<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-16-13149-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>Long-term assessment of airborne radiocesium after the Fukushima nuclear
accident: re-suspension from bare soil and forest ecosystems</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Long-term assessment of re-suspended airborne radiocesium}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. Kajino et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Kajino</surname><given-names>Mizuo</given-names></name>
          <email>kajino@mri-jma.go.jp</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3988-0565</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Ishizuka</surname><given-names>Masahide</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9296-4103</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Igarashi</surname><given-names>Yasuhito</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Kita</surname><given-names>Kazuyuki</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7898-1932</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Yoshikawa</surname><given-names>Chisato</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Inatsu</surname><given-names>Masaru</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Meteorological Research Institute (MRI), Japan
Meteorological Agency (JMA), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science (AICS),
Kobe, Hyogo, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Faculty of Engineering, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Faculty of Science, Ibaraki University, Mito, Ibaraki, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
(JAMSTEC), Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido,
Japan</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Mizuo Kajino (kajino@mri-jma.go.jp)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>October</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>16</volume>
      <issue>20</issue>
      <fpage>13149</fpage><lpage>13172</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>29</day><month>March</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>April</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day><month>July</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>19</day><month>September</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>The long-term effect of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension from contaminated soil and
forests due to the Fukushima nuclear accident has been quantitatively
assessed by numerical simulation, a field experiment on dust emission flux
in a contaminated area (town of Namie, Fukushima prefecture), and air
concentration measurements inside (Namie) and outside (city of Tsukuba, Ibaraki
prefecture) the contaminated area. In order to assess the long-term effect,
the full year of 2013 was selected to study just after the start of the
field experiments. The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations at Namie and Tsukuba were
approximately 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–1 and 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively. The observed monthly median concentration at Namie was 1 to
2 orders of magnitude larger than that at Tsukuba. This observed
difference between the two sites was consistent with the simulated
difference, indicating successful modeling of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension and
atmospheric transport. The estimated re-suspension rate was approximately
10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was significantly lower than the decreasing rate of the
ambient gamma dose rate in Fukushima prefecture (10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
as a result of radioactive decay, migration in the soil and biota, and
decontamination. Consequently, re-suspension contributed negligibly in
reducing ground radioactivity. The dust emission model could reproduce the
air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs in winter, whereas the summer air
concentration was underestimated by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.
Re-suspension from forests at a constant rate of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, multiplied by
the green area fraction, could explain the air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
at Namie and its seasonal variation. The simulated contribution of dust
re-suspension to the air concentration was 0.7–0.9 in the cold season and
0.2–0.4 in the warm season at both sites; the remainder of the
contribution was re-suspension from forest. The re-suspension mechanisms,
especially through the forest ecosystems, remain unknown. This is the first
study that provides a crude estimation of the long-term assessment of
radiocesium re-suspension. Additional research activities should investigate
the processes/mechanisms governing the re-suspension over the long term.
This could be achieved through conducting additional field experiments and
numerical simulations.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accidentally released
nuclear fission products into the atmosphere and the ocean environment
following the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that occurred in March
2011. The accident caused serious contamination of the soil over the Tohoku
region (northeastern part of Japan, including Fukushima and Miyagi
prefectures) and the Kanto region (eastern part of Japan, including Ibaraki,
Tochigi, Gunma, and Chiba prefectures; NRA, 2012). Since then, a number of
studies have been conducted, particularly during the months that followed
the accident. These assessments include primary emission estimations (Chino
et al., 2011; Danielache et al., 2012; Stohl et al., 2012; Terada et al.,
2012; Katata et al., 2012a, b, 2015; Winiarek et al., 2012, 2014; Hirao et
al., 2013; Saunier et al., 2013;  Yumimoto et al., 2016;
Danielache et al., 2016), field observations (ground aerosol sampling:
Masson et al., 2011, 2013; Kaneyasu et al., 2012; Adachi et al., 2013;
Tsuruta et al., 2014; Igarashi et al., 2015; Oura et al., 2015; aircraft
measurements: NRA, 2012; and measurements carried out on foot: Hososhima and Kaneyasu,
2015), and numerical simulations of transport and depositions (deterministic
simulation: Chino et al., 2011; Morino et al., 2011; Yasunari et al., 2011;
Stohl et al., 2012; Terada et al., 2012; Katata et al., 2012a, b;
Winiarek et al., 2012, 2014; Hirao et al., 2013; Saunier et al., 2013;
Katata et al., 2015; Yumimoto et al., 2016; Danielache et al., 2016;
deterministic simulation with sensitivity runs: Morino et al., 2013; Adachi
