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 95 20 <0.03 0 0.014 0.001 2.5 0.55 <1.00 0.09

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 232 47 0.16 0.02 0.014 0.001 4.56 0.68 8.99 1

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 100 21 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.004 2.19 0.43 <0.69 0.06

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 27 7 <0.02 0 0.014 0.001 <1.57 0.08 0.96 0.32

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 31 7 <0.01 0 0.012 0.001 1.33 0.39 0.78 0.31

FIL Fig Tree 1 1095 220 <0.09 0 0.035 0.003 18.65 1.85 7.55 1

FIS Fig Tree 1 75 17 0.06 0.01 0.039 0.001 4.72 0.47 8.4 0.93

FIF Fig Tree 1 84 18 <0.03 0 0.09 0.003 2.16 0.5 7.38 0.86

FIL Fig Tree 3 1250 252 0.24 0.03 0.05 0.003 20.38 1.84 3.86 0.86

FIS Fig Tree 3 164 34 0.04 0.01 0.015 0.001 4.55 0.4 2.28 0.44

FIF Fig Tree 3 54 12 <0.02 0 0.038 0.002 1.18 0.4 4.02 0.55

FIF Fig Tree 2 76 17 <0.03 0 0.044 0.002 3.52 0.55 4.83 0.69

FIF Fig Tree 4 31 8 <0.03 0 0.109 0.004 2.29 0.7 6.74 0.74

FIF Fig Tree 5 124 26 <0.03 0 0.102 0.003 2.52 0.55 4.19 0.58
A-3

Table A.1, Part 1. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Aluminum ± 1σ Arsenic ± 1σ Antimony ± 1σ Barium ± 1σ Bromine ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 465 94 0.63 0.02 0.038 0.002 9.69 1.15 6.45 1.08

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 74 17 0.28 0.01 0.014 0.001 4 0.56 4.86 0.81

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 73 19 0.57 0.03 0.153 0.005 3.55 0.84 18.96 1.95

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 422 86 0.94 0.02 0.054 0.002 8.29 0.96 3.87 0.89

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 69 21 0.52 0.04 0.046 0.002 2.29 0.61 19.97 2.07

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 25 11 0.47 0.04 0.441 0.012 <2.46 0.11 16.33 1.74

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 31 7 0.13 0.01 0.035 0.002 1.78 0.48 1.93 0.44

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 50 11 0.22 0.01 0.024 0.002 <1.39 0.06 1.9 0.45

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 430 87 0.34 0.01 0.026 0.001 8.5 1.08 3.41 0.71

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 75 16 0.22 0.01 0.108 0.003 3.59 0.45 <1.23 0.11

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 64 13 0.02 0.003 0.107 0.003 <1.19 0.05 <0.73 0.06

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 421 85 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.002 7.69 0.73 <1.80 0.16

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 48 10 0.11 0.004 0.069 0.002 2.03 0.31 <0.93 0.08

FO1 Feed Oats 266 54 <0.08 0 0.045 0.002 3.93 0.64 19.71 1.95

FO4 Feed Oats 267 55 <0.10 0 0.025 0.002 3.98 0.78 24.01 2.29

FO6 Feed Oats 258 53 <0.09 0 0.038 0.002 3.47 0.74 17.69 1.85

FO8 Feed Oats 241 50 <0.10 0 0.022 0.002 3.71 0.84 26.27 2.49

PCL Pecan 211 44 0.1 0.01 0.015 0.001 3.75 0.59 14.61 1.58

PCS Pecan 66 15 0.37 0.01 0.602 0.014 1.92 0.38 1.53 0.36

PCF Pecan <7 1 <0.01 0 0.039 0.002 <0.86 0.04 0.83 0.31

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 290 59 0.82 0.03 0.016 0.001 7.94 0.87 20.55 2

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 59 12 0.07 0 0.255 0.007 4.31 0.54 0.52 0.36

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 28 7 0.12 0.01 0.173 0.005 <1.24 0.06 1.5 0.31

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 250 51 0.66 0.03 0.062 0.003 8.01 0.91 23.03 2.23

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 498 100 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.005 11.73 1.25 0.87 0.45

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 28 6 0.11 0.01 0.097 0.004 <1.15 0.06 1.71 0.3

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 294 60 0.54 0.03 0.026 0.002 11.96 1.11 17.79 1.8

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 219 44 0.07 0.004 0.025 0.002 4.79 0.54 <1.07 0.09

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 21 5 0.06 0.01 0.101 0.004 <1.25 0.06 1.01 0.27

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 517 104 0.73 0.03 0.052 0.003 20.41 1.51 7.8 1.08

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 564 113 0.11 0.01 0.071 0.003 12.16 1.06 <1.45 0.13

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 38 8 0.1 0.01 0.166 0.005 <1.16 0.06 <0.69 0.06

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 362 73 0.11 0.01 0.046 0.002 <1.23 0.06 14.27 1.45

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 420 85 0.12 0.01 0.021 0.002 11.59 1.12 1.36 0.43

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 52 11 0.04 0 0.012 0.001 <0.39 0.02 2.71 0.44

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 387 78 0.62 0.02 0.024 0.002 10.18 1.11 8.74 1

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 466 94 0.12 0.01 0.046 0.002 14.39 1.03 2.14 0.49

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 99 18 0.23 0.01 0.05 0.002 <1.33 0.07 3.97 0.5

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 347 61 0.52 0.02 0.02 0.001 17.89 1.23 5.62 0.86

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 321 56 0.13 0.01 0.052 0.003 16.58 1.35 <1.28 0.1

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 94 17 0.13 0.01 0.043 0.002 <1.54 0.08 1.45 0.31

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 265 47 0.3 0.03 0.04 0.002 8.38 0.91 48.74 3.76
A-4

Table A.1, Part 1. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Aluminum ± 1σ Arsenic ± 1σ Antimony ± 1σ Barium ± 1σ Bromine ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 128 23 0.05 0.01 0.181 0.005 5.38 0.59 11.21 0.98

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 <13 2 <0.07 0 0.06 0.004 <1.75 0.09 18.67 1.49

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 210 39 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.001 6.54 0.82 20.69 1.79

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 103 20 0.05 0.01 0.066 0.003 5.71 0.59 3.94 0.54

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 <15 3 <0.05 0 0.113 0.005 <1.79 0.09 5.54 0.68

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 176 33 0.31 0.02 0.015 0.001 6.49 0.76 17 1.52

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 66 13 0.05 0.01 0.086 0.003 4.72 0.62 5.72 0.7

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 <15 3 <0.03 0 0.085 0.003 <1.4 0.07 6.44 0.68

NYE County Soil 1 69024 491 4.57 0.46 0.605 0.048 760.82 49.33 <21.05 1.23

NYE County Soil 2 68071 480 4.94 0.48 0.725 0.056 727.76 50.49 <21.03 1.23

NYE County Soil 3 66689 483 4.95 0.46 0.6 0.057 714.95 48.77 <20.07 1.17

Soil XRF 71000 694 54000
A-5

Table A.1, Part 2. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Calcium ± 1σ Cerium ± 1σ Cesium ± 1σ Chlorine ± 1σ Chromium ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa 15070 688 0.13 0.01 0.013 0.001 5812 235 0.08 0.02

AF2 Alfalfa 14355 635 0.37 0.02 0.03 0.002 3978 159 0.23 0.02

AF3 Alfalfa 15426 681 0.09 0.01 0.011 0.001 4777 191 0.17 0.02

AF4 Alfalfa 15756 694 0.13 0.02 0.016 0.001 4149 166 0.1 0.02

AF5 Alfalfa 15508 685 0.13 0.01 0.015 0.001 5172 207 0.2 0.02

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 53327 2303 0.42 0.02 0.044 0.002 97 7 0.48 0.02

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 32702 1424 0.2 0.01 0.018 0.001 37 4 0.17 0.01

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 2347 142 0.26 0.02 0.022 0.002 137 7 0.23 0.02

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 44392 1898 1.23 0.02 0.104 0.003 308 14 1.25 0.03

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 12470 472 0.11 0.01 0.012 0.001 109 5 0.22 0.01

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 3673 168 0.57 0.02 0.039 0.002 144 7 0.63 0.02

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 2950 133 0.42 0.02 0.033 0.002 169 7 0.35 0.02

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 3932 173 0.35 0.01 0.032 0.001 141 6 0.47 0.02

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 3215 151 0.25 0.01 0.024 0.001 142 7 0.55 0.02

