4.8 Article

Plutonium Isotopes (239-241Pu) Dissolved in Pacific Ocean Waters Detected by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: No Effects of the Fukushima Accident Observed

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 2031-2037

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05605

关键词

-

资金

  1. Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes
  2. DFG Cluster of Excellence Origin and Structure of the Universe
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K12592, 24110004, 26340019] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concentration of plutonium (Pu) and the isotopic ratios of Pu-240 to Pu-239 and Pu-241 to Pu-239 were determined by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) in Pacific Ocean water samples (20 L each) collected in late 2012. The isotopic Pu ratios are important indicators of different contamination sources and were used to identify a possible release of Pu into the ocean by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident. In particular, Pu-241 is a well-suited indicator for a recent entry of Pu because Pu-241 from fallout of nuclear weapon testings has already significantly decayed. A total of 10 ocean water samples were prepared at the Radiochemie Munchen of the TUM and analyzed at the Vienna Environmental Research Laboratory (VERA). Several samples showed a slightly elevated Pu-240/Pu-239 ratio of up to 0.22 +/- 0.02 compared to global fallout (Pu-240/Pu-239 = 0.180 +/- 0.007), whereas all measured Pu-241-to-Pu-239 ratios were consistent with nuclear weapon fallout (Pu-241/Pu-239 < 2.4 X 10(-3)), which means that no impact from the Fukushima accident was detected. From the average Pu-241-to-Pu-239 ratio of 8(-2)(+3) X10(-4) at a sampling station located at a distance of 39.6 km to FDNPP, the 1-sigma upper limit for the FDNPP contribution to the Pu-239 inventory in the water column was estimated to be 0.2%. Pu, with the signature of weapon-grade Pu was found in a single sample collected around 770 km off the west coast of the United States.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据