et al., 2013; Groëll et al., 2014; Saito et al., 2015; Sekiyama et al.,
2015; Quérel et al., 2015; uncertainty modeling and probabilistic
forecast: Girard et al., 2016; Sekiyama et al., 2016; and multi-model
intercomparison and multi-model ensemble analysis: SCJ, 2014; Draxler et
al., 2015; Kristiansen et al., 2016). The targeted radionuclides were
species with both short and long half-lives: <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>99</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Mo–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>99m</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Tc (half-life
65.9–6 h), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>129m</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Te (33.6 days), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>131</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>I (8.02 days), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>132</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Te–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>132</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>I (3.2 days–2.3 h), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (2.07 years), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>136</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (13.2 days), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (30.1 years), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>133</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Xe (5.2 days), and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>35</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>S (87.5 days).</p>
      <p>In contrast, there have been few studies on the long-term (more than 1 year) quantitative assessment of radioactivity in the atmosphere associated
with the Fukushima accident (Igarashi et al., 2015; Ishizuka et al., 2016;
Kinase et al., 2016). More than 100 000 people were evacuated (METI, 2012),
and most have still not been able to return to their homes and the public
remains anxious about the safety of the affected areas. Radionuclides with
long half-lives such as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (2.07 years) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (30.1 years) are of
particular concern (Evangeliou et al., 2014). Following the Chernobyl
accident there were several studies on the re-suspension and long-term
assessment of these radionuclides, such as Holländer and Garger (1996),
Garger et al. (1998), Hatano and Hatano (2003), and Garger et al. (2012). For
example, Garger et al. (2012) estimated the re-suspension “descending
trend” as having a half-life of 300 days based on the surface activity
concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs. In the case of the Fukushima accident, Igarashi
et al. (2015) estimated the half-reduction time by fitting multi-component
exponential functions based on the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration at the
Meteorological Research Institute (Tsukuba) as 5.9 days, 16 days, and 1.1 years. These
estimates were based on the trend in the observed surface air concentrations
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs, and thus the contributions from advection, diffusion,
emission, and deposition terms were not quantified.</p>
      <p>There are thousands of monitoring posts situated in the contaminated area in
Fukushima prefecture to measure the ambient gamma dose rate. However, the
data cannot be used for evaluating internal exposure: evaluation of internal
exposure requires direct measurement of the surface air activity
concentration. There are only a few observation sites that continuously
measure the concentration of radiocesium (e.g., Igarashi et al., 2015;
Ishizuka et al., 2016; Kinase et al., 2016). To assess the spatial
distribution of the internal exposure hazard, 3-D numerical simulation is
necessary to interpolate values for unmonitored locations. The numerical
simulation requires emission flux as a boundary condition. However, the
mechanism and thus the radioactivity flux associated with the re-suspension
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs were unknown, despite extensive efforts based on field
observations (e.g., Igarashi et al., 2015; Ishizuka et al., 2016; Kinase et
al., 2016).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> The model domain showing the model terrestrial elevation,
observation sites, and other locations described in the study. The linear
distances from FDNPP to Namie (Tsushima district, town of Namie), Tsukuba and
Tokyo are approximately 30, 170, and 220 km, respectively. The numbers
denote prefectures: 1, Miyagi; 2, Fukushima; 3, Ibaraki; 4, Tochigi; 5,
Gunma; 6, Saitama; 7, Chiba; and 8, Tokyo. <bold>(b)</bold> Fukushima prefecture and
(colored circles) the locations (village, town, or city name) of monitoring
posts used in this study (see Fig. 14). The red letters in both <bold>(a)</bold> and
<bold>(b)</bold> denote the name of the area based on geographical features: A, Nakadori
valley; B, Abukuma highland; and C, Hamadori coastal area.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>Garger et al. (2012) summarized the re-suspension sources following the
Chernobyl accident as (1) dust emission, (2) human activity in fields as well
as on roads and construction sites, (3) forest fires, and (4) emissions from
the power plant (i.e., opening of the Chernobyl sarcophagus). Re-suspension
sources (1) (Ishizuka et al., 2016) and (4), i.e., additional
emissions from the reactor buildings of FDNPP (TEPCO, 2012, 2013, 2014a, b, 2015), were considered in the present study. With respect to source (2),
since the town of Namie is located in the evacuation zone, human activity has
been extremely limited except for decontamination-related work. Although the
decontamination-related work could be a potential source of re-suspension,
it is not considered in the current simulation as the re-suspension flux has
been hardly quantified. As to source (3), there is a low risk of forest
fires in Japan given the high humidity, although some open biomass burning
remains possible. Kinase et al. (2016) found no increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
activities when the concentration of levoglucosan, a marker of biomass
burning, was increased, and thus re-suspension due to biomass burning was
not considered in the present study. In addition to the four sources of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs from the Chernobyl accident, re-suspension from terrestrial biota
was considered as suggested by Kinase et al. (2016). They found substantial
amounts of bioaerosols upon scanning electron microscopy samples collected