APL1 Apple Tree 1 29577 1067 0.66 0.02 0.061 0.002 197 10 0.85 0.03

APS1 Apple Tree 1 28344 1025 0.12 0.01 0.011 0.001 57 5 0.14 0.01

APF1 Apple Tree 1 425 34 0.13 0.01 0.007 0.001 10 1 0.12 0.01

APL2 Apple Tree 2 12669 488 1.17 0.03 0.089 0.004 526 19 2.2 0.05

APS2 Apple Tree 2 20462 750 0.09 0.01 0.011 0.001 42 4 0.18 0.01

APF2 Apple Tree 2 488 40 0.08 0.01 0.012 0.001 47 3 0.23 0.02

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 12905 488 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.001 92 5 0.11 0.01

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 1623 87 0.65 0.03 0.038 0.003 54 4 0.32 0.03

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 18980 700 0.12 0.02 0.011 0.001 58 4 0.14 0.02

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 27817 1004 0.6 0.03 0.061 0.003 226 10 0.7 0.03

ARF5 Apricot Composite 864 61 0.13 0.02 0.014 0.002 54 3 0.14 0.02

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 26178 945 0.38 0.02 0.041 0.002 847 30 0.73 0.03

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 16455 613 0.25 0.01 0.019 0.001 287 11 0.22 0.02

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 9185 362 0.19 0.02 0.017 0.001 551 19 0.46 0.02

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 7797 307 0.09 0.02 0.013 0.001 413 15 0.43 0.03

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 14899 553 0.34 0.02 0.033 0.002 1123 38 0.67 0.02

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 8726 344 0.16 0.01 0.014 0.001 176 7 0.22 0.02

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 5900 243 <0.06 0 0.007 0.002 575 20 0.24 0.02

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 4804 202 0.04 0.01 0.006 0.001 577 20 0.14 0.01

FIL Fig Tree 1 29387 1051 1.66 0.03 0.104 0.004 1793 60 1.04 0.04

FIS Fig Tree 1 17400 637 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.001 2096 70 0.13 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 1 13704 510 0.08 0.01 0.011 0.001 1770 59 0.16 0.02

FIL Fig Tree 3 26505 952 2.34 0.04 0.153 0.005 1442 49 1.46 0.05

FIS Fig Tree 3 21400 777 0.18 0.01 0.012 0.001 689 24 0.2 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 3 5891 235 0.03 0.01 0.007 0.001 1267 43 0.19 0.02

FIF Fig Tree 2 12683 473 <0.03 0 0.014 0.001 1932 64 0.11 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 4 8010 314 <0.05 0 0.007 0.002 1597 54 0.16 0.02

FIF Fig Tree 5 8503 330 0.1 0.02 0.012 0.002 1388 47 0.19 0.02
A-6

Table A.1, Part 2. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Calcium ± 1σ Cerium ± 1σ Cesium ± 1σ Chlorine ± 1σ Chromium ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 32953 1174 0.55 0.03 0.057 0.002 998 34 0.27 0.03

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 12527 480 0.13 0.01 0.016 0.001 1533 52 0.41 0.02

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 11358 443 0.08 0.02 0.016 0.001 3738 124 0.23 0.02

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 31368 1126 0.48 0.02 0.043 0.002 914 32 0.52 0.03

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 10102 410 0.07 0.01 0.009 0.001 3698 123 0.16 0.02

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 9856 393 <0.06 0 0.01 0.002 3711 123 0.23 0.03

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 5473 225 <0.04 0 0.01 0.001 350 13 0.11 0.02

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 5379 221 <0.05 0 0.013 0.001 372 14 0.24 0.02

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 19284 703 0.63 0.02 0.068 0.003 719 25 0.9 0.03

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 32240 1152 0.18 0.01 0.009 0.001 83 6 0.21 0.01

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 1505 83 0.13 0.01 0.013 0.002 53 3 0.12 0.02

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 14822 551 0.6 0.02 0.064 0.002 334 13 1.1 0.03

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 14159 536 0.09 0.01 0.009 0.001 41 4 0.13 0.01

FO1 Feed Oats 4349 192 0.12 0.02 0.011 0.001 2609 87 0.34 0.02

FO4 Feed Oats 2601 139 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.002 3025 101 0.42 0.03

FO6 Feed Oats 2949 156 0.13 0.02 0.013 0.002 2475 83 0.47 0.03

FO8 Feed Oats 3441 160 0.11 0.02 0.017 0.002 3137 105 0.33 0.03

PCL Pecan 22568 827 0.35 0.01 0.036 0.002 5144 171 0.42 0.02

PCS Pecan 15503 589 0.14 0.01 0.013 0.001 772 27 0.26 0.01

PCF Pecan 1297 81 <0.03 0 <0.002 0 610 21 0.05 0.01

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 24734 902 0.46 0.02 0.054 0.002 3553 118 0.63 0.03

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 10796 422 0.12 0.01 0.011 0.001 197 8 0.65 0.02

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 816 64 <0.04 0 0.009 0.001 331 12 0.17 0.02

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 27226 988 0.42 0.02 0.038 0.002 4012 133 0.76 0.03

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 22377 824 1.37 0.02 0.089 0.004 97 7 0.8 0.04

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 1062 71 0.06 0.02 0.008 0.001 340 12 0.16 0.02

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 34174 1228 0.5 0.02 0.049 0.002 4082 136 1.22 0.04

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 16663 629 0.3 0.01 0.026 0.001 172 8 0.23 0.02

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 1216 76 <0.05 0 0.007 0.001 402 14 0.08 0.02

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 23789 871 0.9 0.02 0.08 0.003 1909 64 0.93 0.03

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 22268 822 0.67 0.02 0.05 0.002 93 6 0.46 0.02

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 1026 74 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.001 226 9 0.12 0.02

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 12701 489 0.08 0.01 0.015 0.001 1702 57 0.2 0.02

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 21191 784 0.75 0.02 0.045 0.003 301 12 0.35 0.03

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 1854 105 0.03 0 0.004 0 752 26 0.05 0.01

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 15350 574 0.72 0.02 0.075 0.003 1265 43 0.45 0.03

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 22547 832 0.71 0.02 0.046 0.002 167 7 0.32 0.02

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 3220 142 0.12 0.02 0.014 0.001 883 26 0.11 0.02

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 24812 797 0.55 0.02 0.054 0.002 886 27 0.44 0.02

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 29025 929 0.8 0.02 0.053 0.003 138 7 0.41 0.03

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 2876 127 0.1 0.02 0.014 0.001 503 16 0.12 0.02

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 32672 1033 0.46 0.02 0.049 0.002 3487 100 0.56 0.03
A-7

Table A.1, Part 2. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Calcium ± 1σ Cerium ± 1σ Cesium ± 1σ Chlorine ± 1σ Chromium ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 18007 595 0.31 0.01 0.022 0.001 1295 38 0.46 0.02

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 3857 158 <0.06 0 0.007 0.001 2579 74 0.07 0.02

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 22618 728 0.33 0.02 0.041 0.002 5966 171 0.41 0.02

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 16907 560 0.2 0.02 0.018 0.001 1941 56 0.33 0.02

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 2056 108 <0.06 0 <0.004 0 3132 90 0.15 0.03

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 21341 690 0.34 0.02 0.037 0.002 5347 153 0.5 0.02

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 17283 568 0.13 0.01 0.012 0.001 2117 61 0.22 0.02

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 2419 110 <0.05 0 <0.003 0 3169 91 0.2 0.02

NYE County Soil 1 30345 2258 97.69 0.89 5.793 0.152 <240 15 14.99 0.8

NYE County Soil 2 30901 2261 92.99 0.86 5.638 0.153 <246 15 15.71 0.85

NYE County Soil 3 31042 2414 86.74 0.82 5.542 0.148 <244 15 16.72 0.89

Soil XRF 95 9300 13
A-8

Table A.1, Part 3. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Cobalt ± 1σ Europium ± 1σ Hafnium ± 1σ Iron ± 1σ Lawrencium ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa 0.1 0 <0.001 0 0.008 0.001 55 1 0.067 0.002

AF2 Alfalfa 0.12 0 0.003 0 0.023 0.001 106 2 0.189 0.003

AF3 Alfalfa 0.1 0 0.001 0 0.004 0.001 55 1 0.049 0.002

AF4 Alfalfa 0.09 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.001 61 1 0.059 0.002

AF5 Alfalfa 0.11 0 0.001 0 0.006 0.001 62 1 0.063 0.002

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 0.05 0 0.005 0 0.029 0.002 155 2 0.207 0.004

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 0.02 0 0.002 0 0.015 0.001 64 1 0.105 0.002

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 0.03 0 0.004 0 0.027 0.002 74 2 0.134 0.003

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 0.13 0 0.012 0 0.101 0.003 363 5 0.611 0.007

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 0.02 0 0.001 0 0.008 0.001 42 1 0.054 0.001

