Cited by 34Radioactive contamination and transferMarine and Coastal EcosystemsRadioactivity and Radon Measurements

Radioactive Cesium Accumulation in Seaweeds by the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant Accident-Two Years’ Monitoring at Iwaki and Its Vicinity

Open access
Kawai, Hiroshi, Kitamura, Akira, Mimura, Mari, Mimura, Tetsuro, Tahara, Tomoya, Aida, Daiki, Sato, Kenji, Sasaki, Hideaki·2014·Journal of Plant Research

Abstract

Accumulations of radionuclides in marine macroalgae (seaweeds) resulting from the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant (F1NPP) accident in March 2011 have been monitored for two years using high-purity germanium detectors. Algal specimens were collected seasonally by snorkeling at Nagasaki, Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture (Pref.), Japan, ca. 50 km perimeter from the F1NPP. Additional collections were done at Soma, Hironocho, Hisanohama and Shioyazaki in Fukushima Pref. as well as at Chiba Pref. and Hyogo Pref. as controls. In May 2011, specimens of most macroalgal species showed ¹³⁷Cs levels greater than 3,000 Bq kg⁻¹ at Shioyazaki and Nagasaki. The highest ¹³⁷Cs level recorded 7371.20 ± 173.95 Bq kg⁻¹ in Undaria pinnatifida (Harvey) Suringar on 2 May 2011, whereas seawater collected at the same time at Shioyazaki and Nagasaki measured 8.41 ± 3.21 and 9.74 ± 3.43 Bq L⁻¹, respectively. The concentration factor of marine macroalgae was estimated to be ca. 8-50, depending on taxa and considering a weight ratio of wet/dry samples of ca. 10. ¹³⁷Cs level declined remarkably during the following 5-6 months. In contrast, the ¹³⁷Cs level remained rather stable during the following 12-16 months, and maintained the range of 10-110 Bq kg⁻¹. Contamination was still detectable in many samples in March 2013, 24 months after the most significant pollution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10265-013-0603-1

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the early stage of the Fukushima nuclear accident (May 2011), Cs content in most frozen algae samples was higher than 3000 Bq/kg, with maximum 7433.50 and 7371.20 Bq/kg, indicating nuclear pollution to algae was most serious in the early stage.

    “In the early stage of the impact of nuclear leakage on algae (May 2011), the Cs and Cs content measured in most frozen algae samples were higher than 3000 Bq kg−1, with the maximum content reaching 7433.50 and 7371.20 Bq kg−1, respectively, indicating that the nuclear pollution to algae was the most serious in the early stage of radiation.”
  • Undaria pinnatifida had the most types and highest concentration of nuclear radiation among seaweed species analyzed from Fukushima data.

    “According to their idea of comparing cesium ratios of different nuclides, the data measured by Kawai et al. in 2014 [62] were conducted graphic analysis (Figure 2) and it was found that Undaria Pinnatifida had the most types and the highest concentration of nuclear radiation.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Coughtrey PJ, Thorne MC (1983) Radionuclide distribution and transport in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. A critical review of data, vol 1. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kawai, H., Kitamura, A., Mimura, M., Mimura, T., Tahara, T., Aida, D., Sato, K., & Sasaki, H.
Affiliations
  • Kobe University Research Center for Inland Seas (JP)
  • Kobe University (JP)
  • IRYO Sosei University (JP)
Corresponding author
Kawai, Hiroshi
Venue
Journal of Plant Research
Published
2013-12-06
Volume
127
Issue
1
Pages
23-42
ISSN
  • 0918-9440 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-0860
OpenAlex
W1984920403
Cited by
34
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Plant Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (25291087)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Radioactive contamination and transfer
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine and Coastal Ecosystems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Radioactivity and Radon Measurements
Keywords
cesium-137, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, seaweed, radionuclide accumulation, Undaria pinnatifida, concentration factor, Iwaki, marine radioactivity
MeSH terms
Cesium Radioisotopes, Geography, Japan, Radiation Monitoring, Seawater, Seaweed, Time Factors, Water Pollutants, Radioactive, Nuclear Power Plants, Fukushima Nuclear Accident

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review