in the summer, when <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration was high.</p>
      <p>In the present study, the long-term effect of radiocesium re-suspension from
contaminated soil and terrestrial biota was quantitatively assessed using 3-D
numerical simulation, a field experiment on dust emission flux in a
contaminated area (Namie, Fukushima prefecture), and air concentration
measurements conducted inside (Namie) and outside (city of Tsukuba, Ibaraki
prefecture) the contaminated area. Even though the re-suspension mechanisms
still remain unknown, by utilizing the observational data both inside and
outside, together with the transport model, we aimed to provide as robust an
analysis as possible of the re-suspension, transport, and re-deposition of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs over the Tohoku and Kanto regions of Japan.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Numerical simulation</title>
      <p>A brief description of the numerical method, such as the processes
considered in the model and simulation settings, is presented in this
section, and detailed model formulations are described in Appendix A.
Because the schemes and assumptions regarding the emissions are key to the
current study, they are described in detail in the following subsections.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Lagrangian model and simulation settings</title>
      <p>Figure 1 shows the domain of the Lagrangian model (LM) with model
terrestrial elevations, covering 138–143<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and 34–39<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N. The model domain covers the southern part of the Tohoku
region (the northern mountainous part of the domain, including Yamagata,
Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures), and includes the FDNPP and highly
polluted areas such as the habitation-restricted zone (HRZ; 20–50 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and difficult-to-return zone (DRZ; &gt; 50 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; METI, 2012). It
also covers the Kanto region (or Kanto Plain, the largest plain in Japan,
approximately 120 km <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 120 km), a highly populated region that
includes low to moderately polluted areas such as Tokyo, Gunma, Tochigi,
Ibaraki, Saitama, and Chiba prefectures.</p>
      <p>The LM considers horizontal and vertical diffusion and advection, gravitational
settling, dry and wet depositions, and radioactive decay. It uses simple
parameterizations for dry and wet deposition schemes, and it can be driven
by meteorological analysis datasets so that it does not require a
meteorological model to predict detailed meteorological fields and
variables. The model was designed to be easily handled and computationally
efficient so that non-specialists of numerical simulations can conduct
long-term assessments of atmospheric diffusion problems using their desktop
or laptop computers. The LM was designed for rough budget estimates, as
presented in the current study, or for sensitivity analyses using a large
number of parameters (e.g., Groëll et al., 2014; Quérel et al.,
2015; Girard et al., 2016), rather than for process-oriented analysis (e.g.,
Morino et al., 2013; Katata et al., 2015) or sensitivity analyses of the
physical and chemical parameters of aerosols (Adachi et al., 2013). Details
of each process and parameter are described in Appendix A. Statistical error
of a Lagrangian simulation is inversely proportional to the square of the
number of Lagrangian particles (LPs). The statistical accuracy of the
current simulation setting is discussed in Appendix B.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The observation sites and monitoring posts used to provide data for
this study.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Location</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Description</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Observation sites</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Namie (Tsushima)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.7683<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.5621<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Namie High School, Tsushima Campus<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tsukuba</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.1254<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 36.0551<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Meteorological Research Institute</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Monitoring posts</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Okuma</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.9969<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.4163<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Ottozawa 3 Community Center<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Namie (Omaru)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.9296<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.4665<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Omaru Multipurpose Community Center<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Iitate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.7385<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.6772<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Iitate Junior High School<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Kawamata</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.6979<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.5836<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Yamakiya Otsu 8 Community Firehouse<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fukushima</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.4765<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.6870<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fukushima-Minami Fire Department</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Shirakawa</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">140.1904<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 37.1241<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Takayama-Kita Park</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Original location (now moved to city of Nihonmatsu).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Ottozawa San-ku Chiku Shukaijo (in Japanese).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Omaru Tamokuteki Shukaijo (in Japanese).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Original location (now moved to city of Fukushima).