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 0.05 0 0.006 0 0.061 0.002 148 2 0.305 0.003

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 0.04 0 0.005 0 0.046 0.002 119 2 0.206 0.003

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 0.03 0 0.004 0 0.039 0.002 95 2 0.17 0.002

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 0.03 0 0.004 0 0.025 0.002 79 1 0.125 0.002

APL1 Apple Tree 1 0.09 0 0.007 0 0.05 0.002 234 3 0.327 0.003

APS1 Apple Tree 1 0.03 0 0.002 0 0.009 0.001 41 1 0.059 0.001

APF1 Apple Tree 1 0.01 0 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 7 1 0.053 0.001

APL2 Apple Tree 2 0.13 0 0.012 0.001 0.085 0.003 323 5 0.582 0.006

APS2 Apple Tree 2 0.02 0 0.001 0 0.008 0.001 41 1 0.049 0.001

APF2 Apple Tree 2 0.01 0 0.002 0 0.007 0.001 23 1 0.036 0.001

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 0.01 0 0.001 0 0.006 0.001 34 1 0.045 0.001

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 0.04 0 0.007 0 0.063 0.003 120 2 0.327 0.004

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 0.02 0 0.001 0 0.007 0.001 41 1 0.054 0.001

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 0.07 0 0.006 0.001 0.029 0.002 195 3 0.264 0.004

ARF5 Apricot Composite 0.03 0 0.002 0 0.011 0.002 43 1 0.054 0.002

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 0.06 0 0.005 0 0.027 0.002 167 3 0.184 0.003

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 0.03 0 0.003 0 0.019 0.001 78 2 0.13 0.002

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 0.04 0 0.002 0 0.016 0.001 71 1 0.077 0.002

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 0.03 0 0.002 0 0.011 0.001 57 1 0.062 0.001

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 0.05 0 0.004 0 0.025 0.001 126 2 0.152 0.002

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 0.03 0 <0.001 0 0.009 0.001 52 1 0.075 0.001

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 0.02 0 0.001 0 <0.003 0 28 1 0.014 0.001

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 0.02 0 0.001 0 0.003 0.001 25 1 0.02 0.001

FIL Fig Tree 1 0.14 0 0.019 0.001 0.136 0.005 439 6 0.873 0.009

FIS Fig Tree 1 0.04 0 0.001 0 0.009 0.001 45 1 0.064 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 1 0.04 0 0.001 0 0.012 0.001 47 1 0.043 0.001

FIL Fig Tree 3 0.2 0 0.026 0.001 0.217 0.007 590 8 1.221 0.011

FIS Fig Tree 3 0.03 0 0.002 0 0.012 0.001 48 1 0.086 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 3 0.02 0 0 0 0.006 0.001 33 1 0.021 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 2 0.03 0 0.001 0 0.005 0.001 40 1 0.029 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 4 0.02 0 <0.001 0 <0.003 0 41 1 0.02 0.002

FIF Fig Tree 5 0.03 0 0.002 0 0.011 0.001 47 1 0.051 0.002

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 0.08 0 0.006 0 0.036 0.002 201 3 0.277 0.004
A-9

Table A.1, Part 3. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Cobalt ± 1σ Europium ± 1σ Hafnium ± 1σ Iron ± 1σ Lawrencium ± 1σ

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 0.05 0 0.002 0 0.011 0.001 49 1 0.072 0.002

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 0.04 0 <0.001 0 0.011 0.001 47 1 0.06 0.004

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 0.09 0 0.006 0 0.035 0.002 197 3 0.264 0.003

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 0.06 0 <0.001 0 0.003 0.001 23 1 <0.009 0

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 0.07 0 <0.002 0 <0.005 0 26 2 <0.015 0

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 0.02 0 0 0 <0.002 0 28 1 0.021 0.001

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 0.02 0 <0.001 0 0.005 0.001 39 1 0.029 0.001

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.08 0 0.007 0 0.037 0.002 220 3 0.317 0.003

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.02 0 0.002 0 0.007 0.001 44 1 0.082 0.001

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.02 0 0.001 0 0.008 0.001 36 1 0.075 0.001

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 0.08 0 0.006 0 0.038 0.002 219 3 0.303 0.003

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 0.01 0 0.001 0 0.004 0.001 34 1 0.045 0.001

FO1 Feed Oats 0.06 0 0.002 0 0.009 0.001 51 1 0.062 0.002

FO4 Feed Oats 0.08 0 0.002 0 0.025 0.002 82 2 0.12 0.003

FO6 Feed Oats 0.11 0 0.002 0 0.018 0.002 62 2 0.082 0.003

FO8 Feed Oats 0.09 0 <0.001 0 0.006 0.001 43 2 0.042 0.003

PCL Pecan 0.04 0 0.004 0 0.022 0.001 136 2 0.165 0.002

PCS Pecan 0.02 0 <0.001 0 0.009 0.001 50 1 0.065 0.001

PCF Pecan 0.01 0 0 0 <0.002 0 16 1 0.01 0.001

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0.05 0 0.005 0 0.027 0.002 158 3 0.217 0.003

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0.01 0 0.002 0 0.007 0.001 46 1 0.057 0.001

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0.02 0 0.002 0 0.005 0.001 32 1 0.018 0.001

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.05 0 0.004 0 0.028 0.002 147 2 0.197 0.003

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.11 0 0.013 0.001 0.106 0.004 334 5 0.652 0.007

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.01 0 <0.001 0 <0.003 0 29 1 0.018 0.001

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.06 0 0.005 0 0.031 0.002 169 3 0.221 0.003

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.03 0 0.002 0 0.017 0.001 84 2 0.137 0.002

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.01 0 0.001 0 <0.003 0 34 1 0.012 0.001

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.08 0 0.008 0 0.059 0.003 240 4 0.436 0.005

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.06 0 0.007 0 0.044 0.002 164 3 0.317 0.003

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.01 0 0.001 0 <0.003 0 29 1 0.027 0.001

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0.02 0 0.01 0 0.005 0.001 43 1 0.038 0.001

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0.06 0 0.008 0.001 0.036 0.002 161 3 0.336 0.005

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0.01 0 0.003 0 <0.001 0 13 0 0.012 0

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0.08 0 0.008 0 0.042 0.002 234 4 0.319 0.004

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0.06 0 0.006 0 0.035 0.002 152 3 0.321 0.003

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0.02 0 0.001 0 0.007 0.001 59 1 0.061 0.001

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0.07 0 0.006 0 0.039 0.002 184 3 0.254 0.003

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0.07 0 0.007 0.001 0.04 0.002 160 3 0.368 0.005

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0.02 0 <0.001 0 0.009 0.001 52 1 0.051 0.001

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0.06 0 0.005 0 0.029 0.002 159 3 0.21 0.003

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0.04 0 0.003 0 0.017 0.001 79 1 0.139 0.002

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0.01 0 <0.001 0 <0.004 0 16 1 <0.003 0
A-10

Table A.1, Part 3. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Cobalt ± 1σ Europium ± 1σ Hafnium ± 1σ Iron ± 1σ Lawrencium ± 1σ

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0.05 0 0.003 0 0.02 0.002 120 2 0.151 0.002

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0.05 0 0.002 0 0.009 0.001 60 1 0.097 0.002

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0.02 0 <0.001 0 <0.004 0 13 1 <0.003 0

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0.05 0 0.004 0 0.021 0.002 121 2 0.156 0.002

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0.03 0 0.001 0 0.007 0.001 46 1 0.061 0.001

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0.01 0 <0.001 0 <0.003 0 16 1 <0.002 0

NYE County Soil 1 4.08 0.09 0.975 0.026 7.392 0.2 15269 207 49.91 0.374

NYE County Soil 2 3.9 0.08 0.926 0.026 6.651 0.183 15043 204 50.279 0.378

NYE County Soil 3 3.59 0.08 0.921 0.024 6.838 0.187 13986 191 46.379 0.357

Soil XRF 15900 53
A-11

Table A.1, Part 4. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample 

Code Crop/Fruit Lutetium ± 1σ Magnesium ± 1σ Manganese ± 1σ Nickel ± 1σ Neodymium ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa <0.001 0 2711 144 49.67 1.99 0.47 0.16 <0.32 0.01

AF2 Alfalfa <0.001 0 3025 149 51.44 2.05 1.51 0.3 <0.31 0.01

AF3 Alfalfa <0.001 0 2664 136 40.22 1.61 1.29 0.26 <0.3 0.01

AF4 Alfalfa <0.001 0 2811 139 47.8 1.91 <0.41 0.07 <0.34 0.01

AF5 Alfalfa <0.001 0 2897 148 45.19 1.8 0.83 0.19 <0.31 0.01

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 0.001 0 4611 215 21.85 0.88 2.88 0.49 <0.25 0.01

