Radionuclide Concentrations in Benthic Invertebrates from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Aleutian Chain, Alaska

Abstract

Concentrations of 13 radionuclides (137Cs, 129I, 60Co, 152Eu, 90Sr, 99Tc, 241Am, 238Pu, 239,249Pu, 234U, 235U, 236U, 238U) were examined in seven species of invertebrates from Amchitka and Kiska Islands, in the Aleutian Chain of Alaska, using gamma spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy, and alpha spectroscopy. Amchitka Island was the site of three underground nuclear test (1965-1971), and we tested the null hypotheses that there were no differences in radionuclide concentrations between Amchitka and the reference site (Kiska) and there were no differences among species. The only radionuclides where composite samples were above the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) were 137Cs, 241Am, 239,249Pu, 234U, 235U, 236U, and 238U. Green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus polyacanthus), giant chiton (Cryptochiton stelleri), plate limpets (Tectura scutum) and giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) were only tested for 137Cs; octopus was the only species with detectable levels of 137Cs (0.262 +/- 0.029 Bq/kg, wet weight). Only rock jingle (Pododesmus macroschisma), blue mussel (Mytilus trossulus) and horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus) were analyzed for the actinides. There were no interspecific differences in 241Am and 239,240Pu, and almost no samples above the MDA for 238Pu and 236U. Horse mussels had significantly higher concentrations of 234U (0.844 +/- 0.804 Bq/kg) and 238U (0.730 +/- 0.646) than the other species (both isotopes are naturally occurring). There were no differences in actinide concentrations between Amchitka and Kiska. In general, radionuclides in invertebrates from Amchitka were similar to those from uncontaminated sites in the Northern Hemisphere, and below those from the contaminated Irish Sea. There is a clear research need for authors to report the concentrations of radionuclides by species, rather than simply as 'shellfish', for comparative purposes in determining geographical patterns, understanding possible effects, and for estimating risk to humans from consuming different biota.

Characterization of 241Am and 134Cs bioaccumulation in the king scallop Pecten maximus: investigation via three exposure pathways

“…The use of marine organisms for monitoring radionuclide contamination is well established (Valette-Silver and Lauenstein, 1995;Burger et al, 2007;Thébault et al, 2008). In order to understand field measurements, the characterization of bioaccumulation parameters and/or investigations on the relative importance of the different exposure pathways has been carried out for several radionuclides Wang et al, 2000;Baines et al, 2005;Borretzen and Salbu, 2009).…”

Echinoderms

“…A sixth species, the echinoid Sphaerechinus granularis, contained 0.13 mg Riley and Segar, 1970;2, Leatherland and Burton, 1974;3, De Clerck et al, 1979;4, Eustace, 1974;5, Stenner and Nickless, 1974;6, Thompson and Paton, 1978;7, Bohn, 1979;8, Vattuone et al, 1976;9, Denton et al, 2006;10, Deudero et al, 2007. Cs/kg DW whole animal (Papadopoulu et al, 1976). Radiocesium-137 levels were below the minimum detection limit in the green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus polyacanthus, collected from the Aleutian Islands in summer 2004: the site of nuclear tests between 1965 and 1971 (Burger et al, 2007b).…”

Regulatory requirements and tools for environmental assessment of hazardous wastes: Understanding tribal and stakeholder concerns using Department of Energy sites

“…The dispute was resolved by bringing in an outside consortium of scientists (Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation [CRESP]) to design a Science Plan to develop the missing data to determine whether the food chain was safe (CRESP, 2003; Burger et al, 2005), and to conduct a research expedition to collect biota for radionuclide analysis (Powers et al, 2004). The results of the scientific studies indicated that the subsistence foods and commercial fish were free of radionuclides from the nuclear test, but could provide no assurance that the foods would continue to be safe (Burger et al, 2007e,f,g). The data were used to develop a biomonitoring plan that included subsistence foods and commercial fish (Burger, 2007a,b,c; Burger et al, 2007c) that was incorporated into the DOE long-term stewardship plan for Amchitka (DOE, 2008b).…”