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Yamakiya Otsu Hachi-ku Community Shoubou Center (in Japanese).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>The Grid Point Value-Mesoscale Model (GPV-MSM) of the Japan Meteorological
Agency (JMA) was used for meteorological analysis to calculate the transport
of LPs. It covers 120–150<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and 23–47<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and
provides 3-hourly and 16 pressure levels of 3-D meteorological variables,
from 1000  to 100 hPa, with a horizontal grid resolution of approximately
11 km (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.125<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 
0.1<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and surface variables at twice the resolution of that for
the 3-D variables (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0625<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). In the simulation, the whole model domain
where LPs can travel is 138–143<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 34–39<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and
from ground surface to 500 hPa. For output of the model results, LP fields
are converted to Eulerian concentration (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and deposition
(Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fields in the same horizontal space as the 3-D variables but are
vertically allocated from the ground surface to an altitude of 1 km at 100 m
intervals. The observed surface air concentration was compared with the
simulated mean concentration at 0–100 m above ground level (AGL).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The areal fractions of <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(c)</bold> soil texture and <bold>(d)</bold>–<bold>(f)</bold> land use
category used for the boundary conditions of the simulation.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Re-suspension from bare soil</title>
      <p>Ishizuka et al. (2016) developed a re-suspension scheme for radiocesium from
bare soil based on measurements on the schoolyard at Namie High School,
Tsushima Campus (denoted as Namie (Tsushima) in Table 1 and Fig. 1), in the
DRZ.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>20</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>M</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs dust re-suspension flux
from soil (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>20</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface area
fraction of dust smaller than 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in diameter against soil containing
a maximum size of 2 mm particles and varies depending on soil texture
(1.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for sand, 0.19 for loamy sand, 0.45 for sandy loam,
and 0.80 for silt loam), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>M</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total dust mass flux
(kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the forest area fraction, and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>5 mm</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the specific radioactivity of surface soil
(from the surface to a depth of 5 mm; Bq kg<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) as a function of time since
March 2011. The formula is based on the assumption that dust particles
smaller than 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in diameter originating from the surface soil and to
a depth of 5 mm were suspended and transported through the atmosphere. The
surface area fraction was used for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn>20</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> based on the
assumption that radiocesium is bound to the surface of soil particles
(Evrard et al., 2015). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>M</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is formulated as being proportional
to the cube of the friction velocity <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) as described
by Loosmore and Hunt (2002) and was applied to the dust emission:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>M</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>3.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Since <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is not available in GPV-MSM,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was estimated using a wind speed at 10 m AGL by
assuming neutral stratification conditions.</p>
      <p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>5 mm</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) was derived from the combination of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the observed horizontal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
deposition obtained from an airborne radiological survey (NRA, 2012; Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>5 mm</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the surface soil activity ratio of 0–5 mm to 0–5 cm obtained from a vertical profile measurement of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
in the ground soil at Namie High School (i.e., 0.57 Bq Bq<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>5 mm</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>decay</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>b, soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>b, soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the bulk density of soil particles per
unit volume in the ground space (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> obtained from the porosity (0.4 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the density of dust particles (2650 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>decay</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the decreasing ratio of activity in the
ground to its initial state (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>decay</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1), only radioactive decay was considered for the re-suspension
calculation. The decreasing rate due to other processes such as land surface
processes (e.g., runoff, erosion, percolation and all the processes
resulting in migration of radiocesium in the soil and biota; Evrard et al.,
2015; Matsuda et al., 2015) and decontamination were not considered here.