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 0.001 0 672 42 13.21 0.53 0.79 0.16 <0.16 0.01

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 0 0 1059 54 7.41 0.3 3.84 0.64 <0.27 0.01

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 0.005 0 6618 303 23.76 0.95 <0.63 0.1 0.29 0.1

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 0 0 707 33 7.84 0.26 4.62 0.74 <0.09 0

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 0.002 0 1544 64 12.24 0.41 2.38 0.42 <0.25 0.01

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 0.002 0 927 43 9.06 0.3 2.39 0.43 <0.28 0.01

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 0.001 0 1147 50 8.3 0.28 2.35 0.41 <0.2 0.01

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 <0.001 0 1178 51 7.25 0.25 3.81 0.64 <0.22 0.01

APL1 Apple Tree 1 0.002 0 3124 124 51.86 1.69 <0.47 0.08 <0.21 0.01

APS1 Apple Tree 1 <0.001 0 889 40 16.46 0.54 1.04 0.21 <0.22 0.01

APF1 Apple Tree 1 <0.001 0 485 23 2.85 0.1 2.07 0.37 <0.18 0.01

APL2 Apple Tree 2 0.003 0 3165 126 44.56 1.46 <0.70 0.12 0.61 0.16

APS2 Apple Tree 2 0 0 1131 47 14.13 0.47 0.63 0.15 <0.24 0.02

APF2 Apple Tree 2 0 0 484 23 3.1 0.11 0.45 0.16 <0.25 0.02

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 <0.001 0 868 40 12.48 0.41 <0.26 0.04 <0.31 0.02

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 0.002 0 822 37 8.52 0.29 1.4 0.36 <0.48 0.03

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 <0.001 0 1190 50 18.95 0.62 0.62 0.15 <0.35 0.02

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 0.002 0 3386 135 62.99 2.05 <0.62 0.1 <0.54 0.04

ARF5 Apricot 

Composite

<0.001 0 604 28 4.15 0.14 1.62 0.33 <0.3 0.01

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 0.001 0 2398 100 58.51 1.91 1.41 0.29 <0.39 0.03

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 0.001 0 770 36 6.23 0.21 0.53 0.16 <0.25 0.02

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 0 0 1376 57 15.11 0.5 3.41 0.6 <0.39 0.03

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 <0.001 0 1172 53 18.01 0.59 2.84 0.52 <0.4 0.03

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 <0.001 0 1786 75 29.05 0.95 <0.36 0.06 <0.34 0.02

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 0 0 459 25 7.22 0.24 4.52 0.79 <0.22 0.01

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 <0.001 0 1032 47 13.93 0.46 2.27 0.44 <0.45 0.03

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 <0.001 0 1011 45 11.63 0.39 1.17 0.24 <0.21 0.01

FIL Fig Tree 1 0.007 0.001 4247 165 35.33 1.16 <0.89 0.15 0.65 0.2

FIS Fig Tree 1 <0.001 0 2786 110 26.7 0.88 1.31 0.25 <0.2 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 1 <0.001 0 2876 112 18.85 0.62 1.51 0.29 <0.25 0.01

FIL Fig Tree 3 0.011 0.001 4572 179 58.43 1.91 10.48 1.85 0.85 0.16

FIS Fig Tree 3 0 0 1425 62 15.26 0.5 0.89 0.18 <0.14 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 3 <0.001 0 1446 60 9.08 0.31 2.13 0.38 <0.18 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 2 <0.001 0 2520 99 15.97 0.53 1.94 0.36 <0.24 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 4 <0.001 0 1562 64 4.96 0.17 2.44 0.51 <0.32 0.01

FIF Fig Tree 5 <0.001 0 1840 74 12.66 0.42 5.26 0.87 <0.26 0.01
A-12

Table A.1, Part 4. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample 

Code Crop/Fruit Lutetium ± 1σ Magnesium ± 1σ Manganese ± 1σ Nickel ± 1σ Neodymium ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 <0.001 0 3683 149 78.58 2.56 <0.62 0.1 <0.47 0.02

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 <0.001 0 2441 102 29.75 0.98 1.1 0.24 <0.25 0.01

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 <0.002 0 1919 94 25.42 0.84 <0.54 0.09 <0.38 0.01

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 <0.001 0 2883 134 92.2 3 <0.59 0.1 <0.38 0.01

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 <0.001 0 1322 96 33.6 1.11 3.35 0.6 <0.31 0.01

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 <0.002 0 1345 92 32.42 1.07 <0.84 0.14 <0.45 0.02

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 <0.001 0 1209 54 18.78 0.62 1.65 0.33 <0.28 0.01

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 <0.001 0 1192 54 19.01 0.63 1.83 0.41 <0.33 0.01

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.002 0 3584 142 58.13 1.9 1.41 0.34 <0.33 0.01

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.001 0 1165 59 36.92 1.21 4.49 0.78 <0.16 0.01

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 <0.001 0 908 40 9.66 0.32 3.75 0.69 <0.24 0.01

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 0.002 0 2648 111 67.31 2.19 <0.58 0.1 <0.26 0.01

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 0 0 887 40 18.82 0.62 0.72 0.15 <0.13 0

FO1 Feed Oats <0.001 0 1810 93 66.29 2.16 3.13 0.54 <0.36 0.01

FO4 Feed Oats <0.002 0 1716 89 56.49 1.84 3.52 0.6 <0.35 0.01

FO6 Feed Oats <0.002 0 2064 96 82.02 2.67 3.44 0.59 <0.4 0.01

FO8 Feed Oats <0.001 0 2030 104 79.43 2.59 2.3 0.47 <0.56 0.04

PCL Pecan <0.001 0 2952 122 41.9 1.37 <0.44 0.07 <0.25 0.01

PCS Pecan <0.001 0 716 37 11.2 0.37 1.91 0.37 <0.14 0.01

PCF Pecan <0.001 0 491 26 4.48 0.15 2.75 0.5 <0.2 0.01

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0.001 0 4083 160 52.24 1.71 <0.38 0.06 <0.43 0.03

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0 0 1018 45 19.57 0.64 <0.24 0.04 <0.21 0.01

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 <0.001 0 557 26 4.82 0.17 9.04 1.41 <0.39 0.03

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.001 0 5246 203 57.31 1.87 0.41 0.13 <0.38 0.03

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.005 0 1034 57 40.2 1.31 <0.82 0.14 0.42 0.1

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 <0.001 0 544 25 3.68 0.13 3.37 0.54 <0.35 0.02

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.002 0 6508 248 53.88 1.76 0.63 0.17 <0.42 0.03

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.001 0 781 42 22.11 0.73 0.41 0.12 <0.21 0.01

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 <0.001 0 614 28 4.08 0.14 2.19 0.37 <0.4 0.03

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.002 0 5283 203 59.66 1.95 <0.52 0.08 <0.43 0.03

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.002 0 981 57 45.55 1.49 0.38 0.14 0.24 0.09

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 <0.001 0 592 28 5.22 0.18 4.94 0.77 <0.37 0.03

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 

1 <0.001 0 2837 111 39.48 1.29 2.09 0.35 <0.3 0.02

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 

1

0.003 0 1535 65 29.41 0.96 <0.68 0.11 <0.29 0.02

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 

1

0 0 672 32 6.38 0.22 0.66 0.11 <0.1 0.01

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 

2 0.002 0 3766 146 41.04 1.34 0.8 0.2 0.38 0.14

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 

2

0.002 0 1353 60 22.09 0.73 <0.34 0.05 0.17 0.08

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 

2

<0.001 0 1213 47 9.62 0.28 1.9 0.33 <0.36 0.02

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 

3 0.002 0 5176 175 52.16 1.48 5.37 0.85 <0.29 0.02

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 

3

0.003 0 1450 64 30.23 0.86 0.7 0.24 <0.3 0.02

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 

3

<0.001 0 1098 42 10.06 0.29 2.1 0.43 <0.41 0.03

POL1 Pomegranate 

Tree 1 <0.001 0 2360 90 48.5 1.37 <0.32 0.05 <0.41 0.03
A-13

Table A.1, Part 4. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample 

Code Crop/Fruit Lutetium ± 1σ Magnesium ± 1σ Manganese ± 1σ Nickel ± 1σ Neodymium ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate 

