IA

Technical Reports SeriEs No.422
Sediment Distribution Coefficients and Concentration Factors for Biota in the Marine Environment

SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENTS AND CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR BIOTA IN
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency:
AFGHANISTAN ALBANIA ALGERIA ANGOLA ARGENTINA ARMENIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA AZERBAIJAN BANGLADESH BELARUS BELGIUM BENIN BOLIVIA BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA BOTSWANA BRAZIL
BULGARIA BURKINA FASO CAMEROON CANADA
CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC CHILE
CHINA COLOMBIA COSTA RICA CÔTE D’IVOIRE CROATIA CUBA
CYPRUS
CZECH REPUBLIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
OF THE CONGO DENMARK DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ECUADOR
EGYPT
EL SALVADOR ERITREA ESTONIA ETHIOPIA FINLAND FRANCE GABON GEORGIA GERMANY GHANA
GREECE
GUATEMALA
HAITI
HOLY SEE
HONDURAS
HUNGARY
ICELAND
INDIA
INDONESIA
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAQ
IRELAND
ISRAEL
ITALY
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN KAZAKHSTAN KENYA
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF KUWAIT KYRGYZSTAN LATVIA
LEBANON
LIBERIA
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA LIECHTENSTEIN LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG MADAGASCAR
MALAYSIA
MALI
MALTA
MARSHALL ISLANDS MAURITIUS
MEXICO
MONACO
MONGOLIA
MOROCCO
MYANMAR
NAMIBIA
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND NICARAGUA
NIGER
NIGERIA
NORWAY
PAKISTAN
PANAMA
PARAGUAY
PERU
PHILIPPINES
POLAND
PORTUGAL
QATAR
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ROMANIA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION SAUDI ARABIA
SENEGAL
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO SEYCHELLES
SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN
SRI LANKA
SUDAN
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC TAJIKISTAN
THAILAND
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA TUNISIA
TURKEY
UGANDA
UKRAINE
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND UNITED REPUBLIC
OF TANZANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA URUGUAY
UZBEKISTAN
VENEZUELA
VIETNAM
YEMEN
ZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE
The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’.
© IAEA, 2004
Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may be obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria.
Printed by the IAEA in Austria April 2004 STI/DOC/010/422

TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 422
SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENTS AND CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR BIOTA IN
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, 2004

IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Sediment distribution coefficients and concentration factors for biota in the marine environment. — Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004.
p. ; 24 cm. — (Technical reports series, ISSN 0074–1914 ; no. 422) STI/DOC/010/422
ISBN 92–0–114403–2
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Marine sediments. 2. Aquatic organisms. I. International Atomic Energy Agency. II. Series: Technical reports series (International Atomic Energy Agency) ; 422.
IAEAL 04-00355

FOREWORD
In 1985 the IAEA published Technical Reports Series No. 247 (TRS 247), Sediment Kds and Concentration Factors for Radionuclides in the Marine Environment, which provided sediment distribution coefficients (Kd s) and con- centration factor (CF) data for marine biological material that could be used in models simulating the dispersion of radioactive waste that had been disposed of in the sea. TRS 247 described an approach for calculating sediment or water Kds using stable element geochemical data developed by J.M. Bewers, even though the use of field derived data was emphasized whenever possible.
Over the years, TRS 247 has proved to be a valuable reference for radio- ecologists, marine modellers and other scientists involved in assessing the impact of radionuclides in the marine environment. In 2000 the IAEA initiated a revision of TRS 247 to take account of the new sets of data obtained since 1985. The outcome of this work is this report, which contains revised sediment Kds for the open ocean and ocean margins and CFs for marine biota. CFs for deep ocean ferromanganese nodules, which were provided in Table II of TRS 247, can now be found in the Appendix. In addition, this report contains CFs for a limited number of elements for marine mammals not included in TRS 247.
This revision was carried out at three IAEA Consultants Meetings held in Monaco and Vienna between April 2000 and December 2002. The IAEA wishes to acknowledge the contribution of those responsible for the drafting and review of this report. Their names are listed at the end of this report. The IAEA officers responsible for this project were S.W. Fowler of the Marine Environmental Laboratory, Monaco, and T. Cabianca of the Division of Radiation and Waste Safety, Vienna.

EDITORIAL NOTE
Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information con- tained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsi- bility for consequences which may arise from its use.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territo- ries, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. BackgroundtoTechnicalReportsSeriesNo.247 ........... 1
1.2. Changes since the publication of TRS 247 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2.1. Regional and international regulatory framework . . . . . . 2 1.2.2. Radionuclide sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 3 1.2.3. Radiological assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 4
1.3. Improved scientific knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 6
1.4. Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 7
1.5. Use of recommended Kds and CFs in models . ............. 8
2. SEDIMENT–WATER DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENTS . . . . . . 8
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Open ocean Kds (Table I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.1. Derivation of open ocean Kds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2. Alternative derivation of Kds:
review of published data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.3. Maximum and minimum values for open ocean Kds . . . 17
2.3. Ocean margin Kds (Table II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1. Derivation of ocean margin Kds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2. Alternative derivation of ocean margin Kds: review of published data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.3. Maximum and minimum values for oceanmarginKds................................. 25
2.4. Estuaries: a special case . . . . . . . . . .. .
3. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL . . . . . . . . .. .
3.1. Basic derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
3.2. Factors affecting CFs . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
3.3. Tabulated values: general remarks .. .
3.3.1. Comments on carbon and lead
3.3.2. Surface water fish (Table III) . .
3.3.3. Crustaceans (Table IV) . . . . . . .
. .................... 25
. .................... 26
. .................... 26 . .................... 27 . .................... 29 . .................... 30 . .................... 31 . .................... 32

3.3.4. Molluscs (Table V) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . .
3.3.5. Macroalgae (Table VI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . .
3.3.6. Plankton: zooplankton and phytoplankton
(Tables VII and VIII) . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ....... . .
3.3.7. Cephalopods (Table IX) . . . . . . . . . . .... . ....... . .
3.3.8. Mesopelagic fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ....... . .
3.3.9. Mammals (Tables X–XII) . . . . . . . . . .... . ....... . .
APPENDIX: CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR
DEEP OCEAN FERROMANGANESE NODULES
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTRIBUTORSTODRAFTINGANDREVIEW ................ 95
.. . 32 .. . 33
.. . 33 .. . 34 .. . 35 .. . 35
... 73
.. . 77

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND TO TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 247
The oceans and coastal waters are influenced by a complex variety of physical, geochemical and biological processes, which influence the behaviour, transport and fate of radionuclides released into the marine environment. Key parameters describing these processes are represented in models that may be used either to assess the impact of radionuclide contributions or to develop reg- ulations for controlling the release of radionuclides into the marine environment.
In the decade prior to the publication of Technical Reports Series No. 247 (TRS 247) [1] there had been considerable international effort to investigate the potential impact of existing low level solid waste disposal [2] and the poten- tial suitability of the sub-seabed disposal of high level waste [3]. This resulted in a number of initiatives, including a GESAMP1 report, An Oceanographic Model for the Dispersion of Wastes Disposed of in the Deep Sea [4]. It was rec- ognized that the representation of geochemical and biological processes in such models by means of distribution coefficients (Kds) and concentration factors (CFs) (see Sections 2 and 3 for their definitions) was sometimes inadequate and in any case poorly documented. The original version of TRS 247 described an approach based both on stable element abundances and literature Kds and CFs, with emphasis on field observations for selection of the latter when avail- able. These recommended values could then be used in models designed to provide the definition of radioactive waste unsuitable for dumping at sea [5], as required by annex I of the then London Dumping Convention.
1.2. CHANGES SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF TRS 247
A number of significant developments have occurred since the publica- tion of TRS 247, including changes to the regional and international regulatory framework controlling radionuclide inputs to the marine environment, changes in the type and extent of radionuclide inputs, greater disclosure of previous
 1 GESAMP (International Maritime Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Meteorological Organization, World Health Organization, IAEA, United Nations, United Nations Environment Programme Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection).
1

at-sea waste disposal practices by nations and a number of post-TRS 247 inter- national radiological assessments, in addition to those carried out as part of routine national programmes [6–8].
1.2.1. Regional and international regulatory framework
The most significant changes to the international regulatory framework since 1985 have been:
(a) In 1992 the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) was adopted by the 14 sig- natory states to the Oslo and Paris Conventions, Switzerland and the European Commission (EC). The OSPAR Convention commits the Contracting Parties to take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pol- lution of the marine environment of the northeast Atlantic by applying the precautionary approach and using the best environmental technolo- gies and environmental practices. At the 1998 Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission held in Sintra the signatories to the OSPAR Convention pledged to undertake a progressive and substantial reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ulti- mate aim of reducing concentrations in the environment to near back- ground levels for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances. In achieving this objective, issues such as legitimate uses of the sea, technical feasibility and radiological impacts on humans and biota should be taken into account [9].
(b) In 1993 the Sixteenth Consultative Meeting of the London Convention 1972 adopted Resolution LC.51(16), amending the London Convention and prohibiting the disposal at sea of all radioactive waste and other radioactive matter [10]. The resolution entered into force on 20 February 1994 for all Contracting Parties, with the exception of the Russian Federation, which had submitted to the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) a declaration of non- acceptance of the amendment contained in Resolution LC.51(16), although stating that it will continue its endeavours to ensure that the sea is not polluted by the dumping of waste and other matter.
(c) In the past few years there has been an increasing emphasis on the need to address radiological impacts on the environment as a whole, including non-human biota. The long held view that protection of the environment was assured as a consequence of protecting the human population, endorsed by International Commission on Radiological Protection
2

(d)
(ICRP) Publication 60 [11], is at present under review. In 1999 the IAEA published a discussion report [12] on the protection of the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation. The European Union has recog- nized the need for further initiatives [13], and this issue is under discus- sion in the peer reviewed scientific literature [14–16].
In 1996 the IAEA adopted the new Basic Safety Standards for radiation protection [17]. These International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources were based on the recommendations of the ICRP and were sponsored by five other organizations: the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Labour Organization, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization. Over the past few years the Basic Safety Standards have become the basis for national regulations in a large number of coun- tries and their adoption has led many countries to review and revise their relevant national regulations.
Radionuclide sources
1.2.2.
The most significant events since the publication of TRS 247 that have led to an actual or potential input of radionuclides into the marine environment have been the following.
(a) The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986 was the single largest contribution to radioactivity in the marine environment resulting from accidental releases from land based nuclear installations. The most radiologically significant radionuclides released in the accident were 137Cs, 134Cs, 90Sr and 131I. The inventories of 137Cs and 134Cs of Chernobyl origin in northern European waters, from direct deposition and runoff, were estimated to be 10 PBq and 5 PBq [18], respectively, affecting mainly the Baltic Sea. It has also been estimated that the total input of 137Cs into the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea was between 3 and 5 PBq and 2.4 PBq, respectively [19].
(b) In May 1993 the Russian Federation disclosed information on sea disposal operations of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and the Russian Federation in the Kara Sea, Barents Sea and Sea of Japan [20]. In October of the same year the Russian Federation informed the IAEA and IMO about a liquid waste disposal operation that had taken place in the Sea of Japan in 1993 [21]. Additional information on disposal operations carried out by Sweden in 1959 and 1961 in the Baltic Sea and by the United Kingdom in its coastal waters from 1948 to 1976 was also made public in 1992 and 1997 [22, 23].
3

In addition, changes in the pattern of routine releases of radioactive waste into the sea have also occurred.
(i) Since the mid-1980s there have been significant changes in the relative composition and quantities of discharges of radioactive material to rivers and coastal waters, especially from nuclear fuel reprocessing installations. Overall discharges to the sea from nuclear installations in mid-latitudes have been reduced in the intervening period. Conversely, changes in waste management practices at the nuclear fuel reprocessing plants at Cap de la Hague (France) and Sellafield (UK) led to increases in dis- charges of 129I and 99Tc in the 1990s. This has been accompanied by an upsurge in interest in the use of 99Tc and 129I as tracers of oceanographic processes [24, 25]. As a result, there are far more data available on these radionuclides than at the time of the compilation of TRS 247. The high accumulation rates of 99Tc by some biota stimulated a limited number of field measurements, from which additional CFs have been derived.
(ii) Since the early 1990s it has been recognized that contaminated seabed sediments represent significant secondary sources of radionuclides; for example, since the 1980s the Irish Sea seabed has been a more significant source of caesium and plutonium to the water column than direct dis- charges from Sellafield [25, 26]. The phenomenon is also thought to occur in the Baltic Sea as a result of the deposition that followed the accident at Chernobyl and in the Rhone Delta in the Mediterranean Sea, which was the recipient of radioactive waste from the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Marcoule [27].
(iii) In recent years there has also been an increased recognition of the radio- logical significance of non-nuclear sources of natural radioactivity, in par- ticular 226Ra, 228Ra, 222Rn, 210Pb and 210Po, produced, for example, by phosphate processing plants, offshore oil and gas installations and the ceramics industry [28–31].
1.2.3. Radiological assessments
Since the publication of TRS 247 a number of international assessments have been carried out.
(a) Between 1985 and 1996 the EC commissioned three assessments of the radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in north European marine waters (Project Marina [18]), the Mediterranean Sea (Project Marina-Med [19]) and the Baltic Sea (Project Marina-Balt [32, 33]). In 2000 the European Union initiated
4

a revision of the original Marina project. This study took account of changes in direct discharges from nuclear installations and remobilization from contaminated sediments, used more realistic habit data to derive doses to critical groups and placed more emphasis on the impact of natu- rally occurring radioactive material from the processing of phosphate ore and from the offshore oil and gas industry [34].
(b) In the early 1990s an IAEA Co-ordinated Research Project, Sources of Radioactivity in the Marine Environment and their Relative Contributions to Overall Dose Assessment from Marine Radioactivity, conducted a global radiological assessment of doses to members of the public from 210Po and 137Cs through the consumption of seafood [35, 36].
(c) Following the disclosure that the FSU had dumped radioactive waste in the shallow waters of the Arctic Seas, in 1993 the IAEA established the International Arctic Seas Assessment Project (IASAP) with the objec- tives of specifically examining the radiological conditions in the western Kara Sea and Barents Sea and assessing the risks to human health and the environment associated with the radioactive waste disposed of in those seas [37–40]. A detailed review of Kd s and CFs for marine biota was carried out as part of this project. There have been several other related initiatives that have been part of larger international, multilat- eral or national programmes, such as the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), the Joint Russian–Norwegian Expert Group for the investigation of radioactive contamination in northern areas and the US Arctic Nuclear Waste Assessment Programme (ANWAP).
(d) Between 1996 and 1998 the IAEA conducted an international study to assess the radiological consequences of the 193 nuclear experiments (nuclear tests and safety trials) conducted by the French Government at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls in the South Pacific Ocean [41]. A large number of measurements of radionuclide concentrations in sea water, sediments and marine biota were collected during this investigation.
(e) In the same years the IAEA also undertook a review of the assessments of the radiological conditions at Bikini Atoll in relation to nuclear weapon tests carried out in the territory of the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 [42].
(f) The Nord-Cotentin Radioecology Group was set up by the French Government in 1997 to conduct an assessment of the region adjacent to the reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague in northwest France. This included a consideration of marine pathways and the derivation of Kds and CFs from field measurements. The work of this group was completed in 1999 [43].
5

(g) In recent years a number of assessments have been carried out of the radiological consequences resulting from European non-nuclear activi- ties, such as the extraction of phosphogypsum by the phosphate processing industry [44, 45].
1.3. IMPROVED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
The developments that followed the publication of TRS 247 have led to a greater concentration of effort on coastal, estuarine and shelf processes and on the behaviour and impact of radionuclides in these environments. Much of the field data in TRS 247 were based on temperate regions and there has been con- cern expressed as to the applicability of the derived Kds and CFs to other regions. Since then there has been an increased emphasis on Arctic and, to a lesser extent, tropical environments (Mururoa, Bikini), reflecting changing cir- cumstances and the radiological assessments that have been undertaken subse- quently. In some cases assessments have used the Kds and CFs recommended in TRS 247. However, there have been specific studies to improve the database on radionuclide partitioning in response to particular radiological issues. Increased discharges of 99Tc from the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the mid- 1990s created a need to improve the database of 99Tc in crustaceans (see Table IV). The initial IASAP calculations were performed using values taken from TRS 247, but the pressure to conduct a thorough radiological assessment of the Kara Sea dumping operations led to an experimental programme to pro- vide site specific Kds using sediment collected from the region [46, 47]. The Mururoa and Nord-Cotentin assessments also used site specific CFs.
There have been significant advances in the fields of chemical and bio- logical oceanography since the publication of TRS 247. This applies both to the understanding of oceanographic processes and to the provision of reliable data on element concentrations in sea water [48]. Wherever possible these improve- ments in our knowledge base have been incorporated into this report.
Many of the sediment Kds and biological CFs provided in this report dif- fer significantly from the values published in TRS 247. These new values reflect new measurements primarily coming from coastal regions, often as part of national monitoring programmes, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Status and Trends Program in the United States of America, that follow standardized sampling and analytical protocols. In addition, in many cases the new CFs reflect the latest understand- ing of dissolved element concentrations in sea water (provided in Tables I and II); for example, with the increased application of clean sampling and analyti- cal techniques for trace metal determination, a more reliable and internally
6

consistent oceanographic data set now exists for dissolved metal concentra- tions. Typically the recent metal measurements are significantly below earlier estimates of dissolved concentrations. Consequently, in calculating sediment Kds or CFs for organisms using wet weight concentrations of metals in organ- ism tissues, the new metal CFs published in this report are generally higher than those in TRS 247. In addition, improved sampling and analytical protocols for measuring the concentrations of radionuclides in sea water, sediments and bio- logical tissues have generated a more reliable database for some radionuclides and their stable analogues, leading to altered recommended sediment Kd s and CFs.
1.4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Until relatively recently it was assumed that protection of the environ- ment was assured as a consequence of protecting the human population. This hypothesis was endorsed in ICRP 60 [11]:
“The Commission believes that the standard of environmental control needed to protect man to the degree currently thought desirable will ensure that other species are not put at risk.”
This assumption is now being challenged on the grounds that there may be situations in which it is not valid and that there is a need to demonstrate that environmental protection has been specifically addressed [15]. The assessments carried out by the IASAP [38] and AMAP in the area where the Russian nuclear submarine Komsomolets sank [49] both included estimations of eco- logical risk, and in both cases the risk was found to be negligible.
There is now a requirement under annex V of the OSPAR Convention [9] to acknowledge “the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area”. International symposia have been recently organized around this topic [50, 51]. In 1999 the IAEA issued a report for discussion, in which the need for developing a system for protect- ing the environment against the effects of ionizing radiation was elaborated [12]. In 2000 and 2001 the IAEA held two specialist meetings on the subject, at which the ethical principles that could underlie such a system were explored [52].
The biological data compiled in this study are likely to be of limited value for predicting radiological effects on biota. The distribution of radionuclides in specific organs will be more critical for assessing harm to the organism, and is a topic beyond the scope of this report. The focus of this report is to provide
7

information that would allow an assessment of the potential risks associated with human consumption of edible fractions.
1.5. USE OF RECOMMENDED Kd s AND CFs IN MODELS
The following sections provide recommended Kd s or CFs for use in radio- logical assessment models. They can be thought of as best estimates or default values in the absence of site specific data, and replace the mean values of TRS 247. It is recommended that the explanatory footnotes accompanying the tables be consulted, as these may refer the user to more detailed information that may be of relevance to particular assessments. No attempt has been made to provide statistical distributions of Kds or CFs for each element–matrix com- bination. There are very few cases where the database is adequate to derive a distribution empirically. It is suggested that the influence of the Kd or CF should be included in a model sensitivity analysis using arbitrary parameter dis- tributions, and that further site specific values be sought if necessary. Ranges of Kds and CFs have been removed from the revised tables. In most cases maxi- mum and minimum values can be assumed to be within one order of magnitude of the recommended value.
2. SEDIMENT–WATER DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENTS
2.1. INTRODUCTION
This section provides details of the approach adopted for the derivation of sediment–water Kds for use in radiological assessment models of the marine environment. The Kd provides a convenient means to describe the relationship between radionuclide concentrations in suspended particulate matter or bot- tom sediments and water:
or: 8
Kd (dimensionless) =
Concentration per unit mass of particulate (kg/kg or Bq/kg dry weight) Concentration per unit mass of water (kg/kg or Bq/kg)

Kd (L/kg) =
Concentration per unit mass of particulate (kg/kg or Bq/kg dry weight) Concentration per unit volume of water (kg/L or Bq/L)
By adopting the Kd concept we have to assume that there exists an equilibrium balance between dissolved and particulate phases, with the exchanges of nuclides between particles and water being wholly reversible. This is a simplification of reality, especially for short timescale exchanges, but is justifiable for the purposes of running most radiological assessment models, particularly when there is inadequate knowledge about the actual distribution and behaviour of relevant radionuclides. An important excep- tion is in cases where the presence of hot particles [53, 54] must be taken into consideration in the radiological risk assessment. It does not preclude the use of more realistic modelling techniques when the needs of the assessment and the availability of data justify it. Usually it is not known whether the Kd represents equilibrium partitioning between water and all the particulate phases that are available for exchange over varying times and whether the partitioning involves wholly reversible or some irreversible processes.
Kds have been determined from both field observations and laboratory sorption experiments for several radionuclides of radiological significance. Such data are essential for artificial nuclides; however, for nuclides of naturally occur- ring elements it is possible to use an alternative approach to the derivation of Kds based on the use of stable element geochemical data and the choice of rea- sonable, if arbitrary, assumptions. In this way we can assess the proportions of the particulate phase abundances of the elements that are likely to be exchange- able with the aqueous phase. Combining both approaches provides a best esti- mate value for each element that can be used as a generic value.
2.2. OPEN OCEAN Kds (TABLE I) 2.2.1. Derivation of open ocean Kd s
Recommended Kds for the open ocean environment for a number of ele- ments are listed in column 2 of Table I. In addition, a selection of Kd s based on field observations or laboratory experiments has been compiled and is pre- sented in the last column, where possible using values published in peer reviewed literature. The remainder of Table I contains the details from which the recommended values were calculated.
9

TABLE I. OPEN OCEAN Kds Deep pelagic
Total pelagic claya (kg/kg) [55]
—
4.5 × 10–3 4.5 × 10–3 1.1 × 10–2 1.3 × 10–3 2.2 × 10–2 1.0 × 10–2 1.9 × 10–5 9.0 × 10–5 6.7 × 10–3 5.8 × 10–2 7.4 × 10–5 2.3 × 10–4 1.7 × 10–4 1.7 × 10–7 —
1.8 × 10–5 3.2 × 10–5 1.5 × 10–4 1.4 × 10–5
Pelagic carbonate concentration (kg/kg) [55]
—
—
6.6 × 10–2 5.9 × 10–3 1.3 × 10–3 2.1 × 10–2 2.0 × 10–1 2.0 × 10–6 1.1 × 10–5 1.0 × 10–3 2.7 × 10–2 7.0 × 10–6 3.0 × 10–5 3.5 × 10–5 1.7 × 10–7 —
2.0 × 10–3 4.2 × 10–5 2.0 × 10–5 4.6 × 10–6 —
—
7.0 × 10–9 6.0 × 10–8 2.3 × 10–7 2.0 × 10–8 1.5 × 10–6 1.5 × 10–7 —
3.1 × 10–5 —
4.0 × 10–7 1.9 × 10–4 3.5 × 10–5 —
3.3 × 10–6
Mean shale concentrationa (kg/kg) [55]
—
—
1.4 × 10–2 5.9 × 10–3 2.4 × 10–3 1.6 × 10–4 1.6 × 10–2 1.3 × 10–5 9.0 × 10–5 8.5 × 10–4 4.8 × 10–2 1.9 × 10–5 6.8 × 10–5 1.2 × 10–4 5.0 × 10–7 —
3.0 × 10–4 4.1 × 10–5 1.6 × 10–4 1.8 × 10–5 —
—
—
7.0 × 10–8 2.2 × 10–7 5.7 × 10–8 6.0 × 10–6 1.5 × 10–6 —
1.9 × 10–5 —
5.5 × 10–6 5.5 × 10–4 9.6 × 10–5 —
1.1 × 10–5
Element Recommended Kd valuea
H 1 × 100 C 2 × 103
— Na 1×100 S 1 × 100 Cl 1×100 Ca 5 × 102 Sc 7×106 Cr 4×105 Mn 2×108 Fe 2 × 108 Co 5×107 Ni 3×105 Zn 2×105 Se 1 × 103 Kr 1×100 Sr 2×102 Y 7 × 106 Zr 7×106 Nb 3×105 Tc 1×102
Ru (1 × 103) Pd 5×103 Ag 2 × 104 Cd 3×103 In 1×105 Sn 3×105 Sb 4×103 Te (1 × 103) I 2 × 102 Xe 1×100 Cs 2×103 Ba 9 × 103 Ce 7 × 107 Pm (1 × 106) Pr 8 × 106
seawater concentration (kg/kg)
1.1 × 10–1 5.0 × 10–7 2.8 × 10–5 1.1 × 10–2 9.0 × 10–4 1.9 × 10–2 4.1 × 10–4
8.6 × 10–13 2.5 × 10–10 2.7 × 10–11 4.4 × 10–11 1.2 × 10–12 5.2 × 10–10 3.2 × 10–10 1.5 × 10–10
[1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48]
2.0 × 10–10 [1, 60] 8.8 × 10–6 [60] 4.5 × 10–12 [60] 2.0 × 10–11 [48] 4.7 × 10–12 [60]
5.1 × 10–15 7.0 × 10–14 2.5 × 10–12 7.6 × 10–11 1.0 × 10–13 9.5 × 10–13
[60] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48]
(1.0 × 10–9) 3.7 × 10–9 1.1 × 10–7 2.1 × 10–7 7.0 × 10–8 3.2 × 10–6 1.0 × 10–6 —
3.0 × 10–5 —
6.0 × 10–6 2.3 × 10–3 3.5 × 10–4 —
9.6 × 10–6
— —
2.4 × 10–10 [1, 60] 1.1 × 10–13 [48] 6.4 × 10–8 [1, 60] 4.7 × 10–11 [1, 60] 3.1 × 10–10 [1, 60] 2.1 × 10–8 [68] 3.7 × 10–12 [48] —
1.3 × 10–12 [48]
10