Furthermore, suppression of dust emission due to soil moisture and snow
cover was not considered. Therefore, it should be noted here that
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (1) is considered as the upper boundary of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension flux from surface soil. Effects such as land
surface processes, decontamination, and dust emission suppression due to
snow cover are extensively discussed in Sect. 5.3 using ambient gamma dose
rate measurements obtained by the monitoring posts in Fukushima prefecture.</p>
      <p>Equation (1) is a function of soil texture. The areal fraction of soil texture of
the model grid was obtained from the database of the advanced research
Weather Research and Forecasting model version 3 (WRFV3; Skamarock et al.,
2008). Sixteen categories of soil texture (Miller and White, 1998) with a 30 arcsec resolution dataset can be obtained from the web after
subscription at <uri>http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/download/get_sources_wps_geog.html</uri> and were re-categorized into the above-mentioned four categories
(i.e., sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, and silt loam) and interpolated to the
LM resolution (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11 km) as shown in Fig. 2a–c. Note that the
loamy sand fraction is not presented because it is zero for the entire
domain. The parameter <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 2d) was also obtained from
the database of WRFV3 and was calculated based on the 24 United States
Geological Survey (USGS) land use categories, which are constant over time.
The land use category dataset can also be obtained from the above website.</p>
      <p>Ishizuka et al. (2016) validated their dust emission module by using a 1-D
model and observed the surface air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs at Namie in
the winter. After applying the module to our 3-D simulation, we found that
the air concentration at Namie was underestimated by about factor of 5
for the same period. The module was formulated based on physical parameters
(such as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but contains parameters obtained at a single
location (such as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>5 mm</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>b, soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
under a fixed atmospheric condition (Ishizuka et al., 2016), whereas ideally
parameters in Eqs. (1)–(3) should have considered variations among
locations and atmospheric conditions for the 3-D simulation. We simply
multiplied the dust emission flux by 5 after adjusting the simulation
results against the observed concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs at Namie in the
winter. This is one of the simplest top-down approaches for adjusting the
emission flux according to the air concentration. The module requires
improvement in the future as more reliable parameters become available for
various conditions and locations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Re-suspension from the forest ecosystems</title>
      <p>The re-suspension mechanism of radiocesium from land ecosystems remains
unknown. Kinase et al. (2016) found substantial amounts of bioaerosols
(rather than mineral dust particles) in samples collected for scanning
electron microscopy in the summer, when the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration was
high. This does not prove that the bioaerosol was carrying radiocesium but
that it could be a potential carrier. The behavior of Cs in the environment
can be inferred by analogy with K, a congener of Cs. Potassium is a
necessary and abundant element in plants and circulates between land
ecosystems. The addition of potassium fertilizer to a rice field in
Fukushima significantly reduced the Cs content of the rice (Ohmori et al.,
2014). Substantial amounts of K-salt-rich particles, possibly emitted by
active biota such as plants and fungi, and coated with secondary organic
aerosols, were observed in pristine Amazonian rainforest (Pöhlker et
al., 2012). The major areal fraction of the contaminated area in Fukushima
is covered by biota-rich mountain forests. Despite the differences in plant
species and locations, it is plausible that water-soluble radiocesium
circulating in the biota and soil in the forests was somehow re-emitted into
the atmosphere and contributed to the surface air concentration. The
re-suspension from the forest ecosystem was simply formulated as follows:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>green</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>const</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>decay</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension flux from
forest (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>); <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the forest area
fraction; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>green</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the monthly green area fraction;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>const</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the constant re-suspension coefficient (s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>);
and, as in Eq. (3), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>decay</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the
observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs deposition (NRA, 2012; Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the decreasing