Tree 1

0.001 0 631 35 9.36 0.27 0.74 0.14 <0.23 0.02

POF1 Pomegranate 

Tree 1 <0.001 0 873 40 6.91 0.21 6.49 1.14 <0.51 0.03

POL4 Pomegranate 

Tree 4 0.001 0 1884 79 38.43 1.09 0.67 0.17 <0.43 0.03

POS4 Pomegranate 

Tree 4

0 0 770 40 13.69 0.4 0.88 0.18 <0.29 0.02

POF4 Pomegranate 

Tree 4 <0.001 0 649 33 5.23 0.16 8.6 1.49 <0.5 0.03

POL5 Pomegranate 

Tree 5 0.001 0 2007 78 24.63 0.71 <0.28 0.04 <0.42 0.03

POS5 Pomegranate 

Tree 5

<0.001 0 787 36 10.37 0.3 0.24 0.1 <0.29 0.02

POF5 Pomegranate 

Tree 5 <0.001 0 788 40 5.95 0.18 2.52 0.41 <0.44 0.03

NYE County Soil 1 0.39 0.017 7578 1048 490.8 15.3 <27.19 4.57 40.59 2.87

NYE County Soil 2 0.362 0.017 7534 1116 479 15 <27.26 4.58 35.54 2.63

NYE County Soil 3 0.311 0.017 9643 1249 461.1 14.4 <26.13 4.39 29.75 2.38

Soil XRF 495 33000 10 36
A-14

Table A.1, Part 5. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Potassium ± 1σ Rubidium ± 1σ Samarium ± 1σ Scandium ± 1σ Sodium(1) ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa 36344 1491 16.02 0.54 0.009 0.001 0.005 0 1035 131

AF2 Alfalfa 36498 1418 16.42 0.56 0.024 0.001 0.02 0 853 106

AF3 Alfalfa 35244 1353 16.07 0.54 0.007 0.001 0.004 0 643 80

AF4 Alfalfa 33995 1307 16.02 0.54 0.008 0.001 0.005 0 701 88

AF5 Alfalfa 33788 1303 15.61 0.53 0.009 0.001 0.006 0 824 103

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 24011 972 10.77 0.37 0.036 0.001 0.041 0.001 1400 177

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 4104 227 2.16 0.08 0.016 0.001 0.017 0 665 84

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 25723 1015 16.94 0.58 0.018 0.001 0.02 0 433 55

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 22646 877 9.14 0.32 0.086 0.003 0.105 0.002 3286 408

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 5452 223 1.99 0.07 0.008 0 0.01 0 195 20

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 25614 826 12.98 0.44 0.035 0.002 0.04 0.001 425 44

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 28633 913 16.27 0.55 0.029 0.001 0.032 0.001 561 58

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 23996 774 15.48 0.52 0.024 0.001 0.025 0 581 60

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 26078 837 17.09 0.58 0.02 0.001 0.02 0 683 70

APL1 Apple Tree 1 25799 857 19.4 0.65 0.043 0.001 0.064 0.001 191 20

APS1 Apple Tree 1 6801 261 6.68 0.23 0.008 0.001 0.008 0 76 8

APF1 Apple Tree 1 14804 482 17.13 0.58 <0.001 0 0.001 0 9 2

APL2 Apple Tree 2 20106 692 15.81 0.68 0.072 0.003 0.091 0.002 466 48

APS2 Apple Tree 2 5674 230 5.17 0.22 0.007 0 0.009 0 77 8

APF2 Apple Tree 2 15865 518 18.89 0.8 0.005 0 0.005 0 59 6

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 6119 241 9.94 0.42 0.007 0.001 0.008 0 73 8

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 28477 907 45.6 1.92 0.032 0.002 0.032 0.001 189 20

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 5342 226 5.71 0.25 0.008 0.001 0.009 0 51 6

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 48417 1532 26.26 1.11 0.042 0.001 0.051 0.001 127 14

ARF5 Apricot Composite 27552 874 31.45 1.06 0.009 0.001 0.01 0 54 6

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 14379 524 11.95 0.51 0.028 0.001 0.041 0.001 156 17

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 5793 226 3.69 0.17 0.021 0.001 0.022 0 88 10

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 20473 674 14.88 0.63 0.012 0.001 0.016 0 55 7

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 19698 651 16.66 0.71 0.009 0.001 0.012 0 44 6

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 12408 449 12.01 0.51 0.023 0.001 0.033 0.001 118 13

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 3004 162 2.93 0.14 0.011 0 0.011 0 57 6

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 15891 534 20.28 0.86 0.001 0.001 0.003 0 <6 1

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 17187 573 17.97 0.63 0.002 0 0.003 0 15 4

FIL Fig Tree 1 21982 763 9.91 0.45 0.109 0.004 0.125 0.002 835 86

FIS Fig Tree 1 17048 592 8.63 0.3 0.007 0 0.008 0 147 16

FIF Fig Tree 1 19195 637 12.71 0.45 0.006 0.001 0.007 0 280 29

FIL Fig Tree 3 23306 802 17.38 0.63 0.16 0.004 0.161 0.003 963 99

FIS Fig Tree 3 9510 368 4.62 0.17 0.012 0 0.011 0 359 37

FIF Fig Tree 3 13556 470 9.08 0.32 0.002 0 0.003 0 222 23

FIF Fig Tree 2 18062 633 10.93 0.38 0.003 0 0.005 0 375 39

FIF Fig Tree 4 16368 556 9.43 0.35 0.002 0.001 0.004 0 209 22

FIF Fig Tree 5 18046 601 9.37 0.32 0.006 0.001 0.008 0 244 25
A-15

Table A.1, Part 5. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Potassium ± 1σ Rubidium ± 1σ Samarium ± 1σ Scandium ± 1σ Sodium(1) ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 8641 377 5.66 0.22 0.04 0.001 0.053 0.001 471 49

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 9707 431 5.82 0.21 0.01 0.001 0.012 0 1515 155

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 22322 818 18.65 0.66 0.01 0.001 0.009 0 5106 523

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 8706 402 6.37 0.24 0.038 0.001 0.052 0.001 546 56

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 22003 829 27.09 0.94 <0.003 0 0.004 0 5389 552

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 21528 824 25.7 0.91 <0.004 0 0.003 0 6048 619

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 21840 711 20.78 0.72 0.003 0 0.004 0 218 23

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 22590 730 20.37 0.72 0.003 0.001 0.005 0 223 23

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 41952 1340 36.68 1.27 0.041 0.002 0.06 0.001 117 13

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 3085 197 4.38 0.16 0.017 0 0.01 0 61 7

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 21403 688 38.97 1.35 0.006 0 0.007 0 27 3

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 39257 1254 38.97 1.35 0.04 0.001 0.061 0.001 115 13

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 6616 253 9.59 0.34 0.006 0 0.006 0 30 4

FO1 Feed Oats 7808 375 7.49 0.27 0.012 0.001 0.01 0 863 89

FO4 Feed Oats 10794 459 7.71 0.27 0.015 0.001 0.018 0 1024 106

FO6 Feed Oats 8042 408 6.12 0.23 0.01 0.001 0.014 0 770 80

FO8 Feed Oats 9850 438 5.34 0.25 0.006 0.001 0.009 0 878 91

PCL Pecan 23751 847 11.42 0.4 0.024 0.001 0.034 0.001 82 11

PCS Pecan 6322 282 4.02 0.15 0.01 0 0.011 0 67 8

PCF Pecan 13012 439 10.91 0.38 <0.001 0 0.001 0 9 2

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 19513 714 6.59 0.29 0.035 0.001 0.042 0.001 101 12

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 8448 307 3.43 0.16 0.008 0 0.008 0 44 6

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 14748 491 11.33 0.48 0.003 0 0.003 0 15 3

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 16949 631 7.89 0.34 0.03 0.001 0.036 0.001 82 10

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 5045 292 3.27 0.19 0.093 0.002 0.096 0.002 150 16

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 16284 535 10.96 0.47 0.003 0 0.004 0 9 2

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 22504 800 11.02 0.48 0.035 0.001 0.044 0.001 127 15

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 7577 292 4.07 0.18 0.02 0.001 0.02 0 113 12

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 16237 533 13.09 0.56 0.001 0 0.002 0 11 2

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 20704 715 13.33 0.58 0.059 0.002 0.07 0.001 294 31

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 6037 275 4.94 0.23 0.044 0.001 0.045 0.001 245 26

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 15827 517 13.07 0.55 0.004 0 0.004 0 25 3

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 12511 469 24.21 1.02 0.006 0 0.008 0 118 13

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 9228 355 8.52 0.38 0.05 0.001 0.045 0.001 103 11

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 15121 505 7.92 0.33 0.002 0 0.002 0 18 4

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 10212 409 7.32 0.33 0.048 0.002 0.066 0.001 141 15

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 6124 262 4 0.19 0.05 0.001 0.043 0.001 112 12

