Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 603–611 | Cite as

Radionuclide concentration ratios in Australian terrestrial wildlife and livestock: data compilation and analysis

Original Paper

Abstract

Radionuclide concentrations in Australian terrestrial fauna, including indigenous kangaroos and lizards, as well as introduced sheep and water buffalo, are of interest when considering doses to human receptors and doses to the biota itself. Here, concentration ratio (CR) values for a variety of endemic and introduced Australian animals with a focus on wildlife and livestock inhabiting open rangeland are derived and reported. The CR values are based on U- and Th-series concentration data obtained from previous studies at mining sites and 241Am and 239/240Pu data from a former weapons testing site. Soil-to-muscle CR values of key natural-series radionuclides for grazing Australian kangaroo and sheep are one to two orders of magnitude higher than those of grazing cattle in North and South America, and for 210Po, 230Th, and 238U are one to two orders of magnitude higher than the ERICA tool reference values. When comparing paired kangaroo and sheep CR values, results are linearly correlated (r = 0.81) for all tissue types. However, kidney and liver CR values for kangaroo are typically higher than those of sheep, particularly for 210Pb, and 210Po, with values in kangaroo liver more than an order of magnitude higher than those in sheep liver. Concentration ratios for organs are typically higher than those for muscle including those for 241Am and 239/240Pu in cooked kangaroo and rabbit samples. This study provides CR values for Australian terrestrial wildlife and livestock and suggests higher accumulation rates for select radionuclides in semi-arid Australian conditions compared with those associated with temperate conditions.