ratio of activity in the ground, respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>const</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a
tunable parameter to adjust the simulated air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs to
that observed. In the current study, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>const</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is set to
10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> by adjusting the simulation data using the observed
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration at Namie in the summer, when the re-suspension from
soil was negligible due to the higher soil moisture content (following
considerable rain) and lower wind speed. As with re-suspension from bare
soil, only radioactive decay was considered for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>decay</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the
other processes were not considered. The parameter <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>green</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
obtained from the database of WRFV3 and was originally derived from
satellite Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) normalized
difference vegetation index (NDVI) data (Gutman and Ignatov, 1998). Whereas
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>forest</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remains constant, the monthly averaged
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>green</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was used in order to reflect seasonal changes in the
activity of the biota.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Emission from FDNPP (primary emission, additional emissions from the reactor
buildings, and unexpected re-suspension associated with debris removal
operations)</title>
      <p>The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)'s latest estimate of the primary emission from FDNPP, Katata et al. (2015), was applied for the emergency
situation of March 2011 to evaluate the performance of the LM model against
the horizontal distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs deposition of the airborne
radiological survey (NRA, 2012; as shown later in Fig. 4a) and surface air
concentrations measured at Tsukuba (Fig. 1a). We selected this inventory
because it is JAEA's most up-to-date version. Based on an integrated
understanding of environmental radioactivity, atmospheric dispersion, and
the nuclear reactors, the JAEA team has carefully established a series of
inventories for about 5 years, starting with Chino et al. (2011), followed
by Katata et al. (2012a, b) and  Terada et al. (2012), and finally the
current inventory (Katata et al., 2015), which is substantially improved
compared to the previous versions.</p>
      <p>Ongoing emissions during the study analysis period after the emergency
situation, i.e., January to December 2013, were obtained from the Tokyo
Electric Power Co. Inc. (TEPCO) monthly mean emission flux from the reactor
buildings (TEPCO, 2012, 2013, 2014a, b, 2015). Because only the sum of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs was provided, the fractions of these two isotopes
were calculated based on their half-lives and the assumption that their
activities were equal in March 2011 (e.g., Katata et al., 2015), as shown in
Fig. 3. The values range from 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; however, for
simplicity we set a constant value of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the current
simulation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Monthly mean emission flux of radiocesium released from
the reactor buildings of FDNPP from October 2011 to August 2015 as estimated
by TEPCO (TEPCO, 2012–2015).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In August 2013, unexpected re-suspension associated with debris removal
operations was reported by TEPCO (2014c) and NRA (2014) and the gross amount
was 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (TEPCO, 2014c; NRA, 2014;
Steinhauser et al., 2015). The impact of this unexpected re-suspension is
briefly discussed in Sect. 5.2 along with an additional finding, but this
emission was not considered in the present LM simulation. In this study we
focused on the ongoing and continuous emission, mostly from the natural
environment, that is difficult to control.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Field observations</title>
      <p>Details of the surface air activity concentration measurement techniques can
be found in Ishizuka et al. (2016) and Kinase et al. (2016) for Namie and
Igarashi et al. (2015) for Tsukuba. At the both sites, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs surface air concentrations were measured. The sampling intervals
were 1–2 days at Namie and 1 week at Tsukuba for the analysis period of this
study, the year 2013. The observations at Namie started on 14 December
2012, while those at Tsukuba started on 31 March  2003, before the FDNPP
accident. In March 2011, the sampling interval was increased at Tsukuba to 6 h–1 day and the data for these periods were used for the validation of LM
and its parameters, as presented in Sect. 4.1.</p>
      <p>The Namie site is located on the schoolyard of Namie High School, Tsushima
Campus, in the Tsushima district of Namie in Fukushima prefecture, as
shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The town of Namie extends from the Hamadori coastal
area (denoted as C in Fig. 1) to the Abukuma highland area (B in Fig. 1).