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 19007 554 17.13 0.72 0.01 0.001 0.012 0 40 5

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 11092 384 6.77 0.3 0.038 0.001 0.052 0.001 141 14

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 9392 347 4.86 0.23 0.053 0.001 0.048 0.001 84 8

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 20871 602 14.02 0.6 0.008 0.001 0.01 0 35 4

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 10203 429 3.85 0.18 0.031 0.001 0.043 0.001 94 11
A-16

Table A.1, Part 5. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Potassium ± 1σ Rubidium ± 1σ Samarium ± 1σ Scandium ± 1σ Sodium(1) ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 6901 273 2.86 0.13 0.021 0 0.021 0 133 13

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 16892 540 7.23 0.33 <0.003 0 0 0 41 6

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 14728 557 6.04 0.27 0.022 0.001 0.029 0.001 78 10

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 8515 337 3.57 0.17 0.015 0 0.015 0 126 12

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 16565 521 7.56 0.34 <0.002 0 0 0 113 11

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 11200 428 4.31 0.2 0.025 0.001 0.03 0.001 70 9

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 7832 306 2.89 0.14 0.01 0 0.01 0 116 12

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 17808 552 8.17 0.36 <0.001 0 0 0 82 9

NYE County Soil 1 35493 2345 129.58 5.5 5.766 0.096 4.553 0.077 19979 392

NYE County Soil 2 31258 2016 129.04 5.52 5.593 0.098 4.567 0.077 20075 394

NYE County Soil 3 31609 2316 128.87 5.57 5.443 0.095 4.134 0.07 19639 386

Soil XRF 20000 136 6 2100

1) Sodium measured in unashed samples
A-17

Table A.1, Part 6. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Sodium(2) ± 1σ Strontium ± 1σ Tantalum ± 1σ Terbium ± 1σ Thorium ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa 1068 29 130.45 9.04 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.011 0.001

AF2 Alfalfa 820 23 132.5 9.18 0.003 0 <0.002 0 0.05 0.002

AF3 Alfalfa 750 21 119.85 8.3 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.009 0.001

AF4 Alfalfa 713 20 136.02 9.43 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.01 0.002

AF5 Alfalfa 754 21 136.58 9.45 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.011 0.001

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 1556 42 232.93 16.08 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.075 0.002

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 678 19 222.54 15.36 0.003 0 <0.001 0 0.032 0.001

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 419 12 15.4 1.36 0.004 0 <0.002 0 0.044 0.002

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 3474 94 234.03 16.23 0.019 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.238 0.003

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 179 5 102.38 7.07 0.002 0 <0.001 0 0.02 0.001

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 393 11 21.5 1.62 0.008 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.125 0.002

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 454 12 20.8 1.64 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.083 0.002

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 529 14 26.93 2 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.058 0.002

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 605 16 21.85 1.65 0.004 0.001 <0.002 0 0.053 0.001

APL1 Apple Tree 1 188 5 151.39 10.47 0.01 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.114 0.002

APS1 Apple Tree 1 74 2 173.12 11.95 0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.019 0.001

APF1 Apple Tree 1 8 0 2.29 0.54 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 <0.002 0

APL2 Apple Tree 2 429 19 67.92 5.48 0.015 0.001 0.01 0.001 0.192 0.003

APS2 Apple Tree 2 67 3 97.46 7.65 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.018 0.001

APF2 Apple Tree 2 65 3 1.59 0.38 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.013 0.001

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 65 3 69.39 5.46 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.015 0.001

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 149 7 8.1 1.2 0.007 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.106 0.003

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 56 3 117.45 9.23 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.018 0.002

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 124 6 102.58 8.16 0.009 0.001 <0.003 0 0.096 0.003

ARF5 Apricot Composite 45 1 7.77 1.04 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 0.019 0.002

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 145 7 105.41 8.29 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.07 0.002

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 86 4 115.66 9.11 0.004 0.001 <0.002 0 0.041 0.001

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 48 2 48.01 3.84 0.002 0 <0.002 0 0.038 0.002

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 41 2 34.28 2.81 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.025 0.002

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 111 5 57.73 4.62 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.057 0.002

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 53 2 47.46 3.78 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.023 0.001

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 11 1 29.7 2.51 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 <0.004 0

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 11 0 25.24 1.75 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.004 0.001

FIL Fig Tree 1 898 39 152.56 12.11 0.021 0.002 0.016 0.002 0.278 0.005

FIS Fig Tree 1 165 3 106.85 6.99 0.002 0 <0.001 0 0.015 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 1 284 5 68.16 4.5 0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.016 0.001

FIL Fig Tree 3 1474 27 174.03 11.5 0.034 0.002 0.02 0.002 0.392 0.006

FIS Fig Tree 3 351 6 140.02 9.14 0.002 0 0.001 0 0.022 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 3 221 4 29.43 1.99 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.007 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 2 396 7 65.39 4.31 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.011 0.001

FIF Fig Tree 4 221 4 52.33 3.61 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 0.008 0.002

FIF Fig Tree 5 228 6 41.08 2.95 0.007 0.001 <0.002 0 0.019 0.002
A-18

Table A.1, Part 6. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Sodium(2) ± 1σ Strontium ± 1σ Tantalum ± 1σ Terbium ± 1σ Thorium ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 543 10 188.38 12.34 0.008 0.001 <0.002 0 0.101 0.003

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 1591 29 95.83 6.29 0.002 0 <0.001 0 0.023 0.001

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 5490 100 94.29 6.23 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.019 0.002

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 555 10 164.35 10.78 0.008 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.093 0.002

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 6016 110 76.81 5.08 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.007 0.001

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 6679 121 79.05 5.38 <0.002 0 <0.003 0 <0.006 0

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 218 4 30.84 2.13 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.007 0.001

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 238 4 32.12 2.28 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.01 0.002

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 126 2 70.3 4.7 0.009 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.121 0.002

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 61 1 165.6 10.82 0.003 0 <0.001 0 0.023 0.001

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 22 0 6.29 0.84 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.012 0.001

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 118 2 57.78 3.86 0.009 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.115 0.002

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 26 0 71.37 4.68 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.014 0.001

FO1 Feed Oats 861 24 25.09 1.95 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.024 0.002

FO4 Feed Oats 1120 31 20 1.65 0.003 0.001 <0.002 0 0.041 0.002

FO6 Feed Oats 969 26 30.08 2.4 0.003 0.001 <0.002 0 0.037 0.002

FO8 Feed Oats 750 33 16.74 1.57 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 0.017 0.002

PCL Pecan 95 2 98.26 6.45 0.005 0 0.003 0.001 0.064 0.002

PCS Pecan 68 1 98.48 6.45 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.022 0.001

PCF Pecan 19 0 7.15 0.73 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 <0.003 0

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 97 3 135.94 11.91 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.087 0.002

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 40 1 90.61 7.92 0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.019 0.001

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 15 0 10.62 1.55 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.006 0.001

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 84 2 161.37 14.12 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.076 0.002

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 188 8 167.8 13.3 0.013 0.002 0.013 0.002 0.219 0.004

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 18 0 10.34 1.42 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.007 0.001

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 128 3 210.43 18.35 0.006 0.001 <0.003 0 0.087 0.002

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 96 2 153.72 13.4 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.05 0.002

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 14 0 6.3 0.93 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.002 0.001

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 288 7 147.26 12.94 0.013 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.172 0.003

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 217 5 155.76 13.59 0.008 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.108 0.002

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 24 1 7.42 0.99 <0.001 0 <0.001 0 0.007 0.001

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 23 1 11.16 1.26 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.016 0.001

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 78 4 145.35 11.51 0.008 0.001 <0.003 0 0.111 0.003

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 8 0 3.65 0.41 0 0 <0.001 0 0.005 0

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 139 3 78.02 6.95 0.009 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.132 0.003

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 77 2 185.64 16.2 0.008 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.105 0.002

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 36 1 21.1 2.01 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.022 0.001

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 127 3 131.55 11.47 0.008 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.106 0.002

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 82 4 182.02 14.38 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.119 0.003

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 29 1 14.04 1.41 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 0.022 0.002

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 96 3 180.96 15.78 0.006 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.078 0.002
A-19

Table A.1, Part 6. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Sodium(2) ± 1σ Strontium ± 1σ Tantalum ± 1σ Terbium ± 1σ Thorium ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 132 3 130.19 11.34 0.004 0 0.002 0.001 0.044 0.001

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 39 2 19.47 1.84 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 <0.005 0

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 74 2 161.42 14.13 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.059 0.002

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 121 3 153.09 13.35 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.035 0.002

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 106 5 12.07 1.32 <0.002 0 <0.002 0 <0.005 0