References

  1. Baeza A, Paniagua J, Rufo M, Guillén J, Sterling A (2001) Seasonal variations in radionuclide transfer in a Mediterranean grazing-land ecosystem. J Environ Radioact 55:283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Mayes RW (2000) Radiocaesium variability within sheep flocks: determination of 137Cs intake in free-ranging sheep. Radiat Environ Biophys 39:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Coward PA, Howard BJ, Mayes RW (2002) A simple method for the estimation of the bioavailability of radiocaesium from herbage contaminated by adherent soil. J Environ Radioact 63:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Wright SM, Howard BJ, Crout NMJ (2007) Factors contributing to radioceasium variability in upland sheep flocks in west Cumbria (United Kingdom). J Environ Radioact 98:50–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Howard BJ, Scott WA, Brown JE, Copplestone D (2008) Derivation of transfer parameters for use within the ERICA Tool and the default concentration ratios for terrestrial biota. J Environ Radioact 99:1393–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunzl K, Kracke W (1984) Distribution of 210Pb, 210Po, stable lead and fallout 137Cs in soil, plants and moorland sheep of a heath. Sci Tot Environ 39:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calmon P, Thiry Y, Zibold G, Rantavaara A, Fesenko S (2009) Transfer parameter values in temperate forest ecosystems: a review. J Environ Radioact 100:757–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis WR (1979) A survey of the Maralinga atomic weapons testing range for residual plutonium contamination. AAEC/E476, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment, Lucas HeightsGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewers LW, Ham GJ, Wilkins BT (2003) Review of the transfer of naturally occurring radionuclides to terrestrial plants and domestic animals. National Radiation Protection Board, Chilton, NRPB-W49, London UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Giles MS, Domel RU, Jeffree RA, Twining JR, and Williams AR (1990) Final report to the technical assessment group for the Maralinga rehabilitation project, study no. 2 (Radioecology), Technical assessment group study program reports, Department of Primary Industries and EnergyGoogle Scholar
  11. Haywood SM, Smith J (1990) Assessment of the potential radiological impact of residual contamination in the Maralinga and Emu areas. National Radiation Protection Board, Chilton, NRPB-R237, London UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Higley KA, Bytwerk DP (2007) Generic approaches to transfer. J Environ Radioact 98:4–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinton TG, Stoll JM, Tobler L (1995) Soil contamination of plant surfaces from grazing and rainfall interactions. J Environl Radioact 29:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopwood PR, Hilmi M, Butterfield RM (1976) A comparative study of carcass composition of kangaroo and sheep. Aust J Zool 24:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard BJ, Larsson CM (2008) The ERICA Integrated Approach and its contribution to protection of the environment from ionising radiation. J Environ Radioact 99:1361–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard BJ, Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Fesenko S (2009a) Quantifying the transfer of radionuclides to food products from domestic farm animals. J Environ Radioact 100:767–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard BJ, Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Fesenko S (2009b) Radionuclide transfer to animal products: revised recommended transfer coefficient values. J Environ Radioact 100:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (1994) Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in temperate environments. Technical report no. 364. IAEA, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  19. International Commission on Radiation Units & Measurements (ICRU) (2001) Quantities, units and terms in radioecology (Report 65). J ICRU vol 1, No. 2Google Scholar
  20. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2003) A framework for assessing the impact of ionising radiation on non-human species—ICRP publication 91. Valentin J (ed) Annals of the ICRP, vol 33, No. 3Google Scholar
  21. Jeffree RA, Oberhansli F, Teyssie J-L (2010) Phylogenetic consistencies among chondrichthyan and teleost fishes in their bioaccumulation of multiple trance elements from seawater. Sci Tot Environ. Available online doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.04.015
  22. Linsalata P, Morse R, Ford H, Eisenbud M, Franca EP, de Castro MB, Lobao N, Sachett I, Carlos M (1989) Transport pathways of Th, U, Ra and La from soil to cattle tissues. J Environ Radioact 10:115–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linsalata P, Morse R, Ford H, Eisenbud M (1991) Th, U, Ra and rare earth element distributions in farm animal tissues from an elevated natural radiation background environment. J Environ Radioact 14:233–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowson RT , Williams AR (1985) A baseline radioecological survey, Manyingee uranium prospect, Western Australia; AAEC/C47, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment, Lucas Heights Research LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin P, Hancock GJ, Johnston A, Murray AS (1998) Natural-series radionuclides in traditional North Australian aboriginal foods. J Environ Radioact 40(1):37–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Read J, Pickering R (1999) Ecological and toxicological effects of exposure to an acid, radioactive tailings storage. Environ Monit Assess 54:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith-Briggs JL (1984) Measurements of natural radioactivity in cattle liver, soil and grass. Proceedings of the 4th symposium on the determination of radionuclides in environmental and biological materialsGoogle Scholar
  28. Tyndale-Boscoe CH (2001) Australian marsupials—to cherish and to hold. Reprod Fertil Dev 13:477–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. USDOE (2002) RESRAD-BIOTA: a tool for implementing a graded approach to biota dose evaluation-ISCORS technical report 2004-02; DOE/EH-0676. United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Vandenhove H, Olyslaegers G, Sanzharova N, Shubina O, Reed E, Shang Z, Velasco H (2009) Proposal for new best estimates of the soil-to-plant transfer. J Environ Radioact 100:721–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whicker FW, Shultz V (1982) Radioecology: nuclear energy and the environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Willey NJ (2010) Phylogeny can be used to make useful predictions of soil-plant transfer factors for radionuclides. Radiat Environ Biophys (this issue) doi:10.1007/s00411-010-0320-2
  33. Williams AR (1978) The distribution of some naturally occurring elements in the environment of the Yeelirrie Uranium Deposit, Western Australia; Three baseline studies in the environment of the uranium deposit at Yeelirrie; AAEC/E447. Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment, Lucas HeightsGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams AR (1980) Some background radiological data for the proposed Honeymoon Uranium Development, South Australia; AAEC/C3. Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment, Lucas HeightsGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams AR (1981) Background radiological data for the proposed Beverly Uranium Development, South Australia; AAEC/C22. Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment, Lucas HeightsGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood MD, Leah RT, Jones SR, Copplestone D (2009) Radionuclide transfer to invertebrates and small mammals in a coastal sand dune ecosystem. Sci Tot Environ 407:4062–4074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood MD, Beresford NA, Semenov DV, Yankovich TL, Copplestone D (2010) Radionuclide transfer to reptiles. Radiat Environ Biophys (this issue) doi:10.1007/s00411-010-0321-1

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology OrganisationKirrawee DCAustralia

Personalised recommendations