There are two sites in Namie used in the study. In order to distinguish
the Tsushima Campus site in the highland area from the monitoring post site
located in Omaru district in Namie in the coastal area, the Tsushima
site is referred to as Namie (sometimes as Namie (Tsushima)) and the Omaru
site is referred to as Omaru (sometimes as Namie (Omaru)) throughout the
manuscript. The Tsukuba site is located on the premises of the
Meteorological Research Institute (Table 1 and Fig. 1a).</p>
      <p>Namie (Tsushima) was located in the DRZ (&gt; 50 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)<fn id="Ch1.Footn1"><p>Calculated by the following
equation: Annual radiation exposure <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (ambient dose rate – background
dose rate (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (8 h <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 16 h) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 365 days.</p></fn> and the
observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs deposition amount was 2300 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (NRA, 2012). The ambient gamma dose rate was 11.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on
1 April  2012 at the site and had dropped to 4.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on 16 February 2016
and at the HRZ level (20–50 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, 3.85–9.55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Tsukuba is
located approximately 170 km southwest of FDNPP. The observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
deposition amount was 21 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (NRA, 2012), 2 orders of magnitude
lower than at Namie, and the dose rate has remained below 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
since 2012.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs budget and statistical analysis for the comparison of
observed and simulated deposition data for March 2011.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>all</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>land</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">FB<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>e</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>f</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">FA2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">FA5<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>h</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(PBq)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(PBq)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensitivity test</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Range</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.02–0.06</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.05–0.15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.4–4.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.0–2.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.25–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.73–0.78</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.25–0.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.63–0.77</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.00050</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Optimization used for the</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">re-suspension analysis for 2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.062</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.28</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.74</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Optimized range</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.03–0.05</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.05–0.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3.7–4.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.2–2.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.18 to</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.74–0.77</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.26–0.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.68–0.74</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.036</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference values</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Observed deposition over land</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.68 PBq</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (NRA, 2012)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Emission amount</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">14.1 PBq</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(Katata et al., 2015)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Collection efficiency; see Eq. (A1) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Dry deposition
velocity over land; see Eq. (A3). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Simulated deposited amount over
the whole model domain. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Simulated deposited amount only over land.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>e</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Fractional bias between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>land</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>f</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Correlation coefficient between each grid cell of the observed and
simulated deposition (linear vs. linear). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Fraction of simulated
values within a factor of 2 of the observed values. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>h</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Fraction of
simulated values within a factor of 5 of the observed values. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>f,  g, h</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Compared only at grids where the observed values are greater than
10 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Aircraft observation and <bold>(b, c)</bold> simulation of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
deposition depicted <bold>(b)</bold> only over land and <bold>(c)</bold> for the whole domain
(kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The observation was interpolated to the model grid (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.125<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).
A decay correction for the observation was made for March–May 2012, varying
depending on the region. The simulation provided a cumulative value from
12 March  to 1 April  2011. The total activities are presented as numbers.
The color scales are the same for <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(c)</bold> but observed values are not
depicted below the detection limit, 10 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The deposition
parameters of the simulation in the figure are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p>Scatterplot between the observational data and the simulation
results for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs deposition (kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The deposition parameters
of the simulation in the figure are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates the number of samples,
and the statistical measures <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, FA2, and FA5 are
described in Table 2.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p>Section 4.1 presents a validation of the LM model and the optimization of
the model deposition parameters by using airborne observations (NRA, 2012)
and the emission inventory of Katata et al. (2015) for the emergency
situation of March 2011. Using the optimized ranges of model parameters
validated in Sect. 4.1, the simulated re-suspension of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs from soil
and forest, as well as emission from FDNPP, is presented in Sect. 4.2, and the
budgets for re-suspension, transport, and re-deposition are presented in
Sect. 4.3.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Model and parameter validation for the emergency situation (March
2011)</title>
      <p>Figures 4 and 5 show the observed and simulated distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
deposition in March 2011, and the scatterplot comparing the observational
and simulation results. In the simulation shown in the figures, the
“reference” sets used for dry and wet deposition parameters, namely the
collection efficiency of aerosols using hydrometeors <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. A1) and the dry deposition velocity over land <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. A3),
were 0.04 and 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p>
      <p>Since LM uses simple parameterizations for dry and wet deposition, as
described in Appendix A, sensitivity tests were conducted for model
validation, together with optimization of the deposition parameters. Table 2
summarizes the ranges of the deposition parameters for the sensitivity tests
and the results of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs budget and statistical measurements
between the observations and the simulation.</p>
      <p>The parameter <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was 0.05 for the JMA dispersion model (JMA,
1998) but the targeted species are different. For example, volcanic ash
(particles larger than 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in diameter) used for the JMA model was
generally larger than the aerosols carrying <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (around 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in
diameter observed in the downwind area, Tsukuba; Kaneyasu et al., 2012;
Adachi et al., 2013). Since the inertia of these smaller <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
particles is likely to be smaller than that for volcanic ash,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could be smaller. The range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
was set as 0.02–0.06. The dry deposition velocity <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
selected as 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs in Furuno et al. (1999). The range for
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was set as 0.05 to 0.15 in the present study.</p>
      <p>The emission inventory of Katata et al. (2015) amounted to 14.1 PBq from
12 March  to 1 April  2013. The simulated deposition over the model domain
(138–143<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 34–39<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) ranged from 3.4 to 4.7 PBq, which is approximately 24–33 % of the emission from the FDNPP.