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 67 2 139.39 12.17 0.005 0.001 <0.002 0 0.06 0.002

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 109 2 129.1 11.27 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 0.023 0.001

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 77 2 16.54 1.72 <0.001 0 <0.002 0 <0.004 0

NYE County Soil 1 19603 395 509.45 56.63 1.299 0.058 0.714 0.057 17.002 0.176

NYE County Soil 2 20500 413 476.53 54.69 1.254 0.056 0.843 0.07 15.912 0.168

NYE County Soil 3 18916 383 431.72 52.19 1.233 0.057 0.737 0.063 15.935 0.168

Soil XRF 20000 413 19

2) Sodium measured in ashed samples
A-20

Table A.1, Part 7. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Titanium ± 1σ Uranium(a) ± 1σ Uranium(b) ± 1σ Vanadium ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa <33 17 <0.029 0.001 <0.029 0.001 <0.45 0.1

AF2 Alfalfa 0 0 <0.027 0.001 <0.027 0.001 <0.44 0.14

AF3 Alfalfa 0 0 <0.025 0.001 <0.024 0.001 <0.46 0.15

AF4 Alfalfa 0 0 <0.029 0.001 <0.029 0.001 <0.44 0.14

AF5 Alfalfa 0 0 <0.027 0.001 <0.027 0.001 <0.49 0.16

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 11 9 <0.021 0.001 <0.021 0.001 0.31 0.12

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 <15 8 <0.013 0 <0.013 0 <0.14 0.03

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 7 6 <0.018 0.001 <0.017 0 0.21 0.07

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 0 0 0.057 0.011 0.045 0.01 <0.31 0.1

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 0 0 <0.007 0 <0.007 0 <0.08 0.02

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 0 0 0.03 0.006 <0.016 0 0.34 0.11

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 0 0 <0.018 0.001 0.028 0.007 0.23 0.08

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 0 0 <0.014 0 <0.014 0 <0.12 0.03

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 0 0 <0.015 0 <0.014 0 <0.11 0.03

APL1 Apple Tree 1 0 0 0.035 0.006 0.034 0.005 0.48 0.15

APS1 Apple Tree 1 0 0 <0.012 0 <0.012 0 <0.10 0.03

APF1 Apple Tree 1 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.010 0 <0.05 0.01

APL2 Apple Tree 2 0 0 0.06 0.01 0.039 0.008 0.58 0.18

APS2 Apple Tree 2 0 0 <0.009 0 <0.009 0 <0.10 0.03

APF2 Apple Tree 2 0 0 <0.010 0 <0.009 0 <0.06 0.02

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 0 0 <0.012 0 <0.011 0 <0.09 0.02

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 0 0 0.053 0.008 0.047 0.007 0.24 0.08

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 0 0 <0.014 0 <0.013 0 <0.10 0.03

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 0 0 <0.024 0.001 0.037 0.006 0.45 0.15

ARF5 Apricot Composite 0 0 <0.017 0.001 <0.016 0 <0.08 0.02

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 0 0 <0.022 0.001 <0.021 0.001 <0.20 0.05

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.011 0 <0.11 0.03

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 0 0 <0.016 0.001 <0.015 0 <0.14 0.04

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 0 0 <0.016 0.001 <0.015 0 <0.12 0.03

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 0 0 <0.018 0.001 0.014 0.006 <0.21 0.04

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 0 0 <0.009 0 <0.009 0 <0.11 0.02

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 0 0 <0.017 0.001 <0.016 0.001 <0.14 0.03

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 0 0 <0.010 0 <0.009 0 <0.14 0.03

FIL Fig Tree 1 0 0 0.09 0.014 0.076 0.012 0.75 0.19

FIS Fig Tree 1 0 0 <0.014 0 <0.014 0 <0.24 0.05

FIF Fig Tree 1 0 0 <0.017 0 <0.016 0 <0.22 0.05

FIL Fig Tree 3 0 0 0.125 0.015 0.137 0.015 0.67 0.19

FIS Fig Tree 3 0 0 <0.010 0 0.007 0.003 <0.18 0.04

FIF Fig Tree 3 0 0 <0.012 0 <0.012 0 <0.18 0.04

FIF Fig Tree 2 0 0 <0.015 0 <0.014 0 <0.23 0.05

FIF Fig Tree 4 0 0 <0.022 0.001 <0.022 0.001 <0.19 0.04

FIF Fig Tree 5 0 0 <0.018 0.001 <0.018 0.001 <0.20 0.04
A-21

Table A.1, Part 7. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Titanium ± 1σ Uranium(a) ± 1σ Uranium(b) ± 1σ Vanadium ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 0 0 <0.027 0.001 <0.026 0.001 <0.27 0.06

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 0 0 <0.018 0 <0.018 0 <0.26 0.06

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 0 0 <0.038 0.001 <0.038 0.001 <0.41 0.09

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 0 0 <0.023 0.001 <0.022 0.001 <0.32 0.07

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 0 0 <0.034 0.001 <0.033 0.001 <0.45 0.09

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 0 0 <0.053 0.001 <0.053 0.001 <0.42 0.09

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 0 0 <0.015 0 <0.014 0 <0.14 0.03

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 0 0 <0.018 0 <0.017 0 <0.14 0.03

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 0 0 0.043 0.007 0.048 0.008 <0.24 0.05

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 0 0 <0.009 0 <0.009 0 <0.15 0.03

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 0 0 <0.012 0 <0.011 0 <0.09 0.02

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 0 0 0.032 0.006 0.029 0.006 <0.25 0.05

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 0 0 <0.007 0 <0.006 0 <0.08 0.01

FO1 Feed Oats 0 0 <0.032 0.001 <0.033 0.001 <0.22 0.04

FO4 Feed Oats 0 0 <0.035 0.001 <0.036 0.001 <0.23 0.04

FO6 Feed Oats 0 0 <0.037 0.001 <0.038 0.001 <0.22 0.03

FO8 Feed Oats 0 0 <0.035 0.001 <0.035 0.001 <0.24 0.04

PCL Pecan 0 0 <0.020 0 <0.020 0.001 <0.27 0.04

PCS Pecan 0 0 <0.009 0 <0.009 0 <0.11 0.02

PCF Pecan 0 0 <0.010 0 <0.010 0 <0.09 0.01

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0 0 <0.025 0.001 <0.026 0.001 <0.24 0.04

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0 0 <0.007 0 <0.007 0 <0.09 0.01

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0 0 <0.012 0 <0.011 0 <0.07 0.01

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0 0 <0.022 0.001 <0.023 0.001 <0.25 0.04

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0 0 0.041 0.007 0.047 0.007 0.35 0.08

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0 0 <0.010 0 <0.010 0 <0.07 0.01

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0 0 <0.024 0.001 <0.026 0.001 <0.25 0.04

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0 0 0.008 0.003 <0.008 0 0.14 0.06

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.011 0 <0.08 0.01

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0 0 0.028 0.007 0.039 0.007 <0.21 0.03

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0 0 0.027 0.005 0.025 0.004 0.44 0.09

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.010 0 <0.07 0.01

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.011 0 <0.18 0.03

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0 0 0.02 0.006 0.02 0.005 0.41 0.09

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0 0 <0.004 0 <0.004 0 <0.10 0.02

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0 0 0.023 0.006 0.018 0.006 0.33 0.09

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0 0 0.02 0.003 0.018 0.003 0.33 0.07

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0 0 <0.013 0 <0.013 0 <0.23 0.04

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0 0 0.018 0.004 0.024 0.005 <0.33 0.06

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0 0 0.028 0.005 0.026 0.006 <0.24 0.04

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0 0 <0.017 0.001 <0.016 0.001 <0.16 0.03

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0 0 <0.024 0.001 <0.026 0.001 <0.46 0.09
A-22

Table A.1, Part 7. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Titanium ± 1σ Uranium(a) ± 1σ Uranium(b) ± 1σ Vanadium ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0 0 <0.010 0 0.007 0.004 <0.27 0.05

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0 0 <0.029 0.001 <0.029 0.001 <0.33 0.06

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0 0 <0.021 0.001 <0.022 0.001 <0.56 0.1

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.011 0 <0.32 0.06

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0 0 <0.023 0.001 <0.023 0.001 <0.37 0.07

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0 0 <0.018 0 <0.019 0 <0.52 0.09

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0 0 <0.011 0 <0.011 0 <0.32 0.06

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0 0 <0.016 0 <0.016 0 <0.37 0.07

NYE County Soil 1 1995.7 284.5 3.732 0.334 3.131 0.257 24.4 2.9

NYE County Soil 2 2423.2 364 3.799 0.354 3.025 0.276 23.5 2.7

NYE County Soil 3 1834.2 314.5 3.658 0.329 3.204 0.297 22.9 3.1

Soil XRF 24

Uranium concentrations estimated on the basis of 2 decay energy peaks: a) 228 and b)

277 keV.
A-23

Table A.1, Part 8. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Ytterbium ± 1σ Zinc ± 1σ Zirconium ± 1σ

AF1 Alfalfa <0.007 0 9.08 0.28 <0.81

AF2 Alfalfa <0.007 0 8.56 0.26 <0.92

AF3 Alfalfa <0.006 0 9.63 0.3 <0.78

AF4 Alfalfa <0.007 0 7.95 0.25 <0.89

AF5 Alfalfa <0.007 0 8.92 0.27 <0.78

ALL1 Almond Tree 1 0.007 0.002 4.94 0.16 <0.99

ALS1 Almond Tree 1 0.006 0.001 2.56 0.09 <0.58

ALF1 Almond Tree 1 0.007 0.002 5.62 0.18 <0.98

ALL2 Almond Tree 2 0.032 0.004 6.1 0.2 2.35 0.66

ALS2 Almond Tree 2 0.003 0.001 3.11 0.1 <0.40

ALF2 Almond Tree 2 0.014 0.002 8.63 0.26 1.55 0.42

ALF4 Almond Tree 4 0.009 0.002 8.1 0.25 1.3 0.43

ALF5 Almond Tree 5 0.011 0.002 5.08 0.16 <0.85

ALF6 Almond Tree 6 0.006 0.001 5.29 0.17 <0.85

APL1 Apple Tree 1 0.013 0.002 9.62 0.3 <1.08

APS1 Apple Tree 1 <0.003 0 19.54 0.59 <0.66

APF1 Apple Tree 1 <0.003 0 1.23 0.05 <0.70

APL2 Apple Tree 2 0.024 0.003 9.38 0.32 1.94 1.04

APS2 Apple Tree 2 0.002 0.001 5.53 0.18 <0.66

APF2 Apple Tree 2 <0.002 0 1.17 0.05 <0.81

ARS4 Apricot Tree 4 <0.003 0 6.61 0.22 <0.68

ARF4 Apricot Tree 4 0.01 0.002 8.24 0.28 <1.90

ARL5 Apricot Tree 5 0.002 0.001 10.5 0.34 <0.88

ARS5 Apricot Tree 5 0.009 0.002 7.63 0.26 <1.66

ARF5 Apricot Composite <0.004 0 4.26 0.14 <1.19

CRL1 Carob Tree 1 0.009 0.002 10.99 0.36 <1.10

CRS1 Carob Tree 1 0.009 0.001 7.14 0.24 <0.97

CRF1a Carob Tree 1 0.006 0.001 16.94 0.55 <1.01

CRF1b Carob Tree 1 <0.004 0 11.97 0.39 <1.11

CRL2 Carob Tree 2 0.009 0.002 7.71 0.25 <0.97

CRS2 Carob Tree 2 0.003 0.001 4.42 0.15 <0.84

CRF2a Carob Tree 2 <0.004 0 10.98 0.36 <1.24

CRF2b Carob Tree 2 <0.003 0 9.52 0.29 <0.51

FIL Fig Tree 1 0.055 0.004 11.63 0.39 4.14 1.84

FIS Fig Tree 1 <0.004 0 5.79 0.18 <0.40

FIF Fig Tree 1 <0.005 0 7.25 0.22 <0.52

FIL Fig Tree 3 0.059 0.006 10.65 0.33 5.26 1.03

FIS Fig Tree 3 0.004 0.001 5.47 0.17 <0.37

FIF Fig Tree 3 <0.004 0 6.3 0.19 <0.44

FIF Fig Tree 2 <0.004 0 9.17 0.28 <0.48

FIF Fig Tree 4 <0.008 0 11.3 0.35 <0.89

FIF Fig Tree 5 <0.005 0 11.86 0.37 <0.92
A-24

Table A.1, Part 8. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Ytterbium ± 1σ Zinc ± 1σ Zirconium ± 1σ

GRL1 Grape Vine 1 0.018 0.003 11.81 0.36 <1.02

GRS1 Grape Vine 1 <0.005 0 21.79 0.65 <0.59

GRF1 Grape Vine 1 <0.010 0 14.6 0.44 <0.81

GRL2 Grape Vine 2 0.013 0.003 10.22 0.31 <0.95

GRS2.3 Grape Vine 2 <0.008 0 13.47 0.4 <0.70

GRS2.4 Grape Vine 2 <0.015 0 17.18 0.53 <1.18

GRF2.2 Grape Vine 2 <0.004 0 5 0.15 <0.59

GRF2.3 Grape Vine 2 <0.005 0 4.45 0.14 <0.76

NCL1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.016 0.002 6.18 0.19 <1.06

NCS1 Nectarine Tree 1 0.004 0.001 13.57 0.41 <0.56

NCF1 Nectarine Tree 1 <0.003 0 6.84 0.21 <0.80

NCL3 Nectarine Tree 3 0.015 0.002 8.75 0.26 <0.88

NCS3 Nectarine Tree 3 <0.002 0 3.62 0.11 <0.37

FO1 Feed Oats <0.009 0 13.56 0.42 <1.01

FO4 Feed Oats <0.010 0 10.77 0.33 <1.06

FO6 Feed Oats <0.011 0 13.15 0.41 <1.14

FO8 Feed Oats <0.010 0 9.43 0.32 <1.26

PCL Pecan 0.009 0.002 10.75 0.32 <0.67

PCS Pecan <0.003 0 6.72 0.2 <0.44

PCF Pecan <0.003 0 11.74 0.35 <0.54

GPL1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0.012 0.003 8.41 0.28 <1.21

GPS1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 0.003 0.001 7.5 0.25 <0.67

GPF1 Graft Pist. Tree 1 <0.003 0 10.67 0.35 <0.76

GPL2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.009 0.003 7.99 0.26 <1.06

GPS2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 0.032 0.003 4.58 0.19 4.56 1.92

GPF2 Graft Pist. Tree 2 <0.004 0 4.78 0.16 <0.81

GPL3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.016 0.003 5.94 0.21 <1.37

GPS3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 0.008 0.001 4.73 0.16 <0.85

GPF3 Graft Pist. Tree 3 <0.004 0 6.04 0.2 <0.84

GPL4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.021 0.003 10.68 0.36 <1.68

GPS4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 0.018 0.002 8.72 0.29 <1.23

GPF4 Graft Pist. Tree 4 <0.003 0 9.56 0.31 <0.72

NPL1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 <0.004 0 5.44 0.18 <0.95

NPS1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 0.018 0.002 1.66 0.1 <1.87

NPF1 Natural Pist. Tree 1 <0.001 0 1.65 0.06 <0.30

NPL2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0.016 0.003 5.96 0.21 <1.47

NPS2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 0.018 0.001 2.13 0.09 <1.10

NPF2 Natural Pist. Tree 2 <0.004 0 5.45 0.18 <0.85

NPL3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0.014 0.002 7.58 0.25 0.98 0.41

NPS3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 0.019 0.002 4.41 0.18 <1.78

NPF3 Natural Pist. Tree 3 <0.004 0 7.78 0.26 <1.20

POL1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0.015 0.003 7.6 0.25 <1.03
A-25

Table A.1, Part 8. Concentrations of Elements in Botanical and Soil Samples (ppm)

Sample Code Crop/Fruit Ytterbium ± 1σ Zinc ± 1σ Zirconium ± 1σ

POS1 Pomegranate Tree 1 0.007 0.001 6.8 0.22 <0.69

POF1 Pomegranate Tree 1 <0.009 0 8.5 0.29 <1.27

POL4 Pomegranate Tree 4 0.007 0.002 7.55 0.25 <1.01

POS4 Pomegranate Tree 4 <0.004 0 8.15 0.27 <0.87

POF4 Pomegranate Tree 4 <0.006 0 8.24 0.29 <1.30

POL5 Pomegranate Tree 5 0.007 0.002 5.43 0.18 <0.89

POS5 Pomegranate Tree 5 <0.004 0 8.72 0.29 <0.79

POF5 Pomegranate Tree 5 <0.006 0 8.49 0.28 <0.92

NYE County Soil 1 2.493 0.087 53.15 2.76 296.28 62.2

NYE County Soil 2 2.256 0.085 56.12 2.67 215.76 47.7

NYE County Soil 3 2.167 0.079 57.68 2.74 206.34 46.4

Soil XRF 53 256




UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG/CR-7174 Transfer Factors for Contaminant Uptake by Fruit and Nut Trees