Potential clay enrichment (kg/kg)
Kd based on total pelagic clay (kg/kg)
Kd based on potential enrichment (kg/kg)
Kd based on potential carbonate exchange (kg/kg)
Other derived Kds
—————
—
—
5.1 × 10–3 —
2.2 × 10–2 —
6.0 × 10–6 —
5.9 × 10–3 1.0 × 10–2 5.5 × 10–5 1.6 × 10–4 5.0 × 10–5 —
9.0 × 103 1.6 × 102 1.0 × 100 1.4 × 100 1.2 × 100 2.4 × 101 2.2 × 107 3.6 × 105 2.5 × 108 1.3 × 109 6.2 × 107 4.5 × 105 5.3 × 105 1.1 × 103
—
—
4.6 × 10–1 —
1.1 × 100 —
7.0 × 106 —
2.2 × 108 2.3 × 108 4.6 × 107 3.1 × 105 1.6 × 105 —
— 2.4 × 103 —
—
— 4.9 × 102 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 × 10–1–2.4 × 100 [56, 57] —
—
1 × 102 [56]
4 × 107–5 × 107 [56, 58] 3 × 105–5 × 105 [56, 58] 8 × 106–2 × 107 [4, 57, 58] 5 × 105–5 × 107 [4, 57, 58] 1 × 106–6 × 106 [4, 57, 58] 3 × 105–5 × 105 [56, 58] 1 × 105–4 × 105 [56–58] 8 × 102–1 × 104 [57–59]
—————
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.0 × 10–8 —
1.3 × 10–8 —
—
2.0 × 100 7.1 × 106 7.4 × 106 3.0 × 106 —
(2.0 × 105) 5.3 × 104 4.4 × 104 2.8 × 103 6.7 × 105 3.4 × 106 4.1 × 103
—
—
—
—
—
—
— 1.6 × 104 —
1.3 × 105 —
—
2.5 × 102 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 × 10–1 [56] 8 × 107 [56] 8 × 106 [56] —
1 × 100–1 × 101 [61–66] —
—
3 × 103–5 × 103 [56, 58] 9.5 × 101–1 × 104 [56–58] 1 × 106 [56]
1 × 105 [57]
5 × 103–2.1 × 104 [57, 58]
—————
1.1 × 10–5 4.7 × 102 1.7 × 102 — 1 × 102–1.3 × 104 [59, 67]
—————
5.0 × 10–7 1.8 × 10–3 2.5 × 10–4 —
—
2.0 × 104 1.1 × 105 9.4 × 107 (1.0 × 107) 7.6 × 106
1.6 × 103 8.3 × 104 6.8 × 107 —
—
— 9.0 × 103 —
—
—
4 × 102–2 × 104 [56–58] 2 × 104–1 × 105 [56, 57] 1 × 108 [56]
—
2 × 107 [56]
11

TABLE I. (cont.)
Element
Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Tm Yb Hf Ta W Ir Hg Tl Pb Po Ra Ac Th
Pa U Np
Pu
Am
Recommended Kd valuea
5 × 105 2 × 106 7 × 105 4 × 105 (5 × 106) 2×105 2×105 6×106
5 × 104
1 × 103 (3 × 106) 3 × 104 9 × 104 1 × 107 (2 × 107) 4 × 103 (2 × 106) 5 × 106
(5 × 106) 5 × 102 1×103
1×105
2×106
Deep pelagic seawater concentration (kg/kg)
Total pelagic claya (kg/kg) [55]
6.2 × 10–6 1.8 × 10–6 7.4 × 10–6 1.1 × 10–6 (6.0 × 10–6) 5.6 × 10–7 2.9 × 10–6 4.1 × 10–6 1.2 × 10–6 1.1 × 10–6 3.0 × 10–10 8.0 × 10–8 9.0 × 10–7 8.0 × 10–5 —
2.0 × 10–11 —
5.0 × 10–6
—
1.0 × 10–6 —
— —
Pelagic carbonate concentration (kg/kg) [55]
Mean shale concentrationa (kg/kg) [55]
7.0 × 10–6 1.2 × 10–6 6.0 × 10–6 1.0 × 10–6 5.8 × 10–6 6.0 × 10–7 3.9 × 10–6 2.8 × 10–6 2.0 × 10–6 1.9 × 10–6 (3.0 × 10–12) 1.8 × 10–7 1.2 × 10–6 2.3 × 10–5 —
1.1 × 10–12 —
2×106 (2 × 106)
Cm
Bk
Cf (2×106) — —
1.2 × 10–12 3.0 × 10–13 2.0 × 10–12 2.7 × 10–13 9.1 × 10–13 2.9 × 10–13 1.9 × 10–12 2.1 × 10–13 2.4 × 10–12
[48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48] [48]
3.8 6.0 3.8 6.0 2.7 1.0 1.5 4.1 1.0 1.1
4.6 1.6 1.7
× 10–6 × 10–7 × 10–6 × 10–7 × 10–6 × 10–7 × 10–6 × 10–7 × 10–8 × 10–7
—
× 10–7
× 10–7 × 10–5
1.0 × 10–10 [1, 60] 1.7 × 10–15 [48] 2.5 × 10–13 [60] 1.0 × 10–11 [1, 60] 4.0 × 10–12 [1, 60] 2.3 × 10–18 [60] 5.6 × 10–16 [69, 70] 6.9 × 10–20 [60] 1.0 × 10–13 [1, 72]
1.7 × 10–17 [76]
—
2.0 × 10–12 —
1.0 × 10–6
—
1.6 × 10–6 —
— —
— — —
1.2
3.7
× 10–5
—
× 10–6
—
—
—
— — —
3.2 × 10–9 —
— —
[1, 60]
— —
— —
a Values in parentheses indicate that data are insufficient to calculate Kds using the methodology described in Section 2.2.1 and therefore the recommended values were chosen to be equal to the Kds of periodically adjacent elements.
12

Potential clay enrichment (kg/kg)
—
6.0 × 10–7 1.4 × 10–6 1.0 × 10–7 2.0 × 10–7 —
—
1.3 × 10–6 —
—
—
—
—
5.7 × 10–5
Kd based on total pelagic clay (kg/kg)
5.1 × 106 5.9 × 106 3.8 × 106 4.0 × 106 (6.6 × 106) 1.9 × 106 1.5 × 106 2.0 × 107 5.1 × 105 1.1 × 104 (1.8 × 105) 3.2 × 105 9.0 × 104 2.0 × 107
Kd based on potential enrichment (kg/kg)
—
2.0 × 106 7.1 × 105 3.6 × 105 (2.2 × 105) —
—
6.3 × 106 —
—
—
—
—
1.4 × 107
Kd based on potential
carbonate Other derived Kds exchange
(kg/kg)
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— 1 × 106 [56] — —
— —
— —
— 3 × 103–5 × 103 [56, 58] — 1 × 105 [56]
— 1 × 104–5 × 107 [4, 56, 59]
—————
1.9 × 10–11 3.6 × 104 3.4 × 104 3.6 × 103 5 × 102 [59] —————
—
— — —
—
—
4.9 × 107
— 3.1 × 102 —
— —
— —
— —
— 5.0 × 102 — —
— — — —
1 × 105–1 × 107 [4, 56, 58, 59, 71, 73–75]
1 × 104–1 × 107 [4, 59] 5 × 102 [56, 58, 59]
1 × 102–5 × 104 (see Section 2.2.2)
1 × 104–1 × 106 (see Section 2.2.2)
1 × 105–2 × 107 (see Section 2.2.2)
—————
—————
—————
13

The recommended Kds (column 2) are based on the estimate of pelagic clay enrichment in relation to source rocks. Where no such enrichment is indicated, it has been assumed, arbitrarily, that 10% of the total pelagic clay abundance represents the proportion of exchangeable phase particulate ele- ment. The only exceptions to this procedure are where the experimental measurements, presented in the table, suggest that the Kd is closer to the value based on the total pelagic clay concentration than to the value based on 10% of this concentration (Sc, Cr, Se, Y, Zr, Cd, Sb, Pr and Tl).
Deep water dissolved element concentrations (column 3) represent, in most instances, the mean of Atlantic and Pacific values taken from the most reliable and recent sources. This is a departure from TRS 247, in which North Atlantic values were preferentially used. The dissolved concentrations were based on either analysis of filtered samples of sea water or, for trace con- stituents, analysis of the acid soluble fraction of unfiltered samples of sea water. For aluminum, iron and manganese the concentrations given in Table I are those resulting from analysis of filtered samples of sea water, as unfiltered sea water contains significant additional colloidal and fine particulate contribu- tions of these elements.
The detailed calculation was as follows. The concentrations of the ele- ments in pelagic clay (column 4), pelagic carbonate sediments (column 5) and mean shales (column 6) were derived from Bowen [55]. The ratio of the con- centration of an element in pelagic clays to that in deep ocean water provides one estimate of the Kd (column 8) for the element. Several authors have reported marine elemental mass balances, and the partitioning of elements between various marine phases was determined on this basis [56, 58, 77–81]. However, for the purpose of deriving suitable Kd s for use in oceanographic and radiological models applied to the transport of radioactive waste, an estimate of the wholly exchangeable particulate phase component is needed. This was estimated from the difference between the total pelagic clay element concen- tration and the source rock abundance. Where this difference is positive it has been assumed to be a measure of the augmentation of pelagic clays by authi- genic components during transport between weathering and sedimentation. In very few cases does the crude estimate of potentially exchangeable element concentration depend on whether shale or mean crustal abundances have been used to subtract detrital (crystalline) phase concentrations from total pelagic clay concentrations; such cases are those of selenium, mercury and thallium. For all three, the mean crustal abundance provides the greater estimate of exchangeable phase concentration. The mean shale was used as the basis for assessing pelagic clay enrichment. Where the difference between pelagic clay and mean shale concentrations is positive, suggesting that pelagic clay sedi- ments are enriched over source rock abundance, the difference is shown in
14

column 7 of Table I. This value was subsequently divided by the seawater con- centration to yield a value of Kd based on potential pelagic clay enrichment (column 9). Where the difference between pelagic clay and source rock abun- dance is zero or negative, no entry appears in column 7 and the estimate of the Kd is provided by dividing the total pelagic clay concentration by the seawater concentration (column 8).
The recommended Kds for elements that are primary constituents of cal- careous biogenic material (Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra and U) were derived from the Kds based on potential carbonate exchange (column 10), which were determined from the ratio of the concentrations in calcareous pelagic sediments (column 5) to those in deep pelagic water (column 3). A Kd is also provided in column 10 for carbon, based on the ratio of carbon in carbonaceous sediments to that in dissolved organic and carbonate forms in sea water.
2.2.2. Alternative derivation of Kd s: review of published data
Experimental and field data published in the literature were reviewed to compare them with the Kds derived using the methodology described in Section 2.2.1 and to determine Kds for those elements for which such a methodology could not be applied. This approach was adopted, in particular, for those nuclides of elements no longer occurring naturally on Earth, which were introduced into the environment from nuclear activities, such as tech- netium and the transuranics.
Difficulty is frequently experienced in relating Kds derived under exper- imentally controlled conditions with those measured using marine environ- mental samples. The considerable ranges of experimental Kds reported for some elements [82–88] are often a direct result of variations in the materials and/or procedures adopted. Factors that can significantly influence the appar- ent Kd include: the solid to liquid ratio; the initial concentrations of tracer and carrier in solution; the pH of the liquid before and after equilibration with the solids; the grain size of the solids; the time allowed for equilibration; the proce- dure used for separating the two phases (e.g. filtering or decanting); whether samples are shaken or left to stand; the phase(s) used to estimate the Kd (fre- quently only one phase is measured); loss of tracer on container walls or filters; and competition from other ions in solution. In many cases, particularly those studies related to radionuclide migration through rock and fractured media, lack of control of one or more of the above factors, or use of experimental con- ditions far removed from those found in the marine environment, hinder the adoption of experimentally derived Kds for ocean disposal models. Experimentally derived Kds were therefore only considered whenever few, or no, environmental data exist.
15

For technetium, the recommended Kd (1 × 102) is based on environ- mentally derived values from the Irish Sea [71]. Although they may accurately reflect the partitioning between 99Tc and the sedimentary material in that area, the extent to which water and sediments are in equilibrium is not known. It should not be inferred that the Kd s obtained are universally appli- cable. In particular, the influence of organic material, such as that arising from benthic algae, has not been determined. Early experimental studies suggested that technetium, in either the reduced or oxidized form, generally exhibits a Kd of less than 10 [61–66]. In the absence of further particulate data, it is therefore suggested that the recommended value represents an upper bound in oxic systems.
Neptunium Kds for suspended sediment in coastal waters of the UK [89, 90] and for sediment pore water in the Irish Sea [71] have been reported. Experimental Kds for northeast Atlantic calcareous ooze and clay fall within this range [91, 92]. Other reported experimental values, for various substrates, are much lower and are not directly applicable [66, 93, 94].
The recommended Kd for plutonium is for a mixture of oxidation states (i.e. Pu III/IV plus V/VI). A relatively large number of environmental Kd s have been reported from a wide variety of marine, riverine and lacustrine environ- ments, and they consistently fall within the range 1 × 104–1 × 106 [47, 71, 95–107]. There seems to be little justification in extending the range for sensi- tivity analysis. A large number of experimental determinations have also been made, and with very few exceptions (e.g. approximately 1 × 101–1 × 104 for North Pacific red clays [108]) Kd s fall within the range 1 × 104–1 × 106 [71, 86, 92, 109–114]. The latter range also includes values for calcareous sediments from the northeast Atlantic [71, 92].
Environmental Kds for americium and curium are given by Pentreath et al. [101, 102], Lovett (unpublished data) [106], Aarkrog et al. [104] and Noshkin (unpublished data) [107]. Few experimental data are available for curium, although Erickson [108] gives values for abyssal red clays. Far more experi- mental data are available for americium, with most studies reporting values in the range of the field data [86, 92, 108, 113–116].
A default Kd of 1 was assigned to non-reactive elements such as hydrogen, the major elements in sea water (Na, Cl and S) and inert gases (Kr and Xe).
For some elements (Ru, Te, Pm, Dy and Ir) insufficient data are available to calculate Kds using the methodology described in Section 2.2.1 or to derive Kd s from published data. The recommended Kds for these elements were cho- sen to be equal to Kds for periodically adjacent elements and appear in paren- theses in Table I.
From experimental studies it is assumed that trivalent californium behaves like curium and americium [117, 118].
16

The oceanic distribution of 210Po is influenced by biological recycling in surface waters, and 210Po/210Pb disequilibria have been reported [119]. However, over the whole water column, 210Po and 210Pb are in balance with respect to their partitioning between water and particulate fractions [120], and their respective Kd s should be similar. Ranges of Kd were determined from the data of Brewer et al. [79, 121] and Whitfield and Turner [122]. Ocean margin Kds for polonium are assumed to be identical to open ocean values.
Protactinium behaves in a similar fashion to thorium in the open ocean. Values for the Panama and Guatemala Basins, and for the North Pacific, have been reported [123, 124]. The Kd appears to correlate with the manganese con- tent, and scavenging is enhanced at ocean margins. Coastal sediment CFs should be similar to those of the open sea.
2.2.3. Maximum and minimum values for open ocean Kds
Table I provides a single recommended Kd for each element and does not include a range of maximum and minimum values, in contrast to TRS 247. Where a range of values is required, as in the case of conducting a sensitivity analysis for a radiological assessment, different approaches for assigning a Kd range can be used. These include the use of site specific data, choosing an arbi- trary range (e.g. maximum and minimum values could be assumed to be a fac- tor of 10 higher and lower than the recommended value (this is supported by available data, see column 10 of Table I)) or the application of a probability dis- tribution of values. Sensitivity analysis should indicate whether more data are required for the assessment.
2.3. OCEAN MARGIN Kds (TABLE II) 2.3.1. Derivation of ocean margin Kds
The recommended Kd s for coastal and continental shelf environments for a selected number of elements are listed in column 2 of Table II. In addition, a selection of Kds based on field observations or laboratory experiments, published in peer reviewed literature, has been compiled and presented for comparative purposes in the last column. The remainder of Table II contains the details from which the majority of recommended values were calculated.
A similar approach was adopted for the calculation of coastal Kds as had been used for open ocean values in Section 2.2, in this case using open ocean, surface dissolved element concentrations (column 2) based on the most recent reliable sources [76, 127] or coastal water concentrations, whenever available
17

TABLE II. OCEAN MARGIN Kds
Recommended Element Kd valuea
H 1 × 100 C 1 × 103 Na 1 × 10–1 S 5 × 10–1 Cl 3 × 10–2 Ca 5 × 102 Sc 5×106 Cr 5×104 Mn 2×106 Fe 3 × 108 Co 3×105 Ni 2×104 Zn 7×104 Se 3 × 103 Kr 1×100 Sr 8×100 Y 9 × 105 Zr 2×106 Nb 8×105 Tc 1×102
Ru 4×104 Pd 6×103 Ag 1 × 104 Cd 3×104 In 5×104 Sn 4×106 Sb 2×103 Te (1 × 103) I 7 × 101 Xe 1×100 Cs 4×103 Ba 2 × 103 Ce 3 × 106
Seawater concentrationb (kg/kg)
1.1 × 10–1 [1]
7.2 × 10–6 [125]
1.1 × 10–2 [1]
9.0 × 10–4 [1]
1.9 × 10–2 [1]
4.1 × 10–4 [1]
5.0 × 10–13 [127]
1.7 × 10–10 [127]
1.0 × 10–10 [127]
2.2 × 10–11 [127]
1.5 × 10–11 [126, 131] 3.0 × 10–10 [131, 133, 134] 2.8 × 10–10 [126, 131, 133] 4.0 × 10–11 [127]
2.1 × 10–10 [60]
8.0 × 10–6 [60]
4.7 × 10–12 [60]
6.8 × 10–12 [127]
4.7 × 10–12 [60]
—
5.0 × 10–15 [60]
1.9 × 10–14 [127]
1.0 × 10–13 [126, 138] 8.0 × 10–12 [126, 133, 138] 2.2 × 10–13 [127]
1.1 × 10–12 [127]
1.6 × 10–10 [127]
1.6 × 10–13 [127]
5.8 × 10–8 [60]
3.9 × 10–11 [60]
3.1 × 10–10 [127]
5.5 × 10–8 [140]
6.3 × 10–12 [127]
Coastal sediment concentration (kg/kg)
Mean shale concentration (kg/kg) [55]
—
1.4 × 10–2 5.9 × 10–3 2.4 × 10–3 1.6 × 10–4 1.6 × 10–2 1.3 × 10–5 9.0 × 10–5 8.5 × 10–4 4.8 × 10–2 1.9 × 10–5 6.8 × 10–5 1.2 × 10–4 5.0 × 10–7 —
3.0 × 10–4 4.1 × 10–5 1.6 × 10–4 1.8 × 10–5 —
—
—
7.0 × 10–8 2.2 × 10–7 5.7 × 10–8 6.0 × 10–6 1.5 × 10–6 —
1.9 × 10–5 —
5.5 × 10–6 5.5 × 10–4 9.6 × 10–5
— 1.0 × 10–2
— — — — —
4.1 × 10–5 7.6 × 10–4 3.6 × 10–2 2.2 × 10–5 2.9 × 10–5 1.0 × 10–4
—
— 3.0 × 10–4 2.0 × 10–5 8.0 × 10–5
— —
— — —
1.3 × 10–6 —
2.4 × 10–5 —
—
—
—
—
5.8 × 10–4 [125, 142] —
[126]
[128] [128] [128] [128] [128] [128]
[136] [136] [136]
[128] [128]
18

Mean crustal concentration (kg/kg) [55]
Coastal sediment concentration
based on 20% exchangeable
Ocean margin K
d
Kd based on
carbonate Other derived Kds
exchange
phase (kg/kg) —————
4.8 × 10–4 2.3 × 10–2 2.6 × 10–3 1.3 × 10–4 4.1 × 10–2 1.6 × 10–5 1.0 × 10–4 9.5 × 10–4 4.1 × 10–2 2.0 × 10–5 8.0 × 10–5 7.5 × 10–5 5.0 × 10–8
1.0 × 10–2 1.2 × 10–3 4.8 × 10–4 3.2 × 10–5 3.2 × 10–3 2.6 × 10–6 8.2 × 10–6 1.5 × 10–4 7.2 × 10–3 4.4 × 10–6 5.8 × 10–6 2.0 × 10–5 1.0 × 10–7
1.4 × 103
1.1 × 10–1
5.3 × 10–1
1.7 × 10–3
7.8 × 100
5.2 × 106
4.8 × 104
1.5 × 106
3.3 × 108
2.9 × 105
1.9 × 104
7.2 × 104
2.5 × 103 —————
3.7 × 10–4 3.0 × 10–5 1.9 × 10–4 2.0 × 10–5 —
6.0 × 10–5 4.0 × 10–6 1.6 × 10–5 3.6 × 10–6 —
7.5 × 100 8.5 × 105 2.4 × 106 7.7 × 105 —
2.5 × 102 —
—
—
—
2 × 100–3 × 102 [47,57]
—
—
—
2 × 102–5 × 103 [71, 137] (see
Table I) —
—
1 × 104–1 × 106 [135, 139] 1 × 104–1 × 105 [129, 130] —
—
—
—
—
1.0 × 10–9 6.0 × 10–10 7.0 × 10–8 1.1 × 10–7 4.9 × 10–8 2.2 × 10–6 2.0 × 10–7 5.0 × 10–9 1.4 × 10–7
2.0 × 10–10 1.2 × 10–10 1.4 × 10–8 2.6 × 10–7 1.1 × 10–8 4.8 × 10–6 3.0 × 10–7 1.0 × 10–9 3.8 × 10–6
4.0 × 104
6.3 × 103
1.4 × 104
3.3 × 104
5.2 × 104
4.4 × 106
1.9 × 103
6.3 × 103
6.6 × 101 —————
3.0 × 10–6 5.0 × 10–4 6.8 × 10–5
1.1 × 10–6 1.2 × 10–4 1.9 × 10–5
3.5 × 103 2.1 × 103 3.0 × 106
— 9.5 × 103 —
3 × 102–2 × 104 [42, 47, 57, 132] —
—
—
—
—
— 4.9 × 102 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 × 103–1 × 106 [129]
1 × 105–1 × 107 [129, 130]
1 × 104–2.7 × 105 [47, 57, 132] 1 × 103–1.6 × 104 [129, 130] 1 × 104–1 × 106 [129, 130, 135] —
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — —
19