Sixty percent of the total deposition occurred over land, for a total of 2.0–2.8 PBq, which is close to the observed value of 2.68 PBq, and the
observed value is within the range of the sensitivity runs. Statistical
measures such as the fractional bias FB, the correlation
coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (linear vs. linear), and FA<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (fraction of
the simulated values within a factor of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) are listed in Table 2.
To find better combinations of (or to optimize) the dry and wet deposition
parameters, sensitivity runs were screened based on the criteria
FA10 &gt; 0.9, FA5 &gt; 0.7, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.75, and an absolute value of FB &lt; 10 %.
Only one combination (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.04, 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) satisfied the criteria, and thus this is referred to as the
“reference” parameters. To evaluate the sensitivity (or uncertainty) of
the re-suspension simulation for 2013 due to the deposition parameters, the
range of the combination of parameters was set as (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.03–0.05, 0.05–0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) around the reference
parameters (referred to as the “optimized range”) by excluding the
parameters with the worse performances. The ranges of the statistical
measures of the optimized runs are listed in Table 2. FB,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, FA2, FA5, and FA10 after the
optimization had the ranges <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.18 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.036, 0.74–0.77, 0.26–0.30,
0.68–0.74, and 0.91–0.92, respectively. These statistical measures
were comparable to those reported in previous multi-model comparison studies
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>: 0.27–0.85; FB: <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.84–0.56; and FA2:
0.14–0.57, in SCJ, 2014; Draxler et al., 2015). The current
model is thus shown to be sufficiently credible for the budget analysis in
this study, despite the simple parameterization and the low resolution in
space (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11 km) and time (3 h).</p>
      <p>In agreement with many previous studies, the simulated contribution of wet
deposition was larger than that of dry deposition: the ratio of the amount
of dry to wet deposition ranged from 0.12 to 0.23 for the optimized
parameter ranges, indicating that the results were less sensitive to the dry
deposition parameter. Generally speaking, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> became higher as
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> became lower, whereas FA<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> became
higher as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> became higher for the various
ranges of the sensitivity tests. Therefore, lower <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> did not
meet the criteria of FA<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> did not meet the criteria of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Consequently, after the
optimization, the maximum values of the statistical measures were lower but
the minimum values became higher, indicating that the optimization was
successful in excluding the parameters with the worse performances (rather
than selecting the best parameters). It should be noted here that the
optimized deposition parameters are not necessarily physically valid but
rather give simulation results consistent with the available observations.
The results presented in this section indicate that the current LM
simulation with these optimized parameters has the potential to reproduce
consistent features of the radiocesium budget over the Tohoku and Kanto
regions of Japan.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Statistical analysis for the comparison of observed and simulated
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs air concentration at Namie and Tsukuba for 2013.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Site</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Median, obs.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Median, sim.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">FA2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">FA5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">FA10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(–)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Namie</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">311</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.69</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.12</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.94</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tsukuba</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">74</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.022</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.024</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.95</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>Time series of the surface activity concentration of (black)
observed and (red) simulated <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations at Tsukuba from 12 March
to 1 April  2011 (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The red shaded areas indicate the range of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations obtained when the simulations were run using the
optimized parameter ranges <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03–0.05 and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05–0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure 6 shows the temporal variation in simulated (red) and observed
(black) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations at Tsukuba in March 2011. The model
reproduced the three major plumes arriving at Tsukuba on  15–16, 20–21,
and 28–30 March; a plume on 23 March was not observed but only appeared in the
simulation. The red shaded areas indicate the range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
concentrations obtained when the simulations were run using the optimized
parameter ranges <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03–0.05 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05–0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Due to differences in the parameters used, the surface air
concentration could vary by approximately 1 order of magnitude in
transported plumes that experienced wet scavenging along their pathway.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Re-suspension in 2013</title>
      <p>Figure 7 shows the observed and daily mean simulated (with the reference
parameters) surface air concentrations at Namie and Tsukuba for the year
2013. The red, green, and blue lines indicate re-suspension from soil,
re-suspension from forest, and emission from the FDNPP reactor buildings,
respectively. Scatterplots between the observed and the simulated total
concentrations are also shown in the figure and the statistical measures
between them are listed in Table 3. The correlation coefficients (linear vