| Title |
Radioactive cesium accumulation in freshwater fishes after the Fukushima nuclear accident
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-3-479 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takaomi Arai |
| Abstract |
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (F1NPP) accident released large amounts of radioactive substances into the environment and contaminated the terrestrial and marine ecosystems in East Japan. The unpredicted nuclear accident is of global concern for human health and ecosystems. Investigations of radionuclides in the local environments were performed shortly after the accident began; however the temporal and spatial effects and variations in the released radionuclides on the natural environment remain unclear. In the present study, three-year (May 2011 to March 2014) fluctuations and accumulations of total Cs, (134)Cs and (137)Cs in freshwater fishes in Fukushima prefecture after the F1NPP accident were examined. The total Cs, (134)Cs and (137)Cs concentrations decreased gradually during the three-year period that followed the F1NPP accident. However higher levels, i.e., exceeding 100 Bq kg(-1), which is the interim limit of radiocesium level in Japan, were detected in several fish species. Radiocesium accumulation patterns in fishes in Fukushima prefecture varied between regions and corresponded to the environmental radiocesium levels in the Fukushima region. These radionuclides are widely distributed and remain in the natural environment. Moreover, a fresh input of radiocesium substances from the F1NPP site into the terrestrial environment remains. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 24% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,090,515
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#363
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,105
of 236,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#17
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.