TABLE II. (cont.)
Recommended Element Kd valuea
Pm (2×106) Pr 5×106 Sm 3×106 Eu 2×106 Gd 2×106 Tb 2 × 106 Dy 1×106 Tm 1×106 Yb 1×106 Hf 1×107 Ta 2 × 105 W 3 × 104 Ir (1 × 105) Hg 4 × 103 Tl 2 × 104 Pb 1 × 105
Po (2 × 107) Ra 2 × 103 Ac 2 × 106 Th 3 × 106 Pa (5 × 106) U 1 × 103 Np 1×103 Pu 1×105 Am 2×106 Cm 2×106 Bk 2×106 Cf 2×106
Seawater concentrationb (kg/kg)
Coastal sediment concentration (kg/kg)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.2 × 10–7 [128] —
2.0 × 10–5 [142]
Mean shale concentration (kg/kg) [55]
—
1.1 × 10–5 7.0 × 10–6 1.2 × 10–6 6.0 × 10–6 1.0 × 10–6 5.8 × 10–6 6.0 × 10–7 3.9 × 10–6 2.8 × 10–6 2.0 × 10–6 1.9 × 10–6 —
1.8 × 10–7 1.2 × 10–6 2.3 × 10–5
 — 4.9 × 10–13 4.7 × 10–13 1.1 × 10–13 6.0 × 10–13 1.0 × 10–13 7.8 × 10–13 1.1 × 10–13 5.9 × 10–13 5.4 × 10–14 2.0 × 10–12
1.1 × 10–11 1.7 × 10–15 1.0 × 10–11
[127] [127] [127] [127] [127] [127] [127] [127] [127] [127] [60] [127] [142]
1.0 × 10–11 [60] 3.0 × 10–11 [133, 138,
2.7 × 10–18 [145] 3.3 × 10–16 [146] —
7.4 × 10–13 [76] 4.4 × 10–18 [76] 3.2 × 10–9 [60] —
—
—
—
—
—
142]
—
—
—
—
—
2.0 × 10–5 [136]
— — ——
— — — — —— ——
—
1.1 × 10–12 —
1.2 × 10–5 —
3.7 × 10–6
a Values in parentheses indicate that the recommended Kds were chosen to be equal to the Kds of periodically adjacent elements.
b Values represent open ocean surface water concentrations, except for elements exhibiting major differences in coastal waters. In these cases coastal water concentrations were used.
20

Coastal sediment Mean crustal concentration
concentration based on (kg/kg) [55] 20% exchangeable
Ocean margin K
d
Kd based on
carbonate Other derived Kds
exchange
— 2 × 106–1 × 107 [141] — —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— 4 × 104–1.6 × 105 [143] — —
— 3 × 103–1 × 107 [129, 130, 135, 144]
phase (kg/kg)
— ——
9.5 × 10–6 2.2 × 10–6 7.9 × 10–6 1.4 × 10–6 2.1 × 10–6 2.4 × 10–7 7.7 × 10–6 1.2 × 10–6 1.1 × 10–6 2.0 × 10–7 6.0 × 10–6 1.2 × 10–6 4.8 × 10–7 1.2 × 10–7 3.3 × 10–6 7.8 × 10–7 5.3 × 10–6 5.6 × 10–7 2.0 × 10–6 4.0 × 10–7 1.0 × 10–6 3.8 × 10–7 3.0 × 10–12 6.0 × 10–13 5.0 × 10–8 4.4 × 10–8 6.0 × 10–7 2.4 × 10–7 1.4 × 10–5 4.0 × 10–6
4.5 × 106 3.0 × 106 2.2 × 106 2.0 × 106 2.0 × 106 1.5 × 106 1.1 × 106 1.3 × 106 1.0 × 107 2.0 × 105 3.5 × 104 3.5 × 102 4.4 × 103 2.4 × 104 1.3 × 105
————— 6.0 × 10–13 2.2 × 10–13 6.7 × 102 2.9 × 104 — —————
1.2 × 10–5 2.4 × 10–6 3.2 × 106 — 1 × 104–1 × 107 [141,144,147] —————
2.4 × 10–6 —
—
—
—
4.0 × 10–6 1.3 × 103 — —— — —— — —— — —— —
1 × 103 [141]
5 × 103–1 × 104 [144, 148] 4 × 105 [141]
2 × 106 [141]
1 × 106 [148]
—————
— — — — 2 × 104–1 × 105 [117]
21

[125, 126, 142]. Many more Kd s have been obtained by direct measurement in coastal environments, and these studies provide a valuable source of data. However, this does not apply to the entire suite of elements required for radio- logical assessment purposes. In addition, coastal sediments generally are very heterogeneous, in terms of grain size and mineralogy, and data obtained from a single location are not necessarily universally applicable.
Concentrations in near shore sediments for 16 elements (C, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn, Sr, Y, Zr, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb and U) were derived from published values [128, 136 149–151] (column 4). With few exceptions, these values were found to be within a factor of 2 of the mean shale concentrations (column 5) taken from Bowen [55]. Sedimentary concentrations for the remaining ele- ments were then taken from a compilation of mean shale compositions. For ruthenium, lead, tellurium and iridium, mean concentrations in continental crust (column 6) were used. While this is an arbitrary procedure, it should pro- vide values for the concentration of the elements in coastal sediment silts and clays that are well within an order of magnitude of the real values in all cases.
The next challenge was to represent the average bulk composition of coastal sediments and estimate the exchangeable (or non-detrital) proportions of the elements in these sediments. The bulk composition of coastal sediments varies widely from essentially zero silt–clay to 100% silt–clay. The average coastal zone sediment might comprise 50% fine and 50% coarse (sand sized and coarser) material, but no firm average can be chosen. The proportion of the total elemental abundance in coastal sediments that is exchangeable with the aqueous phase is equally difficult to determine. Estimates of the proportions of metals, for example, that are present in easily leachable fractions of sediment vary widely according to both the bulk composition of the matrix and the chemical extraction methodologies. Nevertheless, in fine (pelitic) sediments, substantial proportions of some elements, namely manganese, cadmium, zinc and copper, are found to be easily solubilized by weak acids. The avenue taken to resolve these two problems was to assume for all elements except carbon that 20% of the total concentration of the elements in pelitic coastal sediments (clays and silts) represents the exchangeable phase components of the ele- ments. This arbitrary choice is intended to take into account both the varying proportions of coarse material (which is not generally involved in exchange processes) in coastal sediments and the proportion of the elements associated with pelitic fractions available for exchange with the aqueous phase. For carbon, it has been assumed that the sediments are largely pelitic and that all the associated carbon is available for exchange with carbon in the dissolved phase.
The estimates of mean exchangeable sedimentary abundances of the elements (column 7) were then divided by the coastal water concentrations to provide Kds for coastal sediments (column 8).
22

Values of Kd on exchange with calcareous material were also calculated for calcium, strontium, barium and radium using the pelagic carbonate concen- trations given in Table I (column 5) and are provided in column 9 of Table II. Only the recommended Kd for calcium, however, is derived from the value based on carbonate exchange, since most of the material in the coastal zone is terrigenous in origin.
2.3.2. Alternative derivation of ocean margin Kd s: review of published data
Experimental and field data published in the literature were reviewed to compare them with the Kds derived using the methodology described in Section 2.3.1 and to determine Kds for those elements for which such a methodology could not be applied.
Variation in marine Kds can occur as a result of a number of factors, including particle size, the formation of colloidal complexes and iron and manganese coatings on particle surfaces. Such coatings tend to mask the influ- ence of mineralogy. Changes in redox chemistry, which can occur near the sediment–water interface and in poorly ventilated deep basins (e.g. fjords), also influence the adsorption–desorption of redox sensitive elements such as cobalt, manganese [152] and plutonium [153]. Detailed site specific investigations can be of benefit, particularly when attempting to provide more realistic model predictions, or for situations in which radioecological data are limited (e.g. the Arctic). Studies with an appropriate experimental design can provide useful information on which factors may be critical in particular circumstances, or for situations in which it would be impractical to collect in situ data.
The impetus to improve the marine Kd database diminished following the cessation of deep ocean disposal in 1983. However, there has been renewed interest in Japan, in relation to both coastal discharges [152] and radioactive waste dumping by the Russian Federation and the FSU in the Sea of Japan [137]. In addition, revelations about the dumping of radioactive waste in the Kara Sea and the Barents Sea [20] by the Russian Federation and the FSU led to the establishment of the IASAP by the IAEA [154]. The Kd s recommended in TRS 247 were used in the preliminary assessment, although efforts were made to provide more realistic values for some of the key model parameters. Site specific Kds for the principal radionuclides of concern were derived from uptake experiments using sediment collected from two bays (Abrosimov and Stepovogo) used extensively as dump sites off the coast of Novaya Zemlya [46]. The variables selected were salinity and suspended sediment concentration (mg/L). The authors concluded that the salinity changes observed in the two bays would have a minimal impact on the Kds of the radionuclides studied and that Kd was inversely proportional to the sediment loading, a phenomenon
23

observed in other experimental studies. The study did reveal some apparent differences between the sorption characteristics of sediments from the two bays that might warrant further study. The measured Kd s for caesium, cadmium and americium fell within the IAEA recommended range, although the mean values for all the radionuclides studied fell below the IAEA recommended mean.
Many more measurements of 99Tc in sea water of the Irish Sea and the North Sea have been made as a result of increased discharges from Sellafield in the mid-1990s. These measurements support the notion that 99Tc is conser- vative in sea water, lending credibility to the few experimental studies that have been reported [155]. In contrast, the very limited particulate analyses reported in the literature [71] suggest Kd s in the range 1 × 102–1 × 103. The lack of particle characterization means that a possible contribution of organic debris cannot be discounted. However, there is growing evidence that 99Tc can be present as a reduced form in anoxic sediments and in poorly ventilated water bodies [156]. This form is more particle reactive, and the use of higher Kd s may be justified in such situations.
In a 1992 investigation of Irish Sea sediments, MacKenzie et al. [157] con- cluded that Kds for 137Cs within the seabed were in the range 1 × 104–1 × 105, on the basis of the observed 137Cs/241Am ratios in three sediment cores. The authors suggested that these higher values, well outside the IAEA compilation range, might have been due to differences in the sediment phase composition compared with the overlying suspended particulate material. This suggestion was supported by an experimental study in which contaminated intertidal and salt marsh sediment, from the Solway Firth, north of Sellafield, were subjected to a variety of desorption conditions. The desorption Kd for 137Cs was of the order of 1 × 105. The authors concluded that a more labile fraction of 137Cs had been removed prior to on-shore particulate transport. Differences between adsorption and desorption Kds in batch experiments have been reported else- where [152]. It would be prudent to extend the range of recommended 137Cs Kds up to 1 × 105 for the modelling of seabed sources.
Recent water column measurements [158, 159] have confirmed the valid- ity of the TRS 247 recommended range of values for plutonium and americium, although in the former study the estimated range of Kds (~1 × 104 to ~7 × 104) was significantly lower than previously published values.
No attempt has been made to update the previously recommended Kds for curium, berkelium and californium. The recommended Kds for tellurium, promethium and iridium were chosen to be equal to Kds for periodically adja- cent elements in accordance with TRS 247 and appear in parentheses in Table II. Finally, a default Kd of 1 was assigned to non-reactive elements such as hydrogen and inert gases (Kr and Xe).
24

2.3.3. Maximum and minimum values for ocean margin Kds
Similarly to Table I, Table II provides a single recommended Kd for each element and does not include a range of maximum and minimum values, in contrast with TRS 247. Where a range of values is required, as in the case of conducting a sensitivity analysis for a radiological assessment, different approaches for assigning a Kd range can be used. These include using site spe- cific data, choosing an arbitrary range (e.g. maximum and minimum values could be assumed to be a factor of 10 higher and lower than the recommended value) or applying a probability distribution of values. Sensitivity analysis should indicate whether more data are required for the assessment.
2.4. ESTUARIES: A SPECIAL CASE
Estuaries tend to be very dynamic systems with a high degree of tempo- ral and spatial variability in factors such as pH, salinity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and turbidity. High levels of DOC can lead to relatively low lead and plutonium Kds [160]. Particulate attached plutonium may be released upon contact with low pH river water [161]. Biological recycling in estuarine inter- tidal sediments can lead to the formation of organoliths composed of iron and manganese deposits with a relatively high radionuclide content that will show seasonality in their abundances [162]. Equilibrium is at best transitory in such systems, and this should be recognized in any modelling and assessment work. A further complication is the preservation in estuaries of hot particles, where these have been present in the original discharges, as has been the case with the Sellafield and Dounreay reprocessing plant discharges. These can be defined as discrete clusters of radioactivity measured using some form of autoradiographic detector (e.g. CR-39 for alpha activity). Assinder et al. [163] reported a wide range of Kds based on in situ measurements at different tidal states from the Esk Estuary close to the Sellafield outfall, illustrating the non- equilibrium nature of such systems. If such sophistication can be justified, mathematical treatments can be applied that may reduce some of the variabil- ity in Kds, provided data on the temporal and spatial distribution of contribu- tory factors (e.g. salinity, pH and DOC) are available [164].
25

3. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL
3.1. BASIC DERIVATION
The quantity of an element or radionuclide in biological tissue is almost always discussed in terms of concentration, either on a dry or wet weight basis. For modelling purposes, this value is then usually represented in terms of a concentration relative to that of the ambient sea water, traditionally expressed as a CF. If both biological material and seawater concentrations are derived per unit mass, this term is dimensionless:
In some instances the seawater concentration is derived in terms of unit volume; the CF is then expressed in L/kg, but this makes, numerically, little difference to the CF thus derived:
For practical purposes, such as in studies with plankton, the concentration in the biological material may also be derived in terms of unit volume. Unless otherwise noted, all values herein relate to wet weight.
The CFs (in L/kg) presented in this report were calculated using the best available compilation of concentrations in filtered sea water. These data were generated using ultra-clean sampling and analytical protocols. We consider both surface and deep bottom water concentrations, depending upon the type of organism. For organisms on the continental shelf (water depths of less than 200 m), an average of Atlantic and Pacific surface water concentrations was used. The operational definition of ‘dissolved’ is typically ‘less than 0.45 μm’. However, it is recognized that metals that fall into this dissolved category may be complexed with organic matter or associated with colloidal particles that may or may not be available for biological uptake. Furthermore, bioavailability can be strongly dependent upon the speciation of the metals where the free
CF (dimensionless) =
Concentration per unit mass of organism (kg/kg or Bq/kg wet weight)
Concentration per unit mass of sea water (kg/kg or Bq/kg)
 CF (L/kg) =
Concentration per unit mass of organism (kg/kg or Bq/kg wet weight)
Concentration per unit volume of sea water (kg/L or Bq/L)
26

metal ion is commonly believed to be the bioavailable form. It is outside the scope of this study to consider the speciation of the metals in the dissolved phase and therefore all metal in the dissolved phase is essentially presumed to be in one pool.
Some confusion may arise from the different terminology used in the literature. Bioaccumulation factors of elements are analogous to bioconcentra- tion factors, except that the former are defined as grams element per gram tissue (or whole organism) divided by grams element per gram water (dissolved plus particulate). In this case, the total water contains both dissolved element and element bound to suspended particulate matter. Since particle loads in oceanic systems are typically low (less than 1 mg/L), total and dissolved element concentrations are very nearly identical, even for particle reactive metals. Differences can become pronounced, however, for particle reactive metals in turbid coastal waters, where extreme particle loads of tens of mg/L can occur.
It should also be noted that, except for algae, the term CF as used in these circumstances does not imply that all the elements within the organism are concentrated by direct accumulation from the water. It is simply a value that relates the concentration in the organism, which may have been derived by uptake from sea water, particulate matter and food, to that of the medium in which it lives.
The term is also used by radiobiologists studying the accumulation of radionuclides by organisms under controlled laboratory conditions, usually that of direct uptake from sea water. In some experiments, the results obtained are similar to those derived from environmental data; in others they are not. There are many reasons for such discrepancies, and these are often the subjects of investigation. It is therefore potentially misleading to use laboratory derived data uncritically, and, wherever possible, environmentally derived data have been used in this report, although these may be equally varied for a number of reasons, and often environmental CF data are simply lacking for certain elements.
3.2. FACTORS AFFECTING CFs
A number of factors must be considered in evaluating the applicability of CFs in marine organisms. The preponderance of data on metal and radionuclide concentrations in marine organisms is based on work with organisms from temperate ecosystems. Only recently have attempts been made to measure metal concentrations in polar organisms, and some attempts have begun to com- pare temperate and polar CFs. Given the limited data available on this issue, all conclusions must be considered preliminary. However, studies suggest that, as a
27

rule, differences between polar and temperate zone CFs are not pronounced [165, 166]. There is a striking lack of reliable data on metal and radionuclide con- centrations in tropical ecosystem organisms, and extrapolation of temperate ecosystem data sets to tropical regions must also be performed with appropriate caution. Metabolic rates and food web complexity can be very different between tropical and temperate regions, and these factors can greatly affect the extent to which metals are concentrated in organisms, particularly for metals accumulated principally via trophic transfer. Seasonal variation in the biological uptake of metals may be great, particularly in polar and temperate regions, where meta- bolic rates vary appreciably between winter and summer. Relatively little effort has been made to quantify the seasonal variation in metal CFs in marine organ- isms. For all these reasons the tabulations of CFs presented in this report should be considered first estimates, but not, as yet, a complete data set.
As with metal Kds, the oxidation state of redox metals (Mn, Co, Cr, Se, Tc, Pu, Fe and others) can complicate the interpretation of data. The particle reactivity and bioavailability of certain metals in sea water may differ greatly with oxidation state (e.g. Cr(VI) versus Cr(III), Se(IV) versus Se(VI), Pu(III) versus Pu(V)). Further, the oxidation state of some metals may change upon association with an organism or particle, rendering those metals much less available for release from the organism or particle. Hence the underlying assumption of exchangeability in considering CFs is not met for these metals.
The relationship between the concentration of an element or radionu- clide in a living organism and the ambient sea water is a dynamic one. Rates of both uptake and excretion are known to be affected by body size, rate of change of body size, temperature, light (in the case of algae), salinity, etc. A number of elements that are accumulated by some organisms are not subse- quently eliminated, with a variable fraction being virtually permanently incor- porated into some parts of the body structure. Skeletal tissues may act as depositories for a number of elements, particularly multivalent cations. Some elements become incorporated into granules, probably as a means of detoxifi- cation, which may or may not be subsequently excreted. Crustaceans, which grow by a process of moulting, may lose absorbed material in cast moults as well as resorbing, before moulting, certain other elements that are then rein- corporated into the new exoskeleton.
Added to these factors is the continuing change in the concentration of some elements or radionuclides (in coastal waters) over short periods of time. It is to be expected, therefore, that real differences exist between some CFs, even for the same element and species, and that the variability in the data reflects true environmental fluctuations in any one area.
In considering the CFs compiled in this report, it is important to realize that an assumption underlying these values is that organisms are in equilibrium
28

with their ambient sea water with respect to element concentrations. Thus the rates of biological uptake and release of an element or radionuclide are not considered in this report. However, under certain circumstances (such as a spill or periodic discharge), risk assessment exercises may wish to focus on the kinetics of uptake into or out of organisms. The rates of uptake into marine organisms and the uptake pathways (e.g. dietary versus solute uptake) are out- side the scope of this report and should be considered separately.
3.3. TABULATED VALUES: GENERAL REMARKS
The tabulated values represent an attempt to update those published in TRS 247, but a full review of the very large amount of data available has not been possible. The values required are those that relate concentrations in marine foodstuffs to those of sea water. Some subjective judgements have been made as to which parts of a marine organism, and in what proportions, are likely to be consumed by humans; these are explained in the following sections.
In making such an update, emphasis has been given to revising those val- ues that were previously derived as best guess estimates and for which data are now available, those values which appeared to have particularly low or high CFs, those materials most likely to be consumed and those radionuclides con- sidered of particular significance in view of their half-lives, expected mobility or likely abundance in nuclear waste. For many elements, a full revision has not been possible and, by default, the values published in TRS 247 have been retained as current best estimates.
As a general rule, literature concentrations expressed as dry or freeze dried weights were converted to wet weight concentrations by multiplying by 0.18. Concentrations normalized to ash sample weights were converted to wet weight concentrations by multiplying by 0.01. Of particular value were the data compiled by Bowen [55], Eisler [167], Phillips [168], Coughtrey and Thorne [169–171] and Jackson et al. [172]; use was also made of the text of Vinogradov [173]. Where necessary, stable element data in organisms were divided by the coastal water concentrations given in Table II. A number of values, of course, were also based entirely on radionuclide results. Methods employed to estimate values where data were inadequate or could not be obtained are described in the notes to the tables. As with sediment Kds, the default CFs for hydrogen, inert gases (Kr and Xe) and sodium in fish were taken to be 1.
Some comments are warranted on the variability of the data in compiling biological CFs. Generally, insufficient reliable data are available to allow accurate assessments of ranges around a recommended value for most element–organism combinations. Where a reliable database does exist for a given element and
29

type of organism, in nearly every case the range of minimum and maximum CFs is one order of magnitude (or less) from the recommended value. Consequently, the ranges of CFs around recommended values are not included in this report. For those few elements for which reliable data indicate that greater variability is apparent for a given CF, comments are provided in the notes. Where greater variability exists, it is almost always for elements for which the uptake is actively mediated by the organism rather than for elements that are passively adsorbed. This is generally the case for elements with known bio- logical functions, for example as blood pigments, electron transport chain com- ponents or enzyme cofactors, and the great variability reflects widely divergent requirements for the element in question among organisms. In some cases organisms actively transport non-essential elements through other element uptake pathways; for example, selenium uptake is an active, enzymatically mediated process in phytoplankton, and different types of phytoplankton have greatly varying requirements for this element, with CFs varying by four orders of magnitude. Similarly, technetium accumulation in macroalgae and crustaceans, iron accumulation in diverse organisms and other elements can display a vari- ability of a few orders of magnitude around the recommended values. These exceptions have been noted where they are known to exist. Thus, except where noted, models can assume that maximum and minimum CFs are one order of magnitude above and below the recommended value.
3.3.1. Comments on carbon and lead
There are two elements upon which some general comments are neces- sary, namely carbon and lead. For the former, although concentrations of car- bon in marine organisms have been accurately determined, a major difficulty arises with regard to selecting the appropriate seawater value as a denomina- tor. In calculations for all other elements the total concentration of the element dissolved in sea water (filtrate) was used. If the same assumption is made with respect to carbon, this includes dissolved organic carbon, carbonate, bicarbon- ate and CO2. There are insufficient data to indicate what fraction, if any, would not equilibrate with 14C and to what extent any of the forms of carbon would or would not become biologically incorporated. It was therefore decided to adopt the value based on organic carbon in sea water given in Table II in order to be consistent. The wet weight tissue values for carbon were 95 g/kg for fish, 80 g/kg for crustaceans and molluscs, 65 g/kg for benthic algae, 80 g/kg for zoo- plankton and 45 g/kg for phytoplankton [55].
With regard to lead, there are again many data in the literature, the majority having been derived from contaminated environments and for which local seawater values were not obtained. There has been considerable debate
30

over the lengths to which it is necessary to go in order to derive accurate lead concentrations in both biological material or sea water. When extensive pre- cautions have been taken, the values obtained away from contaminated areas [174] are very much lower than those derived by other workers. In deriving CFs for lead, therefore, only data on 210Pb have been used, unless otherwise indicated.
3.3.2. Surface water fish (Table III)
The relevant CFs are those relating concentrations in the food substance to those of ambient sea water; consideration therefore has to be given to the fraction of the organism consumed. For fish this usually consists of fillets: mus- cle plus, possibly, some skin. When such fillets are commercially prepared they are often contaminated by, for example, gut contents and other organs such as liver and kidney; portions of bone might also be included. When chemical analyses are made, however, fish are usually quite carefully dissected. Since the concentrations of many elements differ markedly from one organ to another, with muscle usually having one of the lowest concentrations, quite different results in the apparent concentration of an element in the edible portion can be obtained. Such differences resulting from analyses of laboratory and commer- cially derived fish samples for plutonium analyses have been commented upon by Pentreath et al. [175]. In suggesting a CF appropriate to models used to assess dose to humans, some adjustment (upwards) of the value derived from laboratory prepared samples would appear to be appropriate in some cases, and this has been done. It is also necessary to consider the consequences of the consumption of whole fish, such as anchovies, which would also include gut contents. It would not be realistic to bias all data to allow for continual con- sumption of nothing but whole fish, but nevertheless some form of adjustment is clearly necessary. Data from a sample of 24 650 people in the USA [176] indi- cate that less than 0.5% consumed anchovies. If one assumes that the quotient of the whole body CF to flesh CF is Z, the effect of eating 0.5% whole fish would be to adjust the recommended CF in the following manner:
CF = (CFflesh ¥ 0.995) + (CFflesh ¥ 0.005 ¥ Z)
In some cases tinned fish consisting only of flesh and bone is consumed; it may be possible that the bone CF is greater than that of the whole body CF, in which case, in order to be conservative, the recommended CF has been rounded upwards. There are other considerations, such as the consumption of fish gonads (roe), but the data available on their consumption, and separate CFs, are too limited to make any sensible recommendations. Three types of
31

database were considered before a mean value and range were adopted for each element. Consideration was first given to field derived radionuclide con-
centrations in fish and sea water, including 54Mn, 60Co, 90Sr, 95Zr, 95Nb, 99Tc, 106Ru, 137Cs, 144Ce, 210Pb, 210Po 2, 226Ra, 232Th, 238U, 237Np, 239/240Pu, 241Am and
242/244Cm. Consideration was then given to data derived from the simultaneous determination of stable elements in fish and water, and finally to tabulated stable element data for fish, with the coastal water stable element estimates given in Table II being used as a denominator. In addition to the general refer- ences listed in Section 3.3, the review by Pentreath [177] was used extensively, although in some cases the data were modified in the light of more recent infor- mation.
3.3.3. Crustaceans (Table IV)
A variety of crustacean species are taken for human consumption. The muscle portion is the fraction usually consumed; this consists of the ‘tails’ of shrimps, prawns and lobsters, and the limb muscles of crabs. Other tissues are also eaten, however, and are converted into pastes; these tissues consist of hepatopancreas and gonad. The gut and gills are usually removed, and the cara- pace is not intentionally consumed.
To arrive at a recommended CF for each element it was not considered plausible to make appropriate adjustments for the consumption of these dif- ferent fractions, and thus the values were derived primarily from whatever ‘soft part’ data were available. The selection criteria were essentially those adopted for the fish values, with emphasis being given to data obtained from simultane- ous radionuclide derived water and biological material analyses, simultaneous stable element analyses and finally using the seawater values given in Table II applied to any stable element data in biological material from non-contaminated environments.
3.3.4. Molluscs (Table V)
Gastropod, lamellibranch and cephalopod molluscs are consumed by humans. For gastropods and lamellibranchs the ‘total soft parts’ are the relevant fractions for estimating CFs, and these usually include gut contents, although commercially obtained molluscs may have been held in cleansing tanks before
 2 It is worth noting that tinned fish has reduced levels of 210Po, compared with freshly caught produce, owing to the decay of unsupported 210Po.
32

sale. Consumption of cephalopods is somewhat different; this is discussed in Section 3.3.7. The criteria used for selection of the data are essentially those adopted for fish and crustaceans. In general, the values for lamellibranchs and gastropods have been pooled to obtain average values, but it is assumed that more lamellibranchs are taken for human consumption than gastropods.
3.3.5. Macroalgae (Table VI)
Macroalgae (benthic algae) that enter the human diet consist of Rhodophyceae (red), Chlorophyceae (green) and Phaeophyceae (brown) species. Species of red and green algae are directly consumed in many coun- tries, but brown algae are largely taken for conversion into alginates. There are exceptions; some Phaeophyceae are consumed in China, Japan and other Far Eastern countries, but probably not in large quantities. The extent to which radionuclides incorporated into alginates enter the human diet is not known, but for the purposes of this report it is assumed that 10% of the algae appear in alginate products.
By no means are all species, of even red and green algae, consumed; unfortunately, many of the species for which elemental concentration data are available are among those that are not. This includes the genus Fucus, which has been extensively studied because of its utility as an ‘indicator’ organism for many elements, especially metals. There are also marked differences for some elements in the extent to which they are accumulated (by the three groups) rel- ative to the concentrations in ambient sea water. Where such differences are very large and consistent, the recommended CFs have been deliberately biased towards the red and green algae data.
For many elements it must be assumed that the data derived are likely to be influenced by the method of sample collection. Owing to the mucous surface coating in many species, particulate material adheres to the samples and, con- versely, the mucilaginous coating often sloughs off after the plant has been removed from sea water. Such factors may influence the wide range of values cited in some of the literature reviews. In selecting the CF data, as with those derived for fauna, emphasis has been given, wherever possible, to those obtained from simultaneously derived plant and seawater (radionuclide and stable element) values.
3.3.6. Plankton: zooplankton and phytoplankton (Tables VII and VIII)
Pelagic organisms that float in the sea and are non-motile, or have limited powers of movement, are collectively called plankton. Planktonic organisms may be either plants (phytoplankton) or animals (zooplankton). Phytoplankton
33

includes many groups; prominent among these are diatoms, dinoflagellates, coc- colithopores, green algae and cyanobacteria. Zooplankton is derived from many groups of animals that range in size from about 5 μm to 1 m in diameter. Important groups include copepod crustaceans, euphausiids (krill), cnidarians, ostracod crustaceans, pteropod molluscs, chaetognaths and pelagic tunicates. Many species have an entirely planktonic life history; these constitute the holo- plankton. Other organisms, including some of those that otherwise live on or in the seabed, spend only part of their life history in plankton, particularly as eggs and larvae, and these temporary components of plankton are called mero- plankton.
Since plankton consists of such a variety of organisms, it was desirable to divide this section into at least phytoplankton and zooplankton. Many of the data in the literature simply refer to either of these two groups without further detail, but it is assumed that most data on zooplankton refer to crustacean forms, unless otherwise specified. In view of the large surface area to volume ratio, a frequent requirement of passively floating pelagic organisms, it is likely that many ele- ments are accumulated by adsorptive processes, and many laboratory derived CF data are in good agreement with estimates made from in situ investigations. A full literature review has not been possible, however, and many of the values recommended have simply been drawn from earlier compilations. With regard to the consumption of plankton by humans, this is usually thought of in terms of harvesting krill, the food of the mysticeti (whalebone) whales. Whalebone whales actually feed on many different types of plankton, although usually some forms predominate in different waters: mysids off Vancouver, golatheids in the Chilean fjords, copepods in the Bay of Fundy. However, the term krill is most universally applied to the Antarctic euphausiid, Euphausia superba. This is a large euphausiid, some 6 cm in length when adult. Chemical determinations of this species are few and it is difficult to determine whether the crustacean or zooplankton CFs should be applied. However, as many of the zooplankton val- ues are based on other euphausiids and as plankton harvesting is likely to include other species, it is suggested that the zooplankton CFs are preferable.
3.3.7. Cephalopods (Table IX)
Cephalopods are taken from both surface water and mid-water depths for human consumption. The edible fractions of squid are usually the mantle (from which the viscera have been removed), the head and the tentacles, whereas for octopods it is usually the tentacles only. These edible portions do not therefore contain sedimentary material or those organs that contain high concentrations of many elements; thus they differ from the ‘total soft parts’ of other molluscs in terms of their concentrations of many elements. It is not possible to develop
34

a complete list of CFs for cephalopods, but some values derived for a number of elements are listed in Table IX, and these can be compared with the recom- mended CFs for fish and other molluscs.
3.3.8. Mesopelagic fish
All the recommended CFs presented in Section 3.3.2 refer to, and are based on, surface water fish data. The extent to which such values can be applied to fish living at depths greater than about 200 m is not entirely clear, and there is certainly an insufficient database to derive a complete separate list of CFs for them. From a brief perusal of the literature, it appears that the concentrations of a number of trace elements (Mn, Fe, Cu and Zn) are not significantly different in mesopelagic and coastal water fish, nor are 137Cs and 90Sr concentrations [178]. The same applies to coastal water and mesopelagic cephalopods. It is therefore suggested that either the surface water fish CFs be used throughout, or that the CF, if applied to deep ocean water, be adjusted in proportion to the ratio of the surface water to deep water elemental concentrations.
3.3.9. Mammals (Tables X–XII)
Marine mammals are considered to be at or near the top of the marine food chain. In addition, many species are consumed by indigenous populations, particularly in the Arctic region. Therefore, in terms of establishing adequate radiation dose models, for the sake of completeness, transfer factors to this link in the marine food chain leading to humans should be included. Radionuclide and trace element data are extremely limited for marine mammals when com- pared with other marine organisms. Furthermore, the fact that many marine mammals are not in constant contact with water and that they derive most of their radionuclide or trace element burden directly from their food makes the computation of CFs somewhat tenuous. Nevertheless, in order to make relevant comparisons with CFs in other marine species, CFs for mammals have been computed using ambient concentrations of radionuclides and trace elements in the surrounding waters (see notes to the tables). As both muscle and liver are often consumed by humans, where data exist CFs for these two tissues are given. It should be kept in mind that since mammals obtain the majority of their con- taminant load from food and some mammals feed at very different levels of the food chain, CFs are likely to vary considerably within any one group of mam- mals. A good example of such variability is mercury in whalebone whales, which consume plankton, compared with mercury in carnivorous toothed whales. Given the importance of diet, transfer mechanisms through the food chain also probably control the body burdens in other mammal species.
35

TABLE III. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR FISH
Element
H C Na S Cl Ca Sc Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Zn Se Kr Sr Y Zr Nb Tc Ru Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba Ce Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy
IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
1 × 100 5 × 104 1 × 10–1 1 × 100 1×100 1 × 100 —
1 × 102 5×102 1 × 103 1 × 102 5×102 2 × 103 1 × 102 — 1×100 1 × 100 1 × 100 1×100 1 × 101 1×100 (3 × 102) 1 × 103 —
— 1×103 1×103 1 × 103 1 × 101 —
5 × 101 —
(1 × 101) 1 × 102 (1 × 102) (1 × 102) —
—
—
Recommended valuea
1 × 100 2 × 104 1 × 100 1 × 100 6 × 10–2 2 × 100 1×103 2 × 102 1 × 103 3 × 104 7 × 102 1 × 103 1 × 103 1 × 104 (1 × 100) 3 × 100
2 × 101 2 × 101 3 × 101 8 × 101 2 × 100 (3 × 102) 1 × 104
5 × 103 5×102 5 × 105 6 × 102 1 × 103 9 × 100 1 × 100 1 × 102 1 × 101 5 × 101 (3 × 102) (3 × 102) 3 × 102 (3 × 102) 6 × 101 (3 × 102)
Note
See Section 3.3 See Section 3.3.1 See Section 3.3
F1 F2 F3 F3 F3 F3 F4 F5 F6 F6 F7
See Section 3.3 F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
F13
F1
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
F1
F19
See Section 3.3 F20
F21
F22
F23
F23
F22
F23
F22
F23
   36

TABLE III.(cont.)
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Tm — Yb — Hf — Ta — W — Ir — Hg — Tl — Pb 3×102 Po 2 × 103 Ra 1 × 102 Ac 3×101
 Th
Pa
U
Np
Pu
Am
Cm
Bk —
Cf (1 × 101)
1 × 103 1 × 101 1 × 10–1 (1 × 101) 1 × 101 1 × 101 (1 × 101)
Recommended valuea
(3 × 102) 2×102 5×102 6 × 101 9 × 101 2×101 3×104 5×103 2 × 102 2 × 103 1 × 102 (5 × 101) 6 × 102 (5 × 101) 1 × 100 1 × 100 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 (1 × 102) (1 × 102)
estimates: see Section 3.3.
Note
F23 F22 F24 F24 F24 F24 F25 F26
See Section 3.3.1 F27
F28
F26
F27
F26
F29
F30
F31
F12
F12
F32
F32
a Values in parentheses are best
NOTES TO TABLE III
F1 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended.
F2 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of chlorine in fish of 6 g/kg dry weight [55].
F3 Ranges found in the literature allow inclusion of some bone in consumed fish. The adopted concentrations for scandium and manganese were 0.6 μg/kg and 0.1 mg/kg, both wet weight, respectively [167, 177].
F4 Concentrations of iron in fish are very variable because of the blood content of different organs and the types of muscle tissue.
F5 Measurements of 60Co in fish and sea water from the northeast Pacific Ocean [180] and the Marshall Islands [107] suggest that the CF for fish is greater than
37

1 × 103. There is, however, a significant body of stable element concentrations for cobalt in fish flesh, which average at about 0.01 mg/kg wet weight. This con- centration was used to derive the recommended CF.
F6 The range of data is considerable. Concentrations in flesh are likely to be lower than the values used to calculate the CFs in the table for both nickel and zinc, but allowance was made for whole fish consumption.
F7 Concentrations of selenium in flesh vary from 0.1 to 2.0 mg/kg wet weight. An average value of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight was assumed [167].
F8 CFs for flesh for strontium reported in the literature are less than 1. The recom- mended value allows for bone and whole fish consumption.
F9 Yttrium data give a CF range of 2 to 10 [181]. These values were multiplied by 3.5 to allow for whole fish consumption.
F10 Few data are available for zirconium, indicating a CF for flesh of about 100 [177]. It should be noted, however, that 95Zr is barely detectable in muscle samples from known contaminated areas. Therefore a CF ten times lower seems more reason- able. This CF was then doubled to allow for contamination and consumption of other organs.
F11 The only extensive measurements of concentrations of niobium in fish flesh are those of Schroeder and Balassa [182]. For a variety of species the average con- centration was 0.3 mg/kg wet weight. Dividing this number by the estimated nio- bium coastal water concentration results in an average CF of 6 × 104. If this is indeed the CF, 95Nb should be more than readily detectable in fish from con- taminated areas such as the Irish Sea, but it is not [183]. The stable element value was therefore not used. Instead, the zirconium CF was multiplied by 1.5 on the basis that some enhancement of 95Nb over 95Zr has been observed in biological material [184].
F12 The recommended CF was determined using data for the English Channel from the Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire (IPSN) [43].
F13 CFs for muscle for 106Ru suggest a range of 0.1 to 1 [177]. Applying a whole fish to muscle ratio of 3.5 a CF of 2 is therefore recommended.
F14 A muscle value of 0.01 mg/kg wet weight for silver is suggested [177], giving a CF of 1 × 104.
F15 Concentrations of cadmium in fish are very variable, many samples analysed hav- ing been taken from contaminated waters. The recommended CF was derived using a typical concentration of cadmium in muscle of 0.04 mg/kg wet weight.
F16 The recommended CF for indium is an upper limit based on the mean of detec- tion limits for fish [185].
38

F17 The recommended CF for tin was derived from concentrations of the stable ele- ment [167]; these ranged from 0.2 to 2.0 mg/kg wet weight. A value of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight was selected.
F18 Stable antimony values in fish flesh vary considerably [167]. The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of antimony in fish of 0.1 mg/kg wet weight.
F19 The recommended CF was calculated using a concentration of iodine in fish of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight taken from Pentreath [177].
F20 The recommended CF is based primarily on measurements of 137Cs in fish and samples of sea water. The CFs are different for different species taken in the same environment, and variations in concentration with size are also evident [177, 186].
F21 The recommended CF for barium is based on data given in Ewing et al. [185] and Goldberg [187].
F22 Data on CFs for a number of rare earths are reported by Suzuki et al. [188]. For cerium, the average CF derived from muscle analyses was about 300, related to ‘soluble’ cerium concentrations in sea water. It should be noted, however, that 144Ce is not observed in fish samples taken from the Irish Sea, which suggests that the CF is unlikely to be greater than 50 for the consumable portion. In situ data from Japan [189] suggest a value of 50. For the other rare earths (europium, ter- bium and ytterbium) no in situ data are available and thus the CFs estimated by Suzuki et al. [188] have been retained.
F23 The recommended CFs are conservatively rounded up values based on the high- est measured CF for the other rare earth elements (see Note F24).
F24 Average upper limits for concentrations of these elements in fish have been reported by Ewing et al. [185]. The recommended CFs were derived using these values, except for iridium.
F25 The recommended CF was derived using a representative concentration for total mercury in sea water (5 ng/L) from the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea [142, 190] and a typical total mercury concentration in fish (0.15 μg/g) from the same region [191–193].
F26 No new data are available.
F27 The recommended CF was derived using data taken from Jackson et al. [172].
F28 The recommended CF was derived using the average concentration of 226Ra from all tissues, reported by Jackson et al. [172].
F29 Typical concentrations of uranium in fish flesh of about 0.2 μg/kg wet weight are reported in the literature [177]. The CF derived using this concentration is less than 0.1; it has been increased to 1 to allow for the possible inclusion of some bone in the edible fraction.
39

F30 The only concentrations of 237Np in environmental samples are those reported by Pentreath and Harvey [89]. An estimated CF for fish flesh, based on these data, is less than 0.01. In view of the uncertainty of this number, a value of 1 is recom- mended, to allow for whole fish consumption.
F31 A large number of data are available on plutonium in fish tissues, many of which have been summarized [172]. CFs average at 3.5 × 102 [71] and 1 × 102 in the English Channel [43]. A recommended value of 1 × 102 is given.
F32 Data on berkelium and californium in the literature are scarce. The behaviour of berkelium and californium is assumed to be similar to that of americium and curium, and therefore the CFs for americium and curium are recommended for both berkelium and californium.
40

TABLE IV. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR CRUSTACEANS
Element
H
C
Na
S
Cl
Ca
Sc
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Zn
Se
Kr
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Tc
Ru
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Xe
Cs
Ba
Ce
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd — Tb — Dy —
Note
See Section 3.3 See Section 3.3.1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12
See Section 3.3 C13
C14
C15
C15
C16
C17
C14
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C14
C23
See Section 3.3 C24
C25
C26
C27
C27
C27
C27
C27
C27
IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Recommended valuea
1 × 100 2 × 104 7 × 10–2 1 × 100 6 × 10–2 5 × 100 3×102 1 × 102 5 × 103 5 × 105 7 × 103 1 × 103 3 × 105 1 × 104 (1 × 100) 5 × 100 1 × 103 2 × 102 2 × 102 1 × 103 1 × 102 (3 × 102) 2 × 105 8 × 104 1×104 5 × 105 3 × 102 1 × 103 3 × 100 1 × 100 5 × 101 7 × 10–1 1 × 103 (4 × 103) (4 × 103) 4 × 103 (4 × 103) (4 × 103) (4 × 103)
1 × 100 4 × 104 3 × 10–1 3 × 100 1×100 1 × 101 —
5 × 102 1×104 1 × 103 1 × 103 1×102 4 × 103 1 × 103 — 1×101 1 × 103 1 × 102 1×102 1 × 103 6×102 (3 × 102) 5 × 103 —
— 3×102 3×102 1×l03 1 × 102 —
3 × 101 —
1 × 103 1×103 (1 × 103) 1 × 103
  41

TABLE IV. (cont.)
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Tm — Yb — Hf —
Ta —
W —
Ir — Hg —
Tl — Pb 1×102 Po 2 × 104 Ra 1 × 102 Ac 1×103 Th 1 × 103 Pa 1 × 101 U 1 × 101 Np (1 × 102) Pu 1 × 102 Am 2 × 102 Cm (2 × 102) Bk —
Recommended Note valuea
(4 × 103) C27 (4 × 103) C27 (4 × 103) C27
2 × 103 C28
1 × 101 C29 (1 × 102) C20 1 × 104 C30 (1 × 103) C20 9 × 104 C11 2 × 104 C31 1 × 102 C14 1 × 103 C14 1 × 103 C14 1 × 101 C14 1 × 101 C14 (1 × 102) C14 2 × 102 C32 4 × 102 C33 (4 × 102) C34 (4 × 102) C34 4 × 102 C35
NOTES TO TABLE IV
C1 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of sodium in crus- taceans of 4 g/kg dry weight [55].
C2 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of sulphur in crus- taceans of 6 g/kg dry weight [55].
C3 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of chlorine in crus- taceans of 6 g/kg dry weight [55].
C4 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of calcium in mus- cle tissues of Nephrops of 2 g/kg wet weight [194].
C5 The recommended CF was derived using data from Robertson [195].
Cf (2 × 102)
a Values in parentheses are best estimates: see Section 3.3.
42

C6 A CF of 1 × 103 has been reported for 51Cr [196], but an assessment by Swift and Kershaw [197] suggests a lower value of about 1 × 102. The latter value is recom- mended.
C7 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of manganese in crustaceans of 2.5 mg/kg dry weight.
C8 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of iron in crus- taceans of 10 mg/kg wet weight.
C9 The recommended CF was derived assuming a conservative concentration of cobalt in crustaceans of 0.1 mg/kg wet weight.
C10 Data on concentrations of nickel in crustaceans vary considerably; an average concentration of 0.4 mg/kg wet weight was used to derive the recommended CF.
C11 The recommended CF was derived using data from Zauke and Petri [198].
C12 Few data are available on concentrations of selenium in crustaceans. A typical concentration of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight was assumed [167] to derive the recom- mended CF.
C13 Few data are available on concentrations of strontium in the edible fraction of crustaceans. A typical concentration of 40 mg/kg wet weight was assumed to derive the recommended CF.
C14 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended.
C15 No new data are available. Typical in situ 95Zr and 95Nb CFs of 100 are reported [196].
C16 Environmental data on technetium are still few for crustaceans in general, but it is clear from both laboratory experiments and field data that considerable inter- species differences exist [64, 159, 199]. In fact, field studies in the Irish Sea [159] have shown that technetium uptake by lobsters is unique, with CFs averaging 4 × 104. Considerable differences also exist between different tissues of the same organism. Field data from Brown et al. [200] and Swift and Kershaw [197] have been used to derive the recommended value. A value higher than the recom- mended CF for crustaceans should be used for lobsters.
C17 Environmental data indicate a suitable 106Ru CF for ‘edible fractions’ to be between 1 and 100. Coughtrey and Thorne [169] suggest a value of 10. Values for muscle tissue are often similar, but viscera are likely to be considerably higher, by more than a factor of 10. A value of 100 is recommended as a suitable average value.
C18 Based on data provided by Eisler [167] and Coughtrey and Thorne [170]: a silver concentration in crustaceans of 0.2 mg/kg wet weight was assumed to derive the recommended CF.
43

C19 Concentrations of cadmium vary considerably from one tissue to another. This element is particularly accumulated in the hepatopancreas. It appears that crabs tend to accumulate more cadmium than either shrimps or lobsters, and it is rec- ommended to allow for such differences. The recommended CF was derived using data from Zauke and Petri [198].
C20 No new data are available.
C21 Few data are available on concentrations of tin in crustaceans. A typical concen- tration of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight [167, 171] was assumed to derive the recommended CF.
C22 Data on concentrations of antimony in crustaceans vary considerably. Van Weers and van Raaphorst [201] report an average concentration of antimony of 0.04 kg/kg dry weight in shrimps, but other data range from 0.02 to 10 mg/kg dry weight [167, 171]. Data from Swift and Kershaw [197] were used to derive the recommended CF.
C23 Few recent iodine data are available and there is little to support or refute the concentration of 1 mg/kg dry weight given by Bowen [55]. This concentration was used to derive the recommended CF.
C24 The recommended CF was derived using data from Fisher et al. [166].
C25 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of barium in crus- taceans of 0.2 mg/kg dry weight [55].
C26 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended. This is probably an upper limit.
C27 Very few data are available on the lanthanides in crustaceans. Fowler [202] gives a value of 2.3 μg/kg dry weight for europium in whole euphausiids; this gives a CF on a wet weight basis of about 4 × 103. CFs for other rare earths, for which no measurements are available, are assumed to be equal to the value for europium.
C28 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of tantalum in crus- taceans of 0.027 mg/kg dry weight [55].
C29 Bowen [55] reports a concentration of tungsten of 0.5 μg/kg dry weight and Eisler [167] reports a value of <0.3 μg/kg dry weight. The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of tungsten in crustaceans of 0.1 μg/kg wet weight.
C30 A large number of mercury data are available, many from contaminated environ- ments [167]. The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of mer- cury in crustaceans of 0.1 mg/kg wet weight.
C31 The recommended CF was based on whole body concentrations of 210Po [203] and data from Swift and Kershaw [197].
44

C32 CFs for 239/240Pu reported in the literature range from 4 × 101 to 3 × 102 for the edible fractions of crustaceans [172]. Data from Swift and Kershaw [197] were used to derive the recommended value.
C33 There is some evidence to suggest that 241Am may be slightly more biologically available than plutonium [199]. The CF for americium was assumed to be the same as that for californium.
C34 The same CF as that for americium is recommended because it was assumed that the behaviour of curium and berkelium is similar to americium.
C35 The recommended CF was derived using data from Swift and Kershaw [197] and Fowler et al. [204].
45

TABLE V. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR MOLLUSCS (EXCEPT CEPHALOPODS)
Element
H C Na S Cl Ca Sc Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Zn Se Kr Sr Y Zr Nb Tc Ru Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba Ce Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb
IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
1 × 100 5 × 104 2 × 10–1 1 × 100 1×100 1 × 100 —
5 × 102 1×104 1 × 103 1 × 103 1×102 1 × 105 1 × 103 — 1×101 1 × 103 1 × 103 1×103 1 × 103 2×103 (3 × 102) 1 × 105 —
— 1×102 1×102 1 × 103 1 × 102 —
1 × 101 —
1 × 103 1×103 (1 × 103) 1 × 103 —
—
Recommended valuea
1 × 100 2 × 104 3 × 10–1 3 × 100 5 × 10–2 3 × 100 1×105 2 × 103 5 × 104 5 × 105 2 × 104 2 × 103 8 × 104 9 × 103 (1 × 100) 1 × 101 1 × 103 5 × 103 1 × 103 5 × 102 5 × 102 (3 × 102) 6 × 104 8 × 104 (1 × 104) 5 × 105 3 × 102 1 × 103 1 × 101 1 × 100 6 × 101 1 × 101 2 × 103 (7 × 103) (7 × 103) 7 × 103 (7 × 103) 3 × 103
Note
See Section 3.3 See Section 3.3.1
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12
See Section 3.3 M13
M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M14 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M14 M24
See Section 3.3 M25
M26 M13 M27 M27 M28 M27 M28
   46

TABLE V. (cont.)
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Dy — Tm — Yb — Hf —
Ta —
W —
Ir — Hg —
Tl — Pb 1×102 Po 2 × 104 Ra 1 × 102 Ac 1×103 Th 1 × 103 Pa 1 × 101 U 1 × 101 Np (1 × 103) Pu 1 × 103 Am 2 × 103 Cm (2 × 103) Bk —
Recommended Note valuea
(7 × 103) M27 (7 × 103) M27 3 × 103 M28 (7 × 103) M27 (7 × 103) M27 6 × 102 M29 (1 × 102) M21 2×103 M30 6×103 M31 5 × 104 M32 2 × 104 M7 1 × 102 M33 1 × 103 M14 1 × 103 M33 5 × 102 M34 3 × 101 M35 4 × 102 M36 3 × 103 M23 1 × 103 M13 1 × 103 M13 (1 × 103) M37 (1 × 103) M37
NOTES TO TABLE V
M1 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of sodium in mol- luscs of 16 g/kg dry weight [55].
M2 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of sulphur in mol- luscs of 16 g/kg dry weight [55].
M3 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of chlorine in mol- luscs of 5 g/kg dry weight [55].
M4 Concentrations of calcium in molluscs reported in the literature range from 1 to 11 g/kg dry weight [55]. The recommended CF was derived assuming a concen- tration of calcium in molluscs of 6 g/kg dry weight.
Cf (2 × 103)
a Values in parentheses are best estimates: see Section 3.3.
47

M5 The only concentrations of scandium in molluscs available in the literature are those reported by Eisler [167] for the soft parts of mussels. The recommended CF was derived assuming the average concentration of 0.3 mg/kg dry weight.
M6 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of chromium in mus- sels of 2 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205].
M7 The recommended CF is the mean value reported by Swift and Kershaw [197].
M8 Concentrations of iron in molluscs vary considerably between and within species [167]. Interspecies differences of some magnitude clearly exist, however, and data obtained by the same author range over two orders of magnitude. Concentrations for total soft parts reported by Segar et al. [206], for example, vary from 65 to 5400 mg/kg dry weight. The geometric mean is 240 mg/kg dry weight, a value which is not inconsistent with the average of the lower end of the range of values listed by Eisler [167]. The recommended CF was derived from data from the IPSN [43], although values 100 times lower or higher have been observed [197].
M9 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of cobalt in mol- luscs of 0.25 mg/kg wet weight from stable element data for organisms taken in ‘clean’ environments. However, a summary of in situ 60Co data indicates CFs greater than 1 × 104 [172].
M10 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of nickel in mus- sels of 3.1 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205].
M11 Zinc is another element for which there is evident species specificity; oysters, in particular, and some gastropods, exhibit very high concentrations of zinc. Turgeon and O’Connor [205] report a mean zinc concentration of 120 mg/kg dry weight in mussels. This concentration was used to derive the recommended CF.
M12 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of selenium in mus- sels of 1.9 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205].
M13 The recommended CF was derived using data for the English Channel from the IPSN [43].
M14 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended.
M15 A range of 0.6 to 43 mg/kg dry weight for zirconium in Mytilus edulis is reported in the literature [207]. This gives a range of CFs between 2 × 104 and 1 × 106. However, in situ 95Zr CF data [186] generally indicate values of 1 × 103 or less. Therefore, a CF of 5 × 103 is recommended.
M16 Total soft parts of Mytilus edulis were reported to contain <0.001 mg/kg dry weight of niobium [208]; this would give a maximum CF of 4 × 101. Both in situ and experimental data indicate CFs much greater than this, however, as summa-
48

rized by Ancellin et al. [196], and thus the CF of 1 × 103 given in IAEA-TECDOC- 211 [179] was retained.
M17 The recommended CF was derived using data from Brown et al. [200] and from the IPSN [43].
M18 A mean CF of 4 × 102 is reported by Swift and Kershaw [197], similar to the CF of 6 × 102 reported by the IPSN [43]. A CF of 5 × 102 for ruthenium in molluscs is therefore recommended.
M19 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of silver in mus- sels of 0.32 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205]. Oysters can display 10 times higher concentrations of silver, and therefore it is recommended that a CF 10 times higher than the CF given in Table V be used for oysters.
M20 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of cadmium in mus- sels of 3.6 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205].
M21 No new data are available.
M22 From the limited data available [167, 171] a tin concentration of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight was derived.
M23 The recommended CF was derived using data for the English Channel from the IPSN [43], consistent with data compiled by Swift and Kershaw [197].
M24 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of iodine in mol- luscs of 4 mg/kg dry weight [55].
M25 The recommended CF was derived from in situ 137Cs data in Arctic waters report- ed by Fisher et al. [166]. The value is consistent with data for the English Channel reported by the IPSN [43].
M26 A value of 3 mg/kg dry weight for barium is given by Bowen [55]; Karbe et al. [207] report a range of values from 0.8 to 26 mg/kg dry weight. The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of barium in molluscs of 0.6 mg/kg wet weight.
M27 The behaviour of these elements was assumed to be similar to that of europium, terbium and ytterbium. The recommended CF is assumed equal to the highest measured CF for the other rare earth elements (see Note M31).
M28 The recommended CFs were derived using data from Suzuki et al. [188]. Other europium data are available [207], but these have a large range and simultaneous water analyses were not made.
M29 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of tungsten in mussels of 6 μg/kg wet weight, obtained using the data from Fukai and Meinke [209, 210] for soft parts of Tapes japonicus.
49

M30 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of mercury in mussels of 0.13 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205].
M31 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of thallium in mol- luscs of 0.34 mg/kg dry weight [55].
M32 The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of lead in mussels of 8.8 mg/kg dry weight, obtained using data from Turgeon and O’Connor [205].
M33 No CF data for lamellibranch or gastropods molluscs were located.
M34 No environmental data were located. Lucu et al. [211] obtained CFs of up to 2 × 102 for the digestive tract of Mytillus galloprovincialis for 233Pa in laboratory studies. Other tissue CFs were 60 for gill, 15 for gonad and 10 for muscle. These experiments were only of 20 days duration, and only labelled water was used. It is suggested that these values be increased by at least an order of magnitude, and therefore a CF of 5 × 102 is recommended.
M35 Reported data give 238U concentrations of 3.0, 5.5, 4.6 and 13 Bq/kg dry weight for four different lamellibranch molluscs, giving a mean concentration of 1.2 Bq/kg wet weight [212]. The recommended CF was derived using this concentration and is consistent with the mean CF reported by Swift and Kershaw [197].
M36 The only published environmentally derived CFs for 237Np are those given in Pentreath et al. [102]. The recommended CF is the mean of the CFs reported.
M37 The same CF as that for americium is recommended because it was assumed that the behaviour of berkelium and californium is similar to americium.
50

TABLE VI. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR MACROALGAE
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
H 1 × 100 C 4 × 103 Na 1 × 100 S 1 × 100 Cl 1×100 Ca 1 × 100 Sc —
Cr (3 × 104) Mn 1×104 Fe 1 × 104 Co 1 × 103 Ni 5×102 Zn 1 × 103 Se 1 × 103 Kr —
Sr 1×101 Y 1 × 103 Zr 5 × 102 Nb 5×102 Tc 1 × 105 Ru 2×103 Pd (1 × 103) Ag 1 × 103 Cd —
In —
Sn 1×102 Sb 1×102 Te 1 × 104 I 1 × 103 Xe —
Cs 1 × 101 Ba — Ce 1 × 103 Pm 1×103 Sm (1 × 103) Eu 1 × 103 Gd — Tb — Dy —
Recommended valuea
1 × 100 1 × 104 5 × 10–1 3 × 100 5 × 10–2 6 × 100 9×104 6 × 103 6 × 103 2 × 104 6 × 103 2 × 103 2 × 103 1 × 103 (1 × 100) 1 × 101 1 × 103 3 × 103 3 × 103 3 × 104 2 × 103 (1 × 103) 5 × 103 2 × 104 (5 × 103) 2 × 105 2 × 101 1 × 104 1 × 104 (1 × 100) 5 × 101 7 × 101 5 × 103 (3 × 103) (3 × 103) 3 × 103 (3 × 103) 2 × 103 (3 × 103)
Note
See Section 3.3 See Section 3.3.1
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A7 A7 A8 A7 A9
See Section 3.3 A10
A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A12 A7 A16 A17 A18 A7 A11 A7
See Section 3.3 A19
A20 A21 A22 A22 A23 A22 A23 A22
   51

TABLEVI. (cont.)
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Tm — Yb — Hf —
Ta —
W —
Ir — Hg —
Tl — Pb 1×103 Po 1 × 103 Ra 1 × 102 Ac 1×l03 Th 1 × 103 Pa 1 × 102 U 1 × 101 Np (1 × 103) Pu 1 × 103 Am 2 × 103 Cm (2 × 103) Bk —
Cf (2 × 103)
a Values in parentheses are best estimates: see Section 3.3.
NOTES TO TABLE VI
A1 The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of sodium in macroalgae of 33 g/kg dry weight [55].
A2 Bowen [55] reports a mean concentration of sulphur of 9.8 g/kg dry weight for five green algae and a range of 14 to 30 g/kg dry weight for red algae; no data are given for brown algae. The recommended CF was derived using an average concentra- tion of 16 g/kg dry weight.
A3 The only concentration of chlorine in macroalgae given by Bowen [55] is that of Vinogradov [173] for brown algae: 4.7 g/kg dry weight. This concentration was used to derive the recommended CF.
A4 From the range of calcium concentrations dry weight reported by Bowen [55], for green, red and brown algae, an average concentration of 13 g/kg dry weight was obtained. This concentration was used to derive the recommended CF.
Recommended Note valuea
(3 × 103) A22 8 × 102 A23 (3 × 103) A22 (3 × 103) A22 6 × 102 A24 (1 × 103) A17 2 × 104 A25 (1 × 103) A17 1 × 103 A11 1 × 103 A11 1 × 102 A11 1 × 103 A11 2 × 102 A26 1 × 102 A11 1 × 102 A27 5 × 101 A28
4 × 103 A7 8 × 103 A29 5 × 103 A7
(8 × 103) A30
(8 × 103) A30
52

A5 Concentrations of scandium of 0.45 and 0.07 mg/kg dry weight for red and brown algae, respectively, are reported by Horowitz et al. [213] and cited by Bowen [55]. The recommended CF was calculated assuming a mean value of 0.26 mg/kg dry weight.
A6 A wide range of chromium concentration values is indicated in the literature [55, 167]. From these data a value of 2.7 mg/kg dry weight was derived for brown algae, and means of the ranges, 7 mg/kg and 7.5 mg/kg, both dry weight, were obtained for green and red algae, respectively. An average value of 5.7 mg/kg dry weight was used to derive the recommended CF.
A7 The recommended CF was derived using data for the English Channel from the IPSN [43].
A8 A mean nickel concentration of 0.7 mg/kg wet weight was derived for red, green and brown algae from Eisler [167]. The recommended CF derived is not dissimi- lar from those summarized by Ancellin et al. [196] for red and brown algae and consistent with data for the English Channel from the IPSN [43].
A9 The limited data in the literature [55, 167, 171] indicate a selenium concentration in algae of about 0.05 mg/kg wet weight. This concentration was used to derive the recommended CF.
A10 Concentrations of strontium differ between the three groups of benthic algae, it being particularly accumulated by calcareous red forms such as Halimeda. The calcareous red algae are not of importance as far as human consumption is con- cerned, however, and thus such high values have not been included in the assess- ment. The data in the literature vary considerably. Early studies by Mauchline and Templeton [214], quoted by Eisler [167], report strontium concentrations of 6.4, 0.22 and 1.2 mg/kg wet weight for red, green and brown algae, respectively. The data in Bowen [55] indicate mid-range values of 270, 140 and 1200 mg/kg dry weight for red, green and brown algae, respectively. The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of about 100 mg/kg wet weight.
A11 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended.
A12 There are a number of in situ data on CFs for 95Zr and 95Nb. Of 12 species listed by Pentreath [215], the highest values were for green algae, which ranged from 2 × 103 to 5 × 103, while CFs for red algae were 1 × 103 or less and the maximum brown alga CF was 8 × 102. In situ data [169] also indicate a similar range. A CF of 3 × 103 is recommended.
A13 There are insufficient data to distinguish between the accumulation of 95Zr and 95Nb, and thus it is suggested that the zirconium data be used.
A14 The IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] value of 1 × 105 was, presumably, based on a lim- ited amount of data available for brown algae. It is now known that large and real differences exist in the affinities of different species for technetium. Masson et al.
53

[64], for example, indicate that concentrations of 99Tc in red and green algae are two orders of magnitude less than those in brown algae in the vicinity of La Hague. These and other authors have also shown, experimentally, that brown algae accumulate substantially more technetium than other forms. Two independ- ent measurements of technetium in brown algae by the IPSN in the English Channel [43] and by Brown et al. [200] determined CFs of 3 × 104, which is rec- ommended.
A15 From the data reported by Pentreath [215], it appears that green algae accumu- late more 106Ru than red algae, and brown algae accumulate the least. An average CFforredandgreenalgaeof2×103 canbederived,whileaCFof3×102 canbe obtained for brown algae. These values are not inconsistent with the CFs report- ed by Coughtrey and Thorne [169] and Ancellin et al. [196].
A16 The recommended CF was derived using an average cadmium concentration in macroalgae of 0.15 mg/kg wet weight biased towards red and green algae. Brown algae appear to have higher concentrations, but many of the data have been derived from contaminated areas.
A17 No new data are available.
A18 The recommended CF was derived using an average concentration of tin in algae of 0.2 mg/kg wet weight from data reported by Eisler [167] and Coughtrey and Thorne [171].
A19 Data for the Irish Sea [215] indicate that CFs for 137Cs vary considerably from species to species. The highest values were observed in green algae, which had a mean CF of 60. The average value for red algae was 36 and that for brown algae was 34. These data are in general agreement with the values compiled by Coughtrey and Thorne [169]. Based on these data a CF of 50 is therefore recommended.
A20 Concentrations of barium of 1.5 mg/kg dry weight in green algae, a range of 11 to 31 mg/kg dry weight in brown algae and a range of 2.8 to 50 mg/kg dry weight in red algae are cited [55]. Assuming that the larger values for red algae are those of cal- careous species, the mid-range value for brown algae of 20 mg/kg dry weight was used as an average value to calculate the recommended CF. This concentration is probably too high for green algae, but possibly too low for red algae.
A21 Data in Pentreath [215] indicate much greater CFs for 144Ce in green algae (aver- age CF: 7 × 103) than in red (average CF: 2 × 103), with brown algae having the lowest values (average CF: 8 × 102). These values are somewhat higher than the data reported by Coughtrey and Thorne [169]. The stable element CFs derived by Suzuki et al. [188] are 6 × 103 for Ulva and a range of 5 × 102 to 3 × 103 for brown algae, which is in reasonable agreement with Pentreath [215].
A22 The behaviour of these elements was assumed to be similar to that of europium, terbium and ytterbium. The recommended CF of 3 × 103 is assumed to be equal to the highest CF of these elements.
54

A23 The recommended CFs are the maxima observed values for algae reported by Suzuki et al. [188].
A24 The only tungsten concentrations available in the literature are the values of 0.029 and 0.042 mg/kg dry weight in Porphyra and Ulva reported by Fukai and Meinke [210]. A concentration of 0.036 mg/kg dry weight was used to derive the recom- mended CF.
A25 From the data reported by Eisler [167] an average mercury concentration of 0.2 mg/kg wet weight was derived for brown algae and 0.1 mg/kg for red and green algae. The higher concentration was used to derive the recommended CF.
A26 Data in the literature [216, 217] indicate a range of CFs between 950 and 1300 for 230Th and between 750 and 1300 for 232Th in brown algae, on a dry weight basis. These were converted to an average wet weight CF of 2 × 102.
A27 The data reported by Holm and Persson [216] for brackish water and Nilsson et al. [217] give a dry weight CF of 700 for uranium in brown algae. Uranium-238 determinations [212], however, for Macrocystis, another brown alga, give an aver- age concentration of 7.2 Bq/kg dry weight, indicating a CF of about 35. A value of 1 × 102 is recommended, but this may well be too high.
A28 The only CFs for neptunium in the literature are those reported by Pentreath et al. [102] for brown algae, which give an average CF of 30. Unpublished data, again for brown algae, indicate a range of 20 to 90. The apparent general difference in the behaviour of neptunium from that of plutonium, americium and curium has been substantiated in a number of papers [91, 199, 218].
A29 Data for 241Am [102, 104, 216, 217] indicate CFs between 5 × 103 and 1 × 104 for brown algae. A mid-range CF of 8 × 103 is therefore recommended.
A30 No in situ data are available, but experimental results from Aston and Fowler [117] and Fisher et al. [218] indicate that the adsorptive behaviour of californium is similar to that of americium. The behaviour of berkelium is also assumed to be similar to that of americium.
55

TABLE VII. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR ZOOPLANKTON
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
H 1 × 100 C 3 × 103 Na 1 × 100 S 1 × 100 Cl 1×100 Ca 1 × 101 Sc —
Recommended valuea
1 × 100 2 × 104 1 × 100 1 × 100 1 × 100 1 × 101 3×103 1 × 103 7 × 103 7 × 105 7 × 103 1 × 103 1 × 105 6 × 103 (1 × 100) 2 × 100
1 × 102
2 × 104 (2 × 104) 1 × 102 3 × 104 (1 × 103) 2 × 104 6 × 104 (1 × 104) 5 × 105 8 × 101 1 × 103 3 × 103 (1 × 100) 4 × 101 8 × 101 6 × 103 (4 × 103) (4 × 103) 4 × 103 (4 × 103) (4 × 103) (4 × 103)
Note
See Section 3.3 See Section 3.3.1
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z9
Z11
See Section 3.3 Z12
Z13
Z3
Z14
Z15
Z3
Z13
Z9
Z9
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z13
Z3
See Section 3.3 Z19
Z20
Z21
Z22
Z22
Z23
Z22
Z22
Z22
Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Zn Se Kr Sr Y Zr Nb Tc Ru Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba Ce Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy
(3 × 103) 1×103 1 × 104 1 × 103 1×103 1 × 104 1 × 104 — 1×101 1 × 102 (1 × 104) (1 × 103) 1 × 103 (1 × 103) (1 × 103) 1 × 103 —
— 1×103 1×103 1 × 103 1 × 103 —
1 × 102 —
1 × 103 1×103 (3 × 103) 1 × 104 —
—
—
  56

TABLEVII. (cont.)
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Tm — Yb — Hf —
Ta —
W —
Ir — Hg —
Tl — Pb 1×104 Po 1 × 104 Ra 1 × 102 Ac 1×104 Th 1 × 104 Pa 1 × 103 U 5 × 100 Np (2 × 103) Pu (2 × 103) Am (2 × 103) Cm (2 × 103) Bk —
Recommended Note valuea
(4 × 103) Z22 (4 × 103) Z22 (4 × 103) Z22 (4 × 103) Z22 (1 × 103) Z16 (1 × 103) Z16
4 × 103 Z24 (1 × 103) Z16 1 × 103 Z25 3 × 104 Z25 1 × 102 Z25 1 × 104 Z13 1 × 104 Z25 1 × 103 Z13 3 × 101 Z26 (4 × 102) Z27 4 × 103 Z28 4 × 103 Z29 (4 × 103) Z30 (4 × 103) Z31 (4 × 103) Z31
NOTES TO TABLE VII
Z1 The recommended CF was derived assuming a sodium concentration in zoo- plankton of 80 g/kg dry weight [55].
Z2 The CF for zooplankton is assumed to be the same CF as that for crustaceans.
Z3 The recommended CF was derived using data from Lowman et al. [219].
Z4 The recommended CF was derived assuming a calcium concentration in zoo- plankton of 30 g/kg dry weight [55].
Z5 The recommended CF was derived assuming a scandium concentration for whole euphausiids (Meganyctiphanes norvegica) of 9 μg/kg dry weight [202].
Z6 A chromium concentration for whole euphausiids of 0.85 mg/kg dry weight has been reported by Fowler [202], which is within the range of concentrations for
Cf (2 × 103)
a Values in parentheses are best estimates: see Section 3.3.
57

copepods and euphausiids quoted by Eisler [167]. The recommended CF was derived using an average concentration of 0.2 mg/kg wet weight.
Z7 The recommended CF was derived using an average whole body manganese con- centration for copepods and euphausiids of 4 mg/kg dry weight [167, 202].
Z8 The recommended CF was derived using an average whole body iron concentra- tion for euphausiids of 80 mg/kg dry weight [167].
Z9 The recommended CF was derived using data from Fisher et al. [127].
Z10 The recommended CF was derived assuming a nickel concentration in zooplank- ton as a whole of 0.4 mg/kg wet weight.
Z11 The recommended CF was derived using an average selenium concentration for copepods of 1.3 mg/kg dry weight [127].
Z12 The recommended CF was derived using an average strontium concentration of 100 mg/kg dry weight in planktonic crustaceans in general.
Z13 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended.
Z14 The CF for niobium is assumed to be the same as that for zirconium.
Z15 Experimental data from Fowler et al. [220] gave a CF of 1 × 101; this has been increased by a factor of 10.
Z16 No new data are available.
Z17 A range of tin concentrations in zooplankton of <0.2 to 25 mg/kg dry weight is reported by Bowen [55]. Three ash weight concentrations are given in the compi- lation by Eisler [167]: <1.0, 50 and 70 mg/kg. On the basis of the latter values, a wet weight concentration of 0.5 mg/kg was used to derive the recommended CF, which is substantially greater than the value of 450 given by Lowman et al. [219].
Z18 The concentrations of antimony in zooplanktonic organisms given by Eisler [167] vary from 1.9 mg/kg ash to 0.037 mg/kg dry weight. A dry weight concentration of 0.07 mg/kg for a euphausiid obtained by Fowler [202] is halfway between the other two values. This value was used to derive the recommended CF, which is substantially lower than that obtained for larger crustaceans.
Z19 Yamamoto et al. [221] derived a CF of about 20 for caesium in zooplankton. Fowler [202] obtained a caesium concentration of 0.062 mg/kg dry weight for a euphausiid, which gives a CF of 40. Ballestra and Noshkin [222] report a CF of 15 for microzooplankton, and Marzano and Triulzi [223] report a value of 100. A mean value of 4 × 101 is therefore recommended.
Z20 The recommended CF was derived assuming a barium concentration in zoo- plankton of 25 mg/kg dry weight [55].
58

Z21 The cerium concentration for a euphausiid of 0.21 mg/kg dry weight given by Fowler [202] was used to derive the recommended CF, which is greater than the CF of 1 × 103 given by Lowman et al. [219].
Z22 Assuming a CF similar to that of europium.
Z23 The recommended CF was derived using the europium concentration in a euphausiid of 2.3 μg/kg dry weight reported by Fowler [202].
Z24 Bowen [55] quotes a mercury concentration of 0.11 mg/kg dry weight for zoo- plankton. The data given by Eisler [167] and Fowler [202] give a mean concentra- tion of 0.22 mg/kg dry weight, which was used to derive the recommended CF.
Z25 The recommended CF was derived from the tabulations of Jackson et al. [172], excluding the lower CF data of Kharkar et al. [224].
Z26 The recommended CF was derived using data from Ballestra and Noshkin [222].
Z27 Environmental CF data for neptunium in zooplankton are scarce. Laboratory experiments [91], however, indicate that euphausiids do not accumulate 237Np from sea water to the extent to which plutonium and americium are accumulated over a comparable period of time. The difference was about an order of magni- tude less than plutonium and thus a CF one order of magnitude lower than the value for plutonium is recommended.
Z28 Whole euphausiid versus seawater concentrations result in a CF of 100 [225]. Data from a study of zooplankton (mainly copepods) in the Pacific Ocean indicate a CF of 1 × 104 [105]. This value is somewhat higher than the values on a volume basis quoted by Fisher and Fowler [226], which indicate CFs greater than 1 × 104 for copepods. Given a CF of 4 × 103 obtained from a single collection of microplank- ton from the North Pacific [222] and the same mean CF from a seasonal study in the North Pacific [227], a CF of 4 × 103 is recommended.
Z29 Fisher et al. [228] give a CF estimation of 700 for euphausiids in the Mediterranean. The data in Fowler et al. [105] for copepods in the Pacific Ocean result in a 241Am CF of 6 × 103, while a separate seasonal study in the North Pacific [227] gives an average CF of 2 × 103. Since the best comparison can be made with data for the same microzooplankton (copepods) collected in the Pacific Ocean, a CF of 4 × 103 is recommended.
Z30 Environmental data for the CFs for curium are scarce in the literature. A CF sim- ilar to that of americium is therefore recommended, which is consistent with unpublished estimates of CFs greater than 1 × 103 for mixed zooplankton from the Irish Sea.
Z31 No environmental data exist on either berkelium or californium in zooplankton, but laboratory experiments [117] with 252Cf resulted in CFs of 3 × 102 after eight days for uptake from water. The results indicated a rate of uptake similar to that of americium, and thus the CF for americium is recommended for both berkelium and californium.
59

TABLE VIII. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR PHYTOPLANKTON
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
H 1 × 100 C 3 × 103 Na 1 × 100 S 1 × 100 Cl 1×100 Ca 1 × 101 Sc —
Cr (3 × 103) Mn 1×103 Fe 1 × 104 Co 1 × 103 Ni 1×103 Zn 1 × 104 Se 1 × 104 Kr —
Sr 1×101 Y 1 × 102 Zr (1 × 104) Nb (1 × 103) Tc 1 × 103 Ru (1 × 103) Pd (1 × 103) Ag 1 × 103 Cd —
In —
Sn 1×103 Sb 1×103 Te 1 × 103 I 1 × 103 Xe —
Cs 1 × 102 Ba — Ce 1 × 103 Pm 1×103 Sm (3 × 103) Eu 1 × 104 Gd — Tb — Dy —
Recommended valuea
1 × 100 9 × 103 1 × 10–1 9 × 10–1 1 × 100 3 × 100 2×103 5 × 103 5 × 104 4 × 105 2 × 103 3 × 103 1 × 104 3 × 104 (1 × 100) 1 × 100 1 × 102 6 × 104 1 × 103 4 × 100 2 × 105 (1 × 103) 5 × 104 1 × 103 (1 × 103) 7 × 104 1 × 103 1 × 103 8 × 102 (1 × 100) 2 × 101 8 × 102 9 × 104 (9 × 104) (9 × 104) (9 × 104) (9 × 104) (9 × 104) (9 × 104)
Note
See Section 3.3 See Section 3.3.1
P1
P2
P3
P4
P3
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
See Section 3.3 P12
P13
P3
P3
P14
P3
P13
P15
P16
P17
P16
P13
P13
P18
See Section 3.3 P19
P10 P3 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20 P20
   60

TABLE VIII. (cont.)
Element IAEA-TECDOC-211 valuea [179]
Tm — Yb — Hf —
Ta —
W —
Ir — Hg —
Tl — Pb 1×104 Po 1 × 104 Ra 1 × 102 Ac 1×104 Th 1 × 104 Pa 1 × 103 U 5 × 100 Np (2 × 103) Pu (2 × 103) Am (2 × 103) Cm (2 × 103) Bk —
Cf (2 × 103) a Values in parentheses are best
Recommended Note valuea
(9 × 104) P20 (9 × 104) P20 (9 × 104) P20 (9 × 104) P20 (9 × 104) P20 (9 × 104) P20
1 × 105 P10 (1 × 103) P17 1 × 105 P10 7 × 104 P21 2 × 103 P22 1 × 104 P13 4 × 105 P10 1 × 103 P13 2 × 101 P23 1 × 102 P24 2 × 105 P24 2 × 105 P24 2 × 105 P25 (2 × 105) P26 2 × 105 P24
estimates: see Section 3.3.
 NOTES TO TABLE VIII
P1 The recommended CF was derived assuming a sodium concentration in phyto- plankton of 6 g/kg dry weight [55].
P2 Bowen reports a concentration range of 3 to 6 g/kg dry weight [55]. An average value of 4.5 g/kg dry weight was used to derive the recommended CF.
P3 The recommended CF was derived using data from Lowman et al. [219].
P4 The recommended CF was derived assuming a calcium concentration in phyto- plankton of 6.1 g/kg dry weight [55].
P5 A range of chromium concentrations in phytoplankton of 2.2 to 7.5 mg/kg dry weight is given by Bowen [55]. A mean value of 5 mg/kg dry weight was used to derive the recommended CF.
61

P6 A very large range of manganese concentrations in phytoplankton of 4 to 120 mg/kg dry weight is given by Bowen [55]. Average dry weight concentrations of 22 and 35 mg/kg were obtained from Eisler [167]. The recommended CF was derived using a mean value of 29 mg/kg dry weight from the latter.
P7 Sunda and Hunstman [229] report a range of iron/carbon values in algal cells. An appropriate value would be 10 μmol Fe/mol C, which can be converted to approx- imately 70 nmol Fe/g wet weight. Assuming a surface iron concentration of 200 pM [48], a wet weight CF, equivalent to a vol./vol. CF, of 3.5 × 105 was derived, which was rounded to 4 × 105.
P8 The recommended CF is the average of the CFs for two phytoplankton species given by Fisher and Reinfelder [230]. Lowman et al. [209] report a value of about 1 × 103.
P9 Martin and Knauer [231] give a range of nickel concentrations in phytoplankton of 1.9 to 7.8 mg/kg dry weight, while Laevastu and Thompson [232] report a con- centration of 5.5 mg/kg dry weight, and a concentration of 1.5 mg/kg wet weight can be derived for whole diatoms from the data in Eisler [167]. An average value of 1 mg/kg wet weight was used to derive the recommended CF.
P10 The recommended CF is the geometric mean value of the CFs for five phyto- plankton species given by Fisher and Reinfelder [230].
P11 Baines and Fisher [233] show that CFs for selenite vary greatly among taxonomic groups, with values ranging from 7 × 101 to 2 × 105. The recommended CF is the mean CF for 14 species.
P12 The recommended CF was derived using an average concentration of 60 mg/kg wet weight, obtained from data reported by Eisler [167].
P13 No new data are available. The CF given in IAEA-TECDOC-211 [179] is there- fore recommended.
P14 The recommended CF was derived using data from Fisher [234].
P15 The recommended CF is the geometric mean value of the CFs for six phyto- plankton species given by Fisher and Reinfelder [230].
P16 The recommended CF is the geometric mean value of the CFs for four phyto- plankton species given by Fisher and Reinfelder [230].
P17 No new data are available.
P18 The recommended CF was derived using a mean iodine concentration in phyto- plankton of 270 mg/kg dry weight given by Bowen [55].
P19 The recommended CF is the mean CF of 2 × 101 (range: 1 × 101–1 × 102) given for five species of phytoplankton by Heldal et al. [235].
P20 No direct measurements are available; CFs for these elements in phytoplankton are assumed to be equal to that of cerium.
62

P21 The recommended CF is the average of the CFs for two phytoplankton species given by Fisher and Reinfelder [230].
P22 The recommended CF was derived using data from Jackson et al. [172].
P23 The recommended CF was derived using data from Szefer and Ostrowski [236].
P24 The recommended CF was derived using data from Fisher et al. [218].
P25 The recommended CF was derived using data from Fisher and Fowler [226].
P26 The behaviour of berkelium is assumed to be similar to that of curium, and there- fore the recommended CF is the same as that for curium.
63

TABLE IX. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR CEPHALOPODS
Element
Sc Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Zn Sr Zr Ru Cd Sb Cs Ce Hg Pb Po Th Pu Am
Recommended value Note
2×102 CE1 5 × 103 CE2 3×103 CE3 1 × 105 CE4 3 × 102 CE5 1×103 CE6 6 × 104 CE7 2×100 CE8 5 × 101 CE9 5×101 CE8 1 × 104 CE10 2×101 CE11 9 × 100 CE12 3 × 101 CE8 1×104 CE13 7×102 CE14 2 × 104 CE15 6 × 104 CE16 5×101 CE17 1×102 CE18
NOTES TO TABLE IX
 CE1 The recommended CF was derived using the scandium concentration for whole squid of 0.01 mg/kg ash (0.1 μg/kg wet weight) given by Eisler [167].
CE2 The recommended CF was derived using the chromium concentration in squid flesh with skin of 4.7 mg/kg dry weight reported by Eisler [167].
CE3 Several data are available for manganese. Eustace [237] gives a concentration of 0.6 mg/kg wet weight for whole octopus; Ishii et al. [238] report a concentration of 1.4 mg/kg dry weight for the trunk of Sepia; Horowitz and Presley [239] give a value of 1.8 mg/kg dry weight for flesh with skin of squid — all quoted by Eisler [167]. Nakahara et al. [178] give an average concentration of 0.14 mg/kg wet weight for muscle of a number of cephalopods. The recommended CF was derived assuming a mean concentration of 0.3 mg/kg wet weight (excluding the whole octopus value).
CE4 Of the iron data considered, Ishii et al. [238] give a trunk concentration of 16 mg/kg dry weight for Sepia; Matsumoto et al. [240] report a value of 8 mg/kg wet weight for whole Sepia; Horowitz and Presley [239] give a concentration of
64

19.3 mg/kg dry weight for flesh with skin of squid, and Nakahara et al. [178] an average value of 1.8 mg/kg wet weight for several species. The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of 3 mg/kg wet weight.
CE5 The cobalt concentration of 0.06 mg/kg dry weight for the trunk of Sepia given by Ishii et al. [238] is greater than any values reported by Nakahara et al. [178] for the muscle of several cephalopods (average concentration: 5.3 μg/kg wet weight; range: 2.2–8.8 μg/kg wet weight). The recommended CF was derived assuming a concentration of 5 μg/kg wet weight.
CE6 Two nickel concentrations are available: 1.1 mg/kg dry weight for Sepia trunk given by Ishii et al. [238] and 2.5 mg/kg dry weight for squid flesh with skin reported by Horowitz and Presley [239]. A value of 0.35 mg/kg wet weight was used to derive the recommended CF.
CE7 A number of zinc concentrations are available: 18.5 mg/kg wet weight for whole octopus [237]; 58 mg/kg dry weight for the trunk of Sepia [238]; 16 mg/kg wet weight for the mantle of Sepia [241] and 52 mg/kg dry weight for the same tissue [242]; 144 mg/kg dry weight for the flesh with skin of squid [239]; and an average of 12.2 mg/kg wet weight for muscle of a number of species [240]. The average concentration from these data, 16 mg/kg wet weight, was used to derive the recommended CF.
CE8 The recommended CF was derived using data from Kurabayashi et al. [189].
CE9 The recommended CF was derived using data for 95Zr and 95Nb from Kurabayashi et al. [189].
CE10 Hamanaka et al. [243] report a cadmium concentration of 0.72 mg/kg dry weight for the muscle of Ommastrephes bartrami, while Horowitz and Presley [239] give a value of 1 mg/kg dry weight for the flesh with skin of squid, and Leatherland and Burton [242] report a concentration of 0.03 mg/kg dry weight for the mantle of Sepia. A concentration of 0.1 mg/kg wet weight was used to derive the recom- mended CF.
CE11 The only antimony concentrations available are 0.01 mg/kg dry weight for Sepia mantle [242] and 0.46 mg/kg ash for whole squid [195]. The recommended CF was derived using a mean concentration of 3.5 μg/kg wet weight.
CE12 Ishii et al. [238] report a caesium concentration of 0.016 mg/kg dry weight for Sepia trunk, which gives a CF of 9 × 100. This is consistent with the in situ CF for 137Cs of 1 × 101 obtained from the data from Kurabayashi et al. [179] and the mean CF of 1.4 × 101 from the data from Suzuki et al. [244]. A value of 1 × 101 is therefore recommended.
CE13 A number of mercury concentration data are available [167], from which a mean of 0.1 mg/kg wet weight was obtained to derive the recommended CF.
CE14 The recommended CF is the mean value for 210Pb (whole animal) reported by Heyraud and Cherry [203].
65

CE15 Guary et al. [245] give a CF of 2 × 103 for 210Po in octopus ‘remainder’, which is below the range for whole cephalopods given by Heyraud and Cherry [203]. The average value is 2 × 104.
CE16 The recommended CF was taken from the 232Th data for octopus ‘remainder’ given by Guary et al. [245].
CE17 The recommended CF is the CF for cephalopods taken off Tokai, Japan, given in Kurabayashi et al. [189]. Guary et al. [245] report a CF for 239/240Pu of 6 × 101 for whole octopus.
CE18 The recommended CF is the CF for 241Am for ‘remainder’ of octopus given by Guary et al. [245].
66

TABLE X. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR PINNIPEDS (SEALS, SEA LIONS)
Muscle
Liver
Recommended Note value Range
Element Recommended value
Range
Cr — — — — —
Mn 1×104
Fe 1 × 107
Co 1 × 103
Ni — — — — —
1 × 105
6 × 104–2 × 105 7 × 103–3 × 104 —
5 × 102–1 × 104 3 × 101–1 × 103 7 × 103–2 × 105 3 × 102–2 × 104
NOTES TO TABLE X
Zn
Se
Ag
Cd
Cs
Hg
Pb 3×103
Pu — —
2 × 105 7 × 105 7 × 104 7 × 105 3 × 102 2 × 106 1 × 105 8×100
1 × 105–3 × 105 PN4 3 × 104–9 × 106 PN5 — PN6 5 × 103–1 × 107 PN7 — PN8 1 × 104–2 × 107 PN9
3 × 102–9 × 105 PN10
3 × 100–2 × 101 PN11
1 × 104 <6 × 104 2 × 104 4 × 102 3×104
—
7 × 106–1 × 107 —
5 × 104 3 × 107 2 × 103
— PN1 1 × 106–1 × 108 PN2 — PN3
PN1 Values derived from data from Yeats et al. [246] using a concentration of man- ganese in sea water of 103 ng/L.
PN2 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] and Yeats et al. [246] using a con- centration of iron in sea water of 22 ng/L.
PN3 Values derived from data from Yeats et al. [246] using a concentration of cobalt in sea water of 10 ng/L.
PN4 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] and Yeats et al. [246] using a con- centration of zinc in sea water of 250 ng/L.
PN5 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] and Yeats et al. [246] using a con- centration of selenium in sea water of 40 ng/L.
PN6 Values derived from data from Yeats et al. [246] using a concentration of silver in sea water of 1.0 ng/L.
PN7 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] and Yeats et al. [246] using a con- centration of cadmium in sea water of 8 ng/L.
PN8 Data are compiled from Holm et al. [248], Anderson et al. [249], Calmet et al. [250] and Watson et al. [251] using a wet/dry ratio for seal muscle of 3.4 [252], where necessary. In addition, values are computed from Anderson et al. [249]
67

using seawater data for a corresponding period reported by Camplin [253] and Carroll et al. [254].
PN9 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] and Yeats et al. [246] using a concentration of mercury in sea water of 10 ng/L.
PN10 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] and Yeats et al. [246] using a con- centration of lead in sea water of 20 ng/L.
PN11 Values derived from data from Watson et al. [251] using concentrations of pluto- nium in sea water for 1995 from Leonard et al. [255].
68

TABLE XI. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR POLAR BEARS
Muscle
Element Recommended value
Range
Liver
Recommended Note value Range
 Cr — — — — — Mn — — — — — Fe — — — — — Co — — — — — Ni — — — — — Zn 3 × 105 2 × 105–3 × 105 2 × 105 2 × 105–3 × 105 PB1 Se 8 × 103 5 × 103–1 × 104 1 × 105 3 × 104–3 × 105 PB2 Ag — — — — —
Cd 2 × 103
Cs 1 × 102
Hg 9×103
Pb — — — — — Pu 7×101 — — — PB6
<2 × 103–6 × 103 1 × 105 2 × 104–3 × 105 PB3 — — — PB4 3 × 103–2 × 104 1 × 106 2 × 105–2 × 106 PB5
NOTES TO TABLE XI
PB1 Values derived from data from Dietz et al. [256] using a concentration of zinc in sea water of 250 ng/L.
PB2 Values derived from data from Dietz et al. [256] using a concentration of selenium in sea water of 40 ng/L.
PB3 Values derived from data from Dietz et al. [256] using a concentration of cadmium in sea water of 8 ng/L.
PB4 Values derived from data from Holm et al. [256] using a concentration of caesium in sea water of 10 mBq/L and a muscle wet/dry ratio of 4.74 [252].
PB5 Values derived from data from Dietz et al. [256] using a concentration of mercury in sea water of 10 ng/L.
PB6 Values derived from data from Holm et al. [248] using an activity concentration of plutonium in sea water of 13 μBq/L and a muscle wet/dry ratio of 4.74 [252].
69

TABLE XII. CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR CETACEANS (WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES)
Muscle
Element Recommended value
Range
Liver
Recommended Note value Range
 Cr <6×103
Mn <7×104
Fe 7 × 106
Co — — — — —
— — — CT1
— — — CT2 2 × 106–1 × 107 2 × 107 1 × 107–3 × 107 CT3
Ni <2×103
Zn 7 × 104
Se 8 × 104
Ag — — — — —
Cd 2 × 104 Cs 3 × 102 Hg 2×105
5 × 103 Pb 4×104
<1 × 104–5 × 104 3 × 101–6 × 102 2 × 104–7 × 105 1 × 103–5 × 104
<5 × 102–2 × 105
3 × 106 —
5 × 106 1 × 104 6 × 104 3×100
<1 × 104–9 × 106 CT7 — CT8 4 × 104–5 × 107 CT9
1 × 103–4 × 104
5 × 102–2 × 105 CT10
— CT11
Pu — —
— — — CT4 3 × 104–2 × 105 2 × 105 9 × 104–4 × 105 CT5 3 × 103–4 × 105 4 × 105 3 × 103–1 × 106 CT6
NOTES TO TABLE XII
CT1 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of chromium in sea water of 169 ng/L.
CT2 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of man- ganese in sea water of 103 ng/L.
CT3 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of iron in sea water of 22 ng/L.
CT4 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of nickel in sea water of 250 ng/L.
CT5 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of zinc in sea water of 250 ng/L.
CT6 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of selenium in sea water of 40 ng/L.
CT7 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of cadmium in sea water of 8 ng/L.
70

CT8 Values derived from data from Calmet et al. [250] and Sickel et al. [257] using an activity concentration of caesium in sea water of 5.5 mBq/L [166].
CT9 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of mercury in sea water of 10 ng/L. The lower value is for baleen whales (Mysticeti), which feed lower in the food chain.
CT10 Values derived from data from Thompson [247] using a concentration of lead in sea water of 20 ng/L.
CT11 Value derived from data from Watson et al. [251] using concentrations of plutonium in sea water for 1995 from Leonard et al. [255].
71

Appendix
CONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR
DEEP OCEAN FERROMANGANESE NODULES
In the years preceding the publication of TRS 247 there had been con- siderable discussion on the potential of mining deep sea ferromanganese nodules as a source of trace metals. It was considered useful to include the min- ing of nodules as a potential whereby radionuclides disposed of in the deep ocean could have a radiological impact on the human population. At present, nodules are not being considered as a source of metals on a commercial scale. It was not thought to be justified to conduct an extensive review of the avail- ability of new data since the publication of TRS 247. However, the values in Table XIII have been adjusted to take account of the revised deep water ele- ment concentrations. The following paragraphs are taken from TRS 247.
In addition to average pelagic sediments Kds, CFs for deep ocean ferro- manganese nodules are required for modelling purposes. These CFs have merely been derived from a comparison of the total concentrations of metals in manganese nodules with those in deep ocean water. The elements in such nodules, excluding constituents of the host nucleus around which accretion occurs, are assumed to be derived from sea water. Thus the composition of nod- ules is determined by authigenic processes, and it is doubtful that the reactions are wholly reversible. However, no reduction of the CFs to account for the pro- portion of exchangeable phase material in these matrices was felt justified for the intended application. The compilation of abundances in ferromanganese nodules [55], together with the calculated CFs, is shown in Table XIII. In the cases of promethium, hafnium and radium, for which there exist no reliable estimates of their concentrations in ferromanganese nodules, values derived by Li [58, 258] have been given.
In a situation of continuous input of a radionuclide into the water column, the stable element derived value is clearly applicable because the decay constant for the nuclide, relating to the quantity in the water and the nodule, cancels out. For purposes of calculation of the IAEA’s definition of radioactive waste unsuitable for dumping at sea, which assumes continuous input, the CFs as given in Table XIII are used. Where the input is not constant, however, it can be assumed that physical decay will reduce the CF value, because this process is faster than that of nodule growth. It should also be pointed out that where input is likely to be of limited duration it may be more appropriate, for radio- nuclides with a half-life of less than 100 years, to assume that manganese nodules respond like any other particle, with adsorption–desorption reactions occurring at its surface; thus CFs considerably lower than those given in Table XIII would
73

be more appropriate for deep sea sediments. The relatively large particle size of ferromanganese nodules that are likely to be exploited commercially, their very slow accretion rate and the fact that adsorption–exchange only occurs at external surfaces, could probably best be accounted for by the introduction of a modifying factor to the nodule CFs given in Table XIII for exposure pathway calculations for short lived and medium lived radionuclides. This modifying factor would correspond to the ratio of the average mass of the thin surface shell (that is likely to be involved in adsorption–exchange reactions) to the average mass of nodules being considered in the exposure pathway.
74

TABLE XIII. DEEP OCEAN FERROMANGANESE NODULE CONCENTRATION FACTORS
Element
Concentration in ferromanganese nodules
(kg/kg) [55]
Derived CF
Value from Refs [58, 258]
1.9 × 10–2 7.5 × 10–4 2.5 × 10–2 1 × 10–5 1.4 × 10–5 1.6 × 10–1 1.6 × 10–1 3 × 10–3 4.9 × 10–3 7.1 × 10–4 8.3 × 10–4 3.1 × 10–4 6.5 × 10–4 ~1 × 10–5 7 × 10–10 6 × 10–6
2 × 100 8 × 10–1 6 × 101 1 × 107 6 × 104 6 × 109 4 × 109 3 × 109 1 × 107 2 × 106 9 × 101 7 × 107 3 × 107 ~2×106 1 × 104 7 × 105 1 × 105 3 × 106 3 × 106 ~4×104 4 × 108 ~1×104 2 × 103 1 × 105 2.4 × 108
Na
S
Ca
Sc
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Zn
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Cs
Ba
Ce
Pm — — 5×107
8 × 10–6 2.5 × 10–7 2.7 × 10–6 ~1 × 10–5 4.8 × 10–5 ~5 × 10–4 5 × 10–7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2 × 10–3 7.2 × 10–4
5 × 10–5
2 × 108 8 × 107 5 × 107 3 × 106 4 × 107 5 × 107 <8 × 106 3 × 106
Pr
Sm
Eu
Gd
Th
Dy
Tm
Yb
Hf ~1×10–7 ~5×105 W 6 × 10–5 6 × 105 Ir 9 × 10–9 —
— — — — — — — —
3 × 105 —
—
9 × 10–5 1.4 × 10–5 6.4 × 10–6 1 × 10–5 4.2 × 10–5 <2.4 × 10–6 6.4 × 10–6
  75

TABLE XIII. (cont.)
Element
Concentration in ferromanganese nodules
(kg/kg) [55]
5 × 10–7
Derived CF
Value from Refs [58, 258]
Hg
Tl
Pb
Ra — — 3 × 105 Th — 1 × 108 — U 1 × 10–5 3 × 103 —
1 × 10–4 8.7 × 10–4
— — —
2 × 106 1 × 107 2 × 108
76

REFERENCES
[1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Sediment Kds and Concentration Factors for Radionuclides in the Marine Environment, Technical Reports Series No. 247, IAEA, Vienna (1985).
[2] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Coordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme Related to Sea Disposal of Radioactive Waste, CRESP Final Rep. 1991–1995, OECD, Paris (1996).
[3] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY SEABED WORKING GROUP, Feasibility of Disposal of High-level Radioactive Waste into the Seabed, Vols 1–8, OECD, Paris (1988).
[4] INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, FOOD AND AGRI- CULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZA- TION, WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, UNITED NATIONS, UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PRO- GRAMME JOINT GROUP OF EXPERTS ON THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF MARINE POLLUTION, An Oceanographic Model for the Dispersion of Wastes Disposed of in the Deep Sea, Reports and Studies No. 19, IAEA, Vienna (1983).
[5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Oceanographic and Radiological Basis for the Definition of High-level Wastes Unsuitable for Dumping at Sea, Safety Series No. 66, IAEA, Vienna (1984).
[6] FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY, SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTEC- TION AGENCY, Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 1999, RIFE-5, FSA, SEPA, London (2000).
[7] RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTER, Transfer Parameters of Radionuclides in the Marine Environment, Environmental Parameter Series 7, RWMC, Tokyo (1996).
[8] RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTER, Concentration Factors of Radionuclides in the Marine Organisms, Environmental Parameter Series 6, RWMC, Tokyo (1996).
[9] OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRON- MENT OF THE NORTH EAST ATLANTIC, Sintra Statement, Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Convention, Sintra, 22–23 July 1998, Summary Record OSPAR 98/14/1, Annex 45 (1998).
[10] INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, Report of the Sixteenth Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, LC 16/14, Resolution LC.51(16), IMO, London (1993).
[11] INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Oxford and New York (1991).
77

[12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Protection of the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation: A Report for Discussion, IAEA-TECDOC-1091, IAEA, Vienna (1999).
[13] HOWARD, B.J., STRAND, P., Interim Report of the Radioecological Sensitivity Forum, European Commission, Luxembourg (1999).
[14] CLARKE, R.H., Controllable dose: A discussion on the control of individual doses from single sources, Radioprotection 34 (1999) 217.
[15] PENTREATH, R.J., A system for radiological protection of the environment: Some initial thoughts and ideas, J. Radiol. Prot. 19 (1999) 117.
[16] HOWARD, B.J., The concept of radioecological sensitivity, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 92 (2000) 29.
[17] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNA- TIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION, OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series No. 115, IAEA, Vienna (1996).
[18] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, The Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in North European Marine Waters, Project “Marina”, Rep. EUR-12483-EN, European Commission, Luxembourg (1990).
[19] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, The Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea, Project “Marina-Med”, Rep. EUR-15564-EN, European Commission, Luxembourg (1994).
[20] YABLOKOV, A.V., et al., Facts and Problems Related to Radioactive Waste Disposal in Seas Adjacent to the Territory of the Russian Federation, Office of the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow (1993).
[21] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Inventory of Radioactive Waste Disposals at Sea, IAEA-TECDOC-1105, IAEA, Vienna (1999).
[22] TITLEY, J.G., et al., Assessment of the Radiological Implications of Dumping in Beaufort’s Dyke and Other Coastal Waters from the 1950s, Rep. NRPB-M859, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, UK (1997).
[23] LARSSON, A., KARLSSON, L.G., Handling of Radioactive Waste in Sweden Before 1980 and Radium and Radium Waste Until 1996, Rep. SKI-R-96-78 SSI- 96-18, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate and Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, Stockholm (1996).
[24] SMITH, J.N., ELLIS, K.M., BOYD, T., Circulation features in the central Arctic Ocean revealed by nuclear fuel reprocessing tracers from scientific ice expedi- tions 1995 and 1996, J. Geophys. Res. 104 C12 (1999) 29663.
[25] KERSHAW,P.J.,McCUBBIN,D.,LEONARD,K.S.,Continuingcontaminationof north Atlantic and Arctic waters by Sellafield radionuclides, Sci. Total Environ. 237–238 (1999) 119.
78

[26] POOLE,A.J.,DENOON,D.C.,WOODHEAD,D.S.,“Thedistributionandinven- tory of 137Cs in sub-tidal sediments of the Irish Sea”, Radionuclides in the Oceans, RADOC 96–96, Part 1. Inventories, Behaviour and Processes (GERMAIN, P., GUARY, J.C., GUÉGUÉNIAT, P., MÉTIVIER, H., Eds), Radioprotection 32 C2 (1997) 263.
[27] CHARMASSON, S., et al., Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Marine Environment. Behavior of the Rhone River Effluents in the Mediterranean Sea and of Wastes Dumped in the Northeast Atlantic, Rep. CEA-R-5826, Commissariat à l’énergie atomique, Cherbourg (1998).
[28] VAN WEERS, A.W., et al., Current Practice of Dealing with Natural Radioactivity from Oil and Gas Production in EU Member States, Rep. EUR- 17621-EN, European Commission, Luxembourg (1997).
[29] LYSEBO, I., TUFTO, P., Handling of Natural Occurring Radioactive Deposits in the Oil and Gas Industry in Norway, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Rep. NRPA-1999:2, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås (1999).
[30] OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRON- MENT OF THE NORTH EAST ATLANTIC, Report on Discharges of Radioactive Substances by Non-nuclear Industries, Oslo and Paris Commissions, Paris (1997).
[31] RUTHERFORD, P.M., DUDAS, M.J., SAMEK, R.A., Environmental impact of phosphogypsum, Sci. Total Environ. 149 (1994) 1.
[32] NIELSEN, S.P., The Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community to Radioactivity in the Baltic Sea, Project “Marina-Balt”, Rep. EUR- 19200-EN, European Commission, Luxembourg (2000).
[33] NIELSEN, S.P., et al., The radiological exposure of man from radioactivity in the Baltic Sea, Sci. Total Environ. 237–238 (1999) 133.
[34] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, MARINA II, Update of the MARINA Project on the Radiological Exposure of the European Community from Radioactivity in North European Marine Waters, Radiation Protection 132, European Commission, Luxembourg (2003).
[35] AARKROG, A., et al., A comparison of doses from 137Cs and 210Po in marine food: A major international study, J. Environ. Radioact. 34 (1997) 69.
[36] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Sources of Radioactivity in the Marine Environment and their Relative Contributions to Overall Dose Assessment from Marine Radioactivity (MARDOS), IAEA-TECDOC-838, IAEA, Vienna (1995).
[37] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radiological Conditions of the Western Kara Sea, Assessment of the Radiological Impact of the Dumping of Radioactive Waste in the Arctic Sea, Radiological Assessment Reports Series, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
[38] OSVATH,I.,POVINEC,P.P.,BAXTER,M.S.,KaraSearadioactivityassessment, Sci. Total Environ. 237–238 (1999) 167.
[39] NIELSEN,S.P.,IOSJPE,M.,STRAND,P.,Collectivedosestomanfromdumping of radioactive waste in the Arctic Seas, Sci. Total Environ. 202 (1997) 135.
79

[40] SJOEBLOM, K.L., et al., International Arctic Seas assessment project, Sci. Total Environ. 237–238 (1999) 153.
[41] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Situation at the Atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa, Summary Report, Radiological Assessment Reports Series, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
[42] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Radiological Conditions at Bikini Atoll: Prospects for Settlement, Radiological Assessment Reports Series, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
[43] INSTITUT DE PROTECTION ET DE SÛRETÉ NUCLÉAIRE, The Report of the Nord-Cotentin Radioecology Group, IPSN, Fontenay-aux-Roses (1999).
[44] CAMPLIN, W.C., BAXTER, A.J., ROUND, G.D., The radiological impact of dis-
posals of natural radionuclides from a phosphate plant in the United Kingdom,
Environ. Int. 22 Suppl. 1 (1996) 5259.
[45] LEENHOUTS, H.P., STOOP, P., VAN TUINEN, S.T., Non-nuclear Industries in
the Netherlands and Radiological Risks, Rep. RIVM-610053003, Rijksinstituut
voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene, Bilthoven (1996).
[46] CARROLL, J., BOISSON, S.W., FOWLER, S.W., TEYSSIE, J.-L., Radionuclide
adsorption to sediments from nuclear waste dumping sites in the Kara Sea, Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 35 (1997) 296.
[47] CARROLL, J., et al., Distribution coefficients (Kds) for use in risk assessment
models of the Kara Sea, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 51 (1999) 121.
[48] DONAT,J.R.,BRULAND,K.W.,“Traceelementsintheoceans”,TraceElements
in Natural Waters (SALBU, B., STEINNES, E., Eds), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
(1995) 247.
[49] BALONOV, M., TSATUROV, Y., HOWARD, B., STRAND, P., Radioactive
Contamination in the Russian Arctic, Rep. 1999:1, AMAP Data-Centre for
Radioactivity, Østerås (1999).
[50] AMIRO, B., AVADHANULA, R., JOHANSSON, G., LARSSON, C.-M.,
LÜNING, M. (Eds), Protection of the Natural Environment (Proc. Int. Symp.
Stockholm, 1996), Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, Stockholm (1996).
[51] STATHER, J.W., HOPEWELL, J.W., SANDALLS, J., THOMPSON, I.M.G., Environmental dosimetry, proceedings of a workshop, Avignon, France, 22–24
November 1999, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 92 (2000).
[52] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Ethical Considerations in
Protecting the Environment from the Effects of Ionizing Radiation: A Report for
Discussion, IAEA-TECDOC-1270, IAEA, Vienna (2002).
[53] HAMILTON, E.I., The role of near-shore industrial waste releases in the disper-
sion of radionuclides in the NE Irish Sea, J. Environ. Radioact. 44 (1999) 297.
[54] BOLSUNOVSKY, A.Ya., TCHERKEZIAN, V.O., Hot particles of the Yenisei
River flood plain, Russia, J. Environ. Radioact. 57 (2001) 167.
[55] BOWEN, H.J.M., Environmental Chemistry of the Elements, Academic Press,
London (1979) 333.
[56] WHITFIELD, M., TURNER, D.R., Ultimate removal mechanisms of elements
from the ocean — A comment, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46 (1982) 1989.
80

[57] NYFFELER, U.P., LI, Y.H., SANTSCHI, P.H., A kinetic approach to describe trace element distribution between particles and solution in natural aquatic sys- tems, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48 (1984) 1513.
[58] LI, Y.-H., Interelement relationship in abyssal Pacific ferromanganese nodules and associated pelagic sediments, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46 (1982) 1053.
[59] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Report of the Interim Meeting held at NAGRA, Baden, Switzerland, September 19–24, 1982, OECD/NEA Seabed Working Group System Analysis Task Team Report, École des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau (1982) 56.
[60] NOZAKI, Y., A fresh look at element distribution in the North Pacific Ocean, EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 78 221 (1997).
[61] GROMOV,V.V.,SPITSYN,V.I.,Sorptionof239Pu,106Ruand99Tcbybottomsed- iments of the Pacific Ocean, Radiokhimiya 16 (1973) 157.
[62] DESCH, R.G., LYNCH, A.W., “Radionuclide transport in a dolomite aquifer”, Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Vol. 2 (NORTHRUP, C.J.M., Ed.), Plenum Press, New York (1980) 617.
[63] BEASLEY,T.M.,BiogeochemicalStudiesofTechnetiuminMarineandEstuarine Ecosystems, Progress Report, Rep. DOE/EV/10251-3, Department of Energy, Washington, DC (1981) 75.
[64] MASSON, M., APROSI, G., LANIECE, A., GUÉGUÉNIAT, P., BELOT, Y., “Approches expérimentales de l’étude des transferts du technétium à des sédi- ments et des espèces marines benthiques”, Impacts of Radionuclide Releases into the Marine Environment (Proc. Symp. Vienna, 1980), IAEA, Vienna (1981) 341.
[65] FOWLER, S.W., ASTON, S.R., BENAYOUN, G., PARSI, P., Bioavailability of technetium from artificially labelled North-East Atlantic deep-sea sediments, Mar. Environ. Res. 8 (1983) 87.
[66] MacKENZIE, A.B., SCOTT, R.D., McKINLEY, I.G., WEST, J.M., A Study of Long-term (103–104 y) Elemental Migration in Saturated Clays and Sediments, Rep. FLPU 83-6, Institute of Geological Sciences, Harwell, UK (1983) 48.
[67] SANTSCHI, P.H., et al., Evidence for elevated levels of iodine-129 in the deep Western Boundary Current in the Middle Atlantic Bight, Deep-Sea Res. 43 (1996) 259.
[68] CHAN,L.H.,etal.,RadiumandbariumatGEOSECSstationsintheAtlanticand Pacific, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 32 (1976) 258.
[69] KU, T.-L., HUH, C.-A., CHEN, P.-S., Meridional distribution of 226Ra in the east- ern Pacific along GEOSECS cruise tracks, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 49 (1980) 293.
[70] KU, T.-L., LUO, S., New appraisal of radium-226 as a large-scale oceanic mixing tracer, J. Geophys. Res. 99 C5 (1994) 10255.
[71] HARVEY, B.R., KERSHAW, P.J., “Physico-chemical interactions of long-lived radionuclides in coastal marine sediments and some comparison with the deep sea environment”, The Behaviour of Long-lived Radionuclides in the Marine Environment (CIGNA, A., MYTTENAERE, C., Eds), Rep. EUR 9214, European Commission, Luxembourg (1984) 131.
81

[72] HUH, C.-A., MOORE, W.S., KADKO, D.C., Oceanic Th-232: A reconnaissance and implications of global distribution from manganese nodules, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 53 (1989) 1357.
[73] BACON, M.P., ANDERSON, R.F., Distribution of thorium isotopes between dissolved and particulate forms in the deep sea, J. Geophys. Res. 87 C3 (1982) 2045.
[74] GUO, L., SANTSCHI, P.H., BASKARAN, M., Interactions of thorium isotopes with colloidal organic matter in oceanic environments, Colloids Surf. A 120 (1997) 255.
[75] BASKARAN, M., SANTSCHI, P.H., GUO, L., BIANCHI, T.S., LAMBERT, C., 123Th:238U disequilibria in the Gulf of Mexico: Importance of organic matter and particle concentration, Cont. Shelf Res. 16 (1996) 353.
[76] NOZAKI, Y., YAMADA, M., Thorium and protactinium isotope distributions in waters of the Japan Sea, Deep-Sea Res. 34 (1990) 1417.
[77] WHITFIELD, M., The mean oceanic residence time (MORT) concept — A rationalization, Mar. Chem. 8 (1979) 101.
[78] WHITFIELD, M., TURNER, D.R., “Chemical periodicity and the speciation and cycling of the elements”, Trace Metals in Seawater (WONG, C.S., BOYLE, E., BRULAND, X.W., BURTON, J.D., GOLDBERG, E.D., Eds), Plenum Press, New York (1983) 719.
[79] BREWER, P.G., et al., The distribution of particulate matter in the Atlantic Ocean, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 32 (1976) 393.
[80] LI, Y.-H., Ultimate removal mechanisms of elements from the ocean, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45 (1981) 1659.
[81] LI, Y.-H., Geochemical cycles of elements and human perturbation, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 45 (1981) 2073.
[82] AMES, L.L., RAI, D., Radionuclide Interactions with Soil and Rock Media, Vols 1 and 2, Rep. EPA/520/6-78/007-B, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1978) 345.
[83] BEALL, G.W., “A review of the sorption of actinides on natural minerals”, Alternative Nuclear Waste Forms and Interactions in Geologic Media (Proc. Workshop, Gatlinburg, TN, 1980), CONF-8005107, USAEC Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, TN (1980) 242.
[84] FRIED, S. (Ed.), Radioactive Waste in Geologic Storage, ACS Symposium Series No. 100, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC (1979).
[85] NORTHRUP, C.J.M. (Ed.), Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York (1980).
[86] SEYMOUR, A.H., NEVISSI, A., SCHELL, W.R., SANCHEZ, A., Distribution Coefficients for Radionuclides in Aquatic Environments, Rep. NUREG/CR-0801, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (1979).
[87] SPENCER, D.W., BREWER, P.G., SACHS, P.L., SMITH, C.L., Distribution of Some Chemical Elements Between Dissolved and Particulate Phases in the Ocean, Rep. NYO-4150-9, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA (1970) 18.
82

[88] JOHNSON, H.M., GILLHAM, R.W., A Review of Selected Radionuclide Distribution Coefficients of Geologic Material, Rep. TR-90, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, Chalk River, Ontario (1980) 147.
[89] PENTREATH,R.J.,HARVEY,B.R.,Thepresenceof237NpintheIrishSea,Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 6 (1981) 243.
[90] HARVEY, B.R., unpublished data.
[91] FOWLER, S.W., ASTON, S.R., Application of 235Np in experimental aquatic
radioecology: Preliminary observations on neptunium behaviour in seawater, sed-
iments and zooplankton, Health Phys. 42 (1982) 515.
[92] HIGGO, J.J.W., REES, L.V.C., CRONAN, D.S., Radionuclide Sorption by Marine
Sediments, Part 3: Plutonium, Americium and Neptunium, Rep. DOE/RW/83/131,
Department of the Environment, London (1983).
[93] BEALL, G.W., ALLARD, B., KREJEWSKI, T., O’KELLEY, G.D., “Chemical
reactions in the bedrock–groundwater system of importance for the sorption of actinides”, Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Vol. 2 (NORTHRUP, C.J.M., Ed.), Plenum Press, New York (1980) 625.
[94] SHEPPARD,J.C.,CAMPBELL,M.J.,CHENG,T.,KITTRICK,J.A.,Retentionof radionuclides by mobile humic compounds and soil particles, Environ. Sci. Technol. 14 (1980) 1349.
[95] WONG, K.M., NOSHKIN, V.E., SURPRENANT, L., BOWEN, V.T., Plutonium- 239 in Some Marine Organisms and Sediments, Rep. HASL-227, Energy Research and Development Administration, New York (1970) 125.
[96] HETHERINGTON, J.A., JEFFERIES, D.P., LOVETT, M.B., “Some investiga- tions into the behaviour of plutonium in the marine environment”, Impacts of Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment (Proc. Symp. Otaniemi, 1975), IAEA, Vienna (1975) 193.
[97] WAHLGREN, M.A., ALBERTS, J.J., NELSON, D.M., ORLANDINI, K.A., “Study of the behaviour of transuranics and possible chemical homologues in Lake Michigan water and biota”, Transuranium Nuclides in the Environment (Proc. Symp. San Francisco, CA, 1975), IAEA, Vienna (1976) 9.
[98] NELSON, D.M., LOVETT, M.B., Oxidation state of plutonium in the Irish Sea, Nature (London) 276 (1978) 599.
[99] PILLAI, K.C., MATHEW, E., “Plutonium in the aquatic environment, its behav- iour, distribution and significance”, Transuranium Nuclides in the Environment (Proc. Symp. San Francisco, 1975), CA, IAEA, Vienna (1975) 25.
[100] NOSHKIN, V.E., “Transuranic elements in components of the benthic environment of Enewetak Atoll”, Transuranic Elements in the Environment (HANSON, W., WATTERS, R.A., Eds), Department of Energy, Washington, DC (1980).
[101] PENTREATH, R.J., JEFFERIES, D.F., LOVETT, M.B., NELSON, D.M., “The behaviour of transuranic and other long-lived radionuclides in the Irish Sea and its relevance to the deep sea disposal of radioactive wastes”, Marine Radioecology (Proc. 3rd OECD/NEA Sem. Tokyo, 1979), OECD, Paris (1980) 203.
83

[102] PENTREATH,R.J.,JEFFERIES,D.F.,TALBOT,J.W.,LOVETT,M.B.,HARVEY, B.R., “Transuranic cycling behaviour in the marine environment”, Transuranic Cycling Behaviour in the Marine Environment, IAEA-TECDOC-265, IAEA, Vienna (1982) 121.
[103] WATTERS, R.A., et al., “Synthesis of the research literature”, Transuranic Elements in the Environment (HANSON, W., WATTERS, R.A., Eds), Department of Energy, Washington, DC (1980).
[104] AARKROG, A.A., DAHLGAARD, H., NILSSON, K., “Studies on the distribu- tion of transuranics in the Baltic Sea, the Danish Belts, the Kattegat and the North Sea”, Transuranic Cycling Behaviour in the Marine Environment, IAEA-TEC- DOC-265, IAEA, Vienna (1982) 23.
[105] FOWLER,S.W.,BALLESTRA,S.,LAROSA,J.,FUKAI,R.,Verticaltransportof particulate-associated plutonium and americium in the upper water column of the Northeast Pacific, Deep-Sea Res. 30 (1983) 1221.
[106] LOVETT, M.B., unpublished data.
[107] NOSHKIN,V.E.,unpublisheddata.
[108] ERICKSON,K.L.,“Radionuclidesorptionstudiesonabyssalredclays”,Scientific
Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Vol. 2 (NORTHRUP, C.J.M., Ed.), Plenum
Press, New York (1980) 641.
[109] DUURSMA, E.K., PARSI, P., “Distribution coefficient of plutonium between
sediment and seawater”, Activities of the International Laboratory of Marine
Radioactivity, 1974 Report, IAEA-TECDOC-163, IAEA, Vienna (1974) 94.
[110] GROMOV, V.V., Investigation of the behaviour of microelements in ocean water
by the desorption method, Sov. Radiochem. 16 (1974) 742.
[111] BONDIETTI,E.A.,REYNOLDS,S.A.,SHANKS,M.H.,“Interactionofplutoni-
um with complexing substances in soils and natural waters”, Transuranium Nuclides in the Environment (Proc. Symp. San Francisco, CA, 1975), IAEA, Vienna (1976) 273.
[112] MO, T., LOWMAN, F.G., “Laboratory experiments on the transfer dynamics of plutonium from marine sediments to seawater and to marine organisms”, Radiology and Energy Resources (CUSHING, C.E., Jr., Ed.), Halstead Press, New York (1976) 86.
[113] VAN DALEN, A., DE WITTE, F., WISKTRA, J., Distribution Coefficients for Some Radionuclides Between Saline Water and Clays, Sandstones and Other Samples from the Dutch Sub-soil, Rep. RCN-75-109, Reactor Centrum Nederland, Petten (1975).
[114] EPIDAL, B.R. (Ed.), Laboratory Studies of Radionuclide Distributions Between Selected Groundwaters and Geologic Media, Rep. LA-8088-PR, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, NM (1979).
[115] VANGENECHTEN, J.D.H., ASTON, S.R., FOWLER, S.W., Uptake of americi- um-241 from two experimentally labelled deep-sea sediments by three benthic species: A bivalve mollusc, a polychaete and an isopod, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 13 (1983) 219.
84

[116] [117] [118]
[119]
[120]
[121]
[122] [123] [124] [125]
[126]
[127] [128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
SHANBHAG, P.M., MORSE, J.W., Americium interaction with calcite and arag- onite surfaces in seawater, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46 (1982) 241.
ASTON, S.R., FOWLER, S.W., Preliminary observations on californium-252 behaviour in seawater, sediments and zooplankton, Health Phys. 44 (1983) 359. BEALL, G.W., KETELLE, B.H., HAIRE, R.G., OIKELLEY, G.D., “Sorption behavior of trivalent actinides and rare earths on clay minerals”, Radioactive Waste in Geologic Storage (FRIED, S., Ed.), ACS Symposium Series No. 100, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC (1979) 201.
BACON, M.P., SPENCER, D.W., BREWER, P.G., 210Pb/226Ra and 210Po/210Pb disequilibria in seawater and suspended particulate matter, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 32 (1976) 272.
COCHRAN, J.K., “The oceanic chemistry of the U- and Th- series nuclides”, Uranium Series Disequilibriums Applications to Environmental Problems (IVANOVICH, M., HARMON, R.S., Eds), Clarendon Press, Oxford (1982) 384. BREWER, P.G., NOZAKI, Y., SPENCER, D.W., FLEER, A.P., Sediment trap experiments in the deep North Atlantic: Isotopic and elemental fluxes, J. Mar. Res. 38 (1980) 703.
WHITFIELD, M., TURNER, D.R., Water–rock partition coefficients and the composition of seawater and river water, Nature (London) 278 (1979) 132. ANDERSON, R.F., BACON, M.P., BREWER, P.G., Removal of 230Th and 231Pa from the open sea, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 61 (1983) 7.
ANDERSON, R.F., BACON, M.P., BREWER, P.G., Removal of 230Th and 231Pa at ocean margins, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 66 (1983) 73.
MONTÉGUT, G.D., AVRIL, B., Vertical distribution and temporal variation of dissolved organic carbon in the North-Western Mediterranean Sea, Deep-Sea Res. 40 (1993) 1963.
FISHER, N.S., et al., Trace metals in marine copepods: A field test of a bioaccu- mulation model coupled to laboratory uptake kinetics data, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 194 (2000) 211.
KENNISH, M.J., Practical Handbook of Estuarine and Marine Pollution, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1997) 524.
DUURSMA, E.K., EISMA, D., “Theoretical, experimental and field studies con- cerning reactions of radioisotopes with sediments and suspended particles in the sea, Part C: Applications to field studies”, Radioactivity in the Sea, Publication No. 32, IAEA, Monaco (1972). TANG,D.,WARNKEN,K.W.,SANTSCHI,P.H.,Distributionandpartitioningof trace metals (e.g., Ni, Cu, Cd, Pb, Zn) in Galveston Bay Waters, Mar. Chem. 78 (2002) 29.
WEN, L.S., SANTSCHI, P.H., PATERNOSTRO, C., GILL, G., Estuarine trace metal distributions in Galveston Bay I: Importance of colloidal forms in the spe- ciation of the dissolved phase, Mar. Chem. 63 (1999) 185.
FLEGAL, A.R., SMITH, G.J., GILL, G.A., SANUDO-WILHELMY, S., ANDERSON, L.C.D., Dissolved trace elements cycles in the San Francisco Bay estuary, Mar. Chem. 36 (1991) 329.
85

[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136] [137]
[138]
[139]
[140] [141]
[142] [143]
[144]
[145] [146] [147]
LI, Y.-H., BURKHARDT, L., BUCHHOLTZ, M., O’HARA, P., SANTSCHI, P.H., Partition of radiotracers between suspended particles and seawater, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 48 (1984) 2011.
NOLTING, R.F., DE BAAR, H.J.W., TIMMERMANS, M.K.R., BAKKAR, K., Chemical fractionation of zinc versus cadmium among other metals nickel, cop- per and lead in the northern North Sea, Mar. Chem. 67 (1999) 267.
LEGALL, A.C., STATHAM, P.J., MORELY, N.H., HYDES, D.J., HUNT, C.H., Processes influencing distributions and concentrations of Cd, Cu, Mn and Ni at the northwest European shelf break, Mar. Chem. 68 (1999) 97.
BENOIT, G., et al., Partitioning of Cu, Pb, Ag, Zn, Fe, Al, and Mn between filter- retained particles, colloids and solution in six Texas estuaries, Mar. Chem. 45 (1994) 307.
AHRENS, L.H., PRESS, F., RUNCORN, S.K., UREY, H.C. (Eds), Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol. 8, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1969) 337.
KANG, D.-J., CHUNG, C.S., KIM, K.-R., HONG, G.H., Distribution of 137Cs and 239,240Pu in the surface waters of the East Sea (Sea of Japan), Mar. Pollut. Bull. 35 (1997) 305.
FLEGAL, A.R., SANUDO-WILHELMY, S., Comparable levels of trace metal contamination in two semi-enclosed embayments: San Diego Bay and South San Francisco Bay, Environ. Sci. Technol. 27 (1993) 1934. WEN,L.S.,SANTSCHI,P.H.,GILL,G.,PATERNOSTRO,C.,Colloidalandpar- ticulate silver in river and estuarine waters of Texas, Environ. Sci. Technol. 31 (1997) 723.
GUAY, C.K., FALKNER, K.K., A survey of dissolved barium in the estuaries of major Arctic rivers and adjacent seas, Cont. Shelf Res. 18 (1998) 859.
HARVEY, B.R., “Interstitial water studies on Irish Sea sediments and their rele- vance to the fate of transuranic nuclides in the marine environment”, Techniques for Identifying Transuranic Speciation in Aquatic Environments (Proc. Tech. Comm. Mtg, Ispra, 1980), IAEA, Vienna (1981) 247.
FOWLER, S.W., Critical review of selected heavy metal and chlorinated hydro- carbon concentrations in the marine environment, Mar. Environ. Res. 29 (1990) 1. STORDAL,M.C.,GILL,G.A.,WEN,L.-S.,SANTSCHI,P.H.,Mercuryphasespe- ciation in the surface waters of selected Texas estuaries: Importance of colloidal forms, Limnol. Oceanogr. 41 (1996) 52.
BASKARAN, M., SANTSCHI, P.H., The role of particles and colloids in the transport of radionuclides in coastal environments of Texas, Mar. Chem. 43 (1993) 95. BROECKER,W.S.,PENG,T.-H.,TracersintheSea,Lamont-DohertyGeological Observatory, Columbia University Press, Palisades, NY (1982) 690.
MOORE, W.S., Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters revealed by 226Ra enrichments, Nature (London) 380 (1996) 612. GUO,L.,SANTSCHI,P.H.,BASKARAN,M.,ZINDLER,A.,Distributionofdis- solved and particulate 230Th and 232Th in seawater from the Gulf of Mexico and off Cape Hatteras, as measured by SIMS, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 133 (1995) 117.
86

[148]
[149] [150]
[151]
[152] [153]
[154]
[155]
[156] [157]
[158]
[159]
[160]
[161]
[162]
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Transuranic Cycling Behaviour in the Marine Environment, IAEA-TECDOC-265, IAEA, Vienna (1982). RÖSLER,H.J.,LANGE,H.,GeochemicalTables,Elsevier,Amsterdam(1972). CALVERT, S.E., “The mineralogy and geochemistry of near-shore sediments”, Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 6 (RILEY, J.P., CHESTER, R., Eds), Academic Press, London (1976) 187.
BRYAN, G.W., “Bioavailability and effects of heavy metals in marine deposits”, Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 6: Nearshore Waste Disposal (KETCHUM, B.H., et al., Eds), Wiley, New York (1985) 42. FUKUI,M.,Desorptionkineticsandmobilityofsomeradionuclidesinsediments, Health Phys. 59 (1990) 879. KERSHAW,P.J.,PENTREATH,R.J.,WOODHEAD,D.S.,HUNT,G.J.,Areview of radioactivity in the Irish Sea. A report prepared for the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, Rep. MAFF-AEMR-32, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, UK (1992).
BAXTER, M.S., HARMS, I., OSVATH, I., POVINEC, P.P., SCOTT, E.M., Modelling the potential radiological consequences of radioactive waste dumping in the Kara Sea, J. Environ. Radioact. 39 (1998) 161.
ASTON, S.R., FOWLER, S.W., “Bioavailability of technetium, plutonium and americium from deep-sea sediments to the clam Venerupis decussata”, Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 2: Physicochemical Processes and Wastes in the Oceans (O’CONNER, T.P., BURT, W.V., DUEDALL, I.W., Eds), Robert E. Krieger, Melbourne (1987).
MASSON, M., et al., Synthesis of French experimental and in-situ research on the terrestrial and marine behaviour of Tc, Health Phys. 57 (1989) 269. MacKENZIE,A.B.,COOK,G.T.,McDONALD,P.,JONES,S.R.,Theinfluenceof mixing timescales and re-dissolution processes on the distribution of radionu- clides in north-east Irish Sea sediments, J. Environ. Radioact. 39 (1998) 35. COOK,G.T.,MacKENZIE,A.B.,McDONALD,P.,JONES,S.R.,Remobilization of Sellafield-derived radionuclides and transport from the north-east Irish Sea, J. Environ. Radioact. 35 (1997) 227.
MITCHELL, P.I., CONDREN, O.M., VINTRO, L.L., McMAHON, C.A., Trends in plutonium, americium and radiocaesium accumulation and long-term bioavail- ability in the western Irish Sea mud basin, J. Environ. Radioact. 44 (1999) 223. BASKARAN, M., RAVICHANDRAN, M., BIANCHI, T.S., Cycling of 7Be and 210Pb in a high DOC, shallow, turbid estuary of south-east Texas, Estuar. Coastal Shelf Sci. 45 (1997) 165.
HAMILTON-TAYLOR, J., KELLY, M., MUDGE, S., BRADSHAW, K., Rapid remobilisation of plutonium from estuarine sediments, J. Environ. Radioact. 5 (1987) 409.
HAMILTON, E.I., Radionuclides and large particles in estuarine sediments, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 20 (1989) 603.
87

[163]
[164]
[165]
[166]
[167] [168] [169]
[170]
[171]
[172]
[173]
[174] [175]
[176]
[177]
ASSINDER, D.J., KELLY, M., ASTON, S.R., Tidal variations in dissolved and par- ticulate phase radionuclide activities in the Esk Estuary, England, and their distribu- tion coefficients and particulate activity fractions, J. Environ. Radioact. 2 (1985) 1. ABRIL, J.M., FRAGA, E., Some physical and chemical features of the variability of Kd distribution coefficients for radionuclides, J. Environ. Radioact. 30 (1996) 253.
TEMPLETON, W., HARRISON, F., KNEZOVICH, J., FISHER, N., LAYTON, D., “Bioconcentration of radionuclides in marine food-web organisms”, Radionuclides in the Arctic Seas from the Former Soviet Union: Potential Health and Ecological Risks, Arctic Nuclear Waste Program, Office of Naval Research, Washington, DC (1997).
FISHER, N.S., et al., Radionuclide bioconcentration factors and sediment parti- tion coefficients in Arctic seas subject to contamination from dumped nuclear wastes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 33 (1999) 1982.
EISLER, R., Trace Metal Concentrations in Marine Organisms, Pergamon Press, New York (1981).
PHILLIPS, D.J.H., Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators, Applied Science Publishers, London (1980) 488.
COUGHTREY, P.J., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distribution and Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems, Vol. 1, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1983) 496.
COUGHTREY, P.J., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distribution and Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems, Vol. 2, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1983) 500.
COUGHTREY, P.J., THORNE, M.C., Radionuclide Distribution and Transport in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems, Vol. 3, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (1983) 372.
JACKSON, D.W., GOMEZ, L.S., MARIETTA, M.G., Compilation of Selected Marine Radioecological Data for the U.S. Subseabed Program, Rep. SAND-73- 1725, Sandia Natl Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (1983) 237.
VINOGRADOV, A.P., The Elementary Chemical Composition of Marine Organisms, Sears Foundation for Marine Research, Memoir 2, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT (1953) 647.
CHOW, T.J., et al., Occurrence of lead in tuna, Nature (London) 251 (1974) 159. PENTREATH, R.J., LOVETT, M.B., HARVEY, B.R., IBBETT, R.D., “Alpha- emitting nuclides in commercial fish species caught in the vicinity of Windscale, UK, and their radiological significance to man”, Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries (Proc. Symp. Vienna, 1979), IAEA, Vienna (1979) 227.
RUPP, E.M., MILLER, F.L., BAES, C.F., Some results of recent surveys of fish and shellfish consumption by age and region of US residents, Health Phys. 39 (1980) 165.
PENTREATH, R.J., Radionuclides in fish, Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 15 (1977) 365.
88

[178]
[179]
[180] [181] [182] [183]
[184]
[185]
[186]
[187] [188]
[189]
[190] [191]
[192] [193]
NAKAHARA, M., EUDA, T., SUZUKI, T., ISHII, T., SUZUKI, H., “Concentration factors of mesopelagic organisms”, Marine Radioecology (Proc. 3rd OECD/NEA Sem. Tokyo, 1979), OECD, Paris (1980) 323. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, The Radiological Basis of the IAEA Revised Definition and Recommendations Concerning High-level Radioactive Waste Unsuitable for Dumping at Sea, IAEA-TECDOC-211, IAEA, Vienna (1978).
JENKINS, C.E., Radionuclide distribution in Pacific salmon, Health Phys. 17 (1969) 507.
TEMPLETON, W.L., “Fission products and aquatic organisms”, The Effects of Pollution on Living Material, Institute of Biology, London (1959) 125. SCHROEDER, H.A., BALASSA, J.J., Trace metals in man: Niobium, J. Chronic Dis. 18 (1965) 229.
PENTREATH, R.J., JEFFERIES, D.F., The uptake of radionuclides by I-group plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) off the Cumberland coast, Irish Sea, J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 51 (1971) 963.
DUNSTER, H.J., GARNER, R.J., HOWELLS, H., WIX, L.P.U., Environmental monitoring associated with the discharge of low activity radioactive waste from Windscale works to the Irish Sea, Health Phys. 10 (1964) 353.
EWING, R.A., HOWES, J.E., PRICE, R.B., Bioenvironmental and Radiological Safety Feasibility Studies, Atlantic–Pacific Interoceanic Canal: Radionuclide and Stable-element Analyses of Environmental Samples from Routes 17 and 25, Rep. BMI-171-29, Battelle Memorial Institute, OH (1969) 52.
NOSHKIN, V.E., Concentrations and Concentration Factors of Several Anthropogenic and Natural Radionuclides in Marine Vertebrates and Invertebrates, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1984). GOLDBERG, E.D., Elemental composition of some pelagic fishes, Limnol. Oceanogr. 7 Suppl. (1962) 72. SUZUKI,H.,ROYANAGI,T.,SAIRI,M.,“Studiesonrareearthelementsinsea- water and uptake by marine organisms”, Impacts of Nuclear Releases into the Aquatic Environment (Proc. Symp. Otaniemi, 1975), IAEA, Vienna (1975) 77. KURABAYASHI, M., FUKUDA, S., KUROKAWA, Y., “Concentration factors of marine organisms used for the environmental dose assessment”, Marine Radioecology (Proc. 3rd OECD/NEA Sem. Tokyo, 1979), OECD, Paris (1980) 355.
AL-MADFA, H., ABOUL DAHAB, O., HOLAIL, H., Mercury pollution in Doha (Qatar) coastal environment, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13 (1994) 725. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Survey of Mercury in Fish and Sediments from the ROPME Sea Area: Final Data Report, IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory, Monaco (1990). AL-HASHIMI,A.H.,AL-ZORBA,M.A.,Mercuryinsomecommercialfishfrom Kuwait: A pilot study, Sci. Total Environ. 106 (1991) 71.
TARIQ, J., JAFFAR, M., Mercury concentrations in ten fish species form the Arabian Sea, Pakistan, Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 34 (1991) 57.
89

[194] HALCROW, W., MacKAY, D.W., THORNTON, I., The distribution of trace met- als and fauna in the Firth of Clyde in relation to the disposal of sewage sludge, J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 53 (1973) 721.
[195] ROBERTSON, D.E., Trace Elements in Marine Organisms, Rep. BNWL-481-2, Battelle-Northwest, Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (1967) 56.
[196] ANCELLIN, J., GUÉGUÉNIAT, P., GERMAIN, P., Radioécologie Marine, Editions Eyrolles, Paris (1979) 256.
[197] SWIFT, D.J., KERSHAW, P.J., Generic Parameters for Modelling Marine and Freshwater Systems, Environ. Techn. Note RL 7/99, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, UK (1999) 47.
[198] ZAUKE, G.P., PETRI, G., Ecotoxicology of Metals in Invertebrates (DALLINGER, R., RAINBOW, P.S., Eds), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL (1993) 23.
[199] PENTREATH, R.J., “The biological availability to marine organisms of transura- nium and other long-lived nuclides”, Impact of Radionuclide Releases into the Marine Environment (Proc. Symp. Vienna, 1980), IAEA, Vienna (1981) 241.
[200] BROWN, J.E., et al., Levels of 99Tc in seawater and biota samples from Norwegian coastal waters and adjacent seas, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38 (1999) 560.
[201] VANWEERS,A.W.,VANRAAPHORST,J.G.,“Accumulationoftraceelements in coastal marine organisms”, Marine Radioecology (Proc. 3rd OECD/NEA Sem. Tokyo, 1979), OECD, Paris (1980) 303.
[202] FOWLER, S.W., Trace metals in zooplankton particulate products, Nature (London) 269 (1977) 51.
[203] HEYRAUD, M., CHERRY, R.D., Polonium-210 and lead-210 in marine food chains, Mar. Biol. 52 (1979) 227.
[204] FOWLER, S.W., CARVALHO, F.P., ASTON, S.R., Experimental studies on cali- fornium bioavailability to marine benthic invertebrates, J. Environ. Radioact. 3 (1986) 219.
[205] TURGEON, D.D., O’CONNOR, T.P., Long Island Sound: Distributions, trends, and effects of chemical contamination, Estuaries 14 (1991) 279.
[206] SEGAR, D.A., COLLINS, J.D., RILEY, J.P., The distribution of the major and some minor elements in marine animals, Part II: Molluscs, J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 51 (1971) 131.
[207] KARBE, L., SCHNIER, C., SIEWERS, H.O., Trace elements in mussels (Mytilus edulis) from coastal areas of the North Sea and the Baltiez multielement analyses using instrumental neutron activation analyses, J. Radioanal. Chem. 37 (1977) 927.
[208] CARLISLE, D.B., Niobium in ascidians, Nature (London) 181 (1958) 933.
[209] FUKAI, R., MEINKE, W.W., Some activation analyses of six trace elements in
marine biological ashes, Nature (London) 184 (1959) 815.
[210] FUKAI,R.,MEINKE,W.W.,Activationanalysesofvanadium,arsenic,molybde-
num, tungsten, rhenium, and gold in marine organisms, Limnol. Oceanogr. 7
(1962) 186.
[211] LUCU,C.,JELISAVCIC,O.,LUCIC,S.,STRORAL,P.,Interactionsof233Pawith
tissues of Mytilus galloprovincialis and Carcinus mediterraneus, Mar. Biol. 2 (1969) 103.
90

[212]
[213]
[214] [215] [216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[220]
[221]
[222]
[223]
[224]
[225]
[226]
HODGE, V.F., KOIDE, M., GOLDBERG, E.D., Particulate uranium, plutonium and polonium in the biogeochemistries of the coastal zone, Nature (London) 277 (1979) 206.
HOROWITZ, C.T., SCHOCK, H., HOROWITZ-KISIMOVA, L.A., The content of scandium, thorium, silver and other trace elements in different plant species, Plant Soil 40 (1974) 397. MAUCHLINE,J.,TEMPLETON,W.L.,Strontium,calciumandbariuminmarine organisms from the Irish Sea, J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 30 (1966) 161. PENTREATH, R.J., Monitoring of Radionuclides, Fish. Tech. Paper 150, FAO, Rome (1976) 8.
HOLM, E., PERSSON, B.R.R., “Behaviour of natural (Th and U) and artificial (Pu and Am) actinides in coastal waters”, Marine Radioecology (Proc. 3rd OECD/NEA Sem. Tokyo, 1979), OECD, Paris (1980) 237.
NILSSON, M., et al., “Radionuclides in Fucus from inter-Scandinavian waters”, Impacts of Radionuclide Releases into the Marine Environment (Proc. Symp. Vienna, 1980), IAEA, Vienna (1981) 501.
FISHER, N.S., BJERREGAARD, P., FOWLER, S.W., Interactions of marine plankton with transuranic elements, 1. Biokinetics of neptunium, plutonium, americium and californium in phytoplankton, Limnol. Oceanogr. 28 (1983) 432. LOWMAN, F.G., RICE, T.R., RICHARDS, F.A., “Accumulation and redistribu- tion of radionuclides by marine organisms”, Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (1971) 161. FOWLER, S.W., BENAYOUN, G., PARSI, P., ESSA, M.W.A., SHULTE, E.H., “Experimental studies on the bioavailability of technetium in selected marine organisms”, Impacts of Radionuclide Releases into the Marine Environment (Proc. Symp. Vienna, 1980), IAEA, Vienna (1981) 319.
YAMAMOTO, T., FUJITA, T., ISHIBASHI, M., Chemical studies on the sea- weeds (25). Vanadium and titanium contents in seaweeds, Rec. Oceanogr. Works Jpn. 10 (1970) 125.
BALLESTRA, S., NOSHKIN, V., Report on the Intercomparison Run: Radionuclides in Seawater and Collected Outside Mururoa Atoll, IAEA/AL/044, IAEA, Vienna (1991).
MARZANO, F.N., TRIULZI, C., A radioecological survey of Northern and Middle Adriatic Sea before and after the Chernobyl event (1979–1990), Mar. Pollut. Bull. 28 (1994) 244.
KHARKAR, D.P., THOMSON, J., TUREKIAN, K.K., FORSTER, W.O., Uranium and thorium decay series nuclides in plankton from the Caribbean, Limnol. Oceanogr. 21 (1976) 294.
HIGGO, J.J.W., CHERRY, R.D., HEYRAUD, M., FOWLER, S.W., Rapid removal of plutonium from the oceanic surface layer by zooplankton faecal pel- lets, Nature (London) 266 (1977) 623.
FISHER, N.S., FOWLER, S.W., “The role of biogenic debris in the vertical trans- port of transuranic wastes in the sea”, Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 2: Physiochemical Processes and Wastes in the Ocean (BURT, W.V., DUEDALL, I.W., O’CONNOR, T.P., Eds), Krieger, Malaban, FL (1987) 197.
91

[227]
[228]
[229] [230]
[231] [232]
[233]
[234] [235] [236]
[237]
[238]
[239]
[240] [241] [242]
FOWLER, S.W., LA ROSA, J., LOPEZ, J.-J., TEYSSIE, J.-J., SMALL, L.F., “Interannual variation in transuranic flux at the VERTEX time-series station in the Northeast Pacific and its relationship to biological activity”, Radionuclides in the Study of Marine Processes (Proc. Int. Symp. Norwich, UK, 1991) (KERSHAW, P.J., WOODHEAD, D.S., Eds), Elsevier, London (1991) 286. FISHER, N.S., BJERREGAARD, P., FOWLER, S.W., Interactions of marine plankton with transuranic elements, 3. Biokinetics of americium in euphausiids, Mar. Biol. 75 (1983) 261.
SUNDA, W.G., HUNTSMAN, S.A., Interrelated influence of iron, light and cell size on marine phytoplankton growth, Nature (London) 390 (1997) 389. FISHER, N.S., REINFELDER, J.R., “The trophic transfer of metals in marine systems”, Metal Speciation in Aquatic Systems (TESSIER, A., TURNER, D.R., Eds), Wiley, Chichester (1995) 363.
MARTIN, J.H., KNAUER, G.A., The elemental composition of plankton, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 37 (1973) 1639.
LAEVASTU, T., THOMPSON, T.G., The determination and occurrence of nickel in seawater, marine organisms, and sediments, J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 21 (1956) 125.
BAINES, S.B., FISHER, N.S., Interspecific differences in the bioconcentration of selenite by phytoplankton and their ecological implications, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 213 (2001) 1.
FISHER, N.S., Bioaccumulation of technetium by marine phytoplankton, Environ. Sci. Technol. 16 (1982) 579.
HELDAL, H.E., STUPAKOFF, I., FISHER, N.S., Bioaccumulation of 137Cs and 57Co by five marine phytoplankton species, J. Environ. Radioact. 57 (2001) 231. SZEFER, P., OSTROWSKI, S., On the occurrence of uranium and thorium in the biosphere of natural waters, 1. Uranium and thorium in plankton and inherent plants, Oceanology 13 (1980) 35.
EUSTACE, I.J., Zinc, cadmium, copper and manganese in species of finfish and shellfish caught in the Derwent Estuary, Tasmania, Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 25 (1974) 209.
ISHII, T., SUZUKI, H., KOYANAGI, T., Determination of trace elements in marine organisms, 1. Factors for variation of concentration of trace element, Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 44 (1978) 155. HOROWITZ,A.,PRESLEY,B.J.,Tracemetalconcentrationsandpartitioningin zooplankton, neuston, and benthos from the South Texas Outer Continental Shelf, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 5 (1977) 241. MATSUMOTO,T.,SATAKE,M.,YAMAMOTO,J.,HARUNA,S.,Onthemicro- constituent elements in marine invertebrates, J. Oceanogr. Soc. Jpn. 20 (1964) 15. ESTABLIER, R., Estudio de la contaminación marina por metales pesados y sus efectos biológicos, Inf. Tee. Inst. Invest. Pesqueras 47 (1977) 36. LEATHERLAND, T.M., BURTON, J.D., The occurrence of some trace metals in coastal organisms with particular reference to the Solent region, J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 54 (1974) 457.
92

[243]
[244] [245]
[246]
[247]
[248]
[249] [250]
[251]
[252] [253]
[254] [255]
[256]
[257]
[258]
HAMANAKA, T., KATO, H., TSUJITA, T., Cadmium and zinc in ribbon seal, Histriophoca fasciata, in the Okhotsk Sea, Res. Inst. N. Pac. Fish., Hokkaido University, Special Volume (1977) 547. SUZUKI,Y.,NAKAHARA,M.,NAKAMURA,R.,Accumulationofcesium-137 by useful mollusca, Bull. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Fish. 44 (1978) 325. GUARY,J.C.,HIGGO,J.J.W.,CHERRY,R.D.,HEYRAUD,M.,Highconcentra- tions of transuranics and natural radioactive elements in the branchial hearts of the cephalopod Octopus vulgaris, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 4 (1981) 123.
YEATS, P.A., STENSON, G., HELLOU, J., Essential elements and priority con- taminants in liver, kidney, muscle and blubber of harp seal beaters, Sci. Total Environ. 243–244 (1999) 157.
THOMPSON, D.R., “Metal levels in marine vertebrates”, Heavy Metals in the Marine Environment (FURNESS, R.W., RAINBOW, P.S., Eds), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1990) 143.
HOLM, E., PERSSON, B.R.R., HALLSTADIUS, L., AARKROG, A., DAHL- GAARD, H., Radio-cesium and transuranium elements in the Greenland and Barents Seas, Oceanol. Acta 6 (1983) 457.
ANDERSON, S.S., LIVENS, F.R., SINGLETON, D.L., Radionuclides in grey seals, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 21 (1990) 343.
CALMET, D., WOODHEAD, D., ANDRE, J.M., 210Pb, 137Cs and 40K in three species of porpoises caught in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, J. Environ. Radioact. 15 (1992) 153.
WATSON, W.S., et al., Radionuclides in seals and porpoises in the coastal waters around the UK, Sci. Total Environ. 234 (1999) 1.
HOLM, E., University of Lund, personal communication, 1999. CAMPLIN,W.C.,RadioactivityinSurfaceandCoastalWatersoftheBritishIsles, 1993, Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report No. 42, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, UK (1994). CARROLL,J.,WOLKERS,H.,ANDERSEN,M.,RISSANEN,K.,137CsinArctic Seals, Mar. Pollut. Bull. (in press).
LEONARD, K.S., McCUBBIN, D., BLOWERS, P., TAYLOR, B.R., Dissolved plutonium and americium in surface waters of the Irish Sea, 1973–1996, J. Environ. Radioact. 44 (1999) 129.
DIETZ, R., RIGET, F., BORN, E.W., Geographical differences of zinc, cadmium, mercury and selenium in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Greenland, Sci. Total Environ. 245 (2000) 25.
SICKEL, M.A.K., et al., Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, Report from the National Surveillance Programme, Strålevern Rep. 1995:1, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås (1995).
LI, Y.-H., A brief discussion on the mean oceanic residence time of elements, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46 (1982) 2671.
93

Cabianca, T. Carroll, J.
Fisher, N.S.
Fowler, S.W. Kershaw, P.J.
International Atomic Energy Agency
Akvaplan-niva AS, Polar Environmental Centre, Norway
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook University, United States of America
International Atomic Energy Agency
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, United Kingdom
Consultants Meetings
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW
Monaco: 25–28 April 2000;
Vienna, Austria: 30 October–3 November 2000, 2–4 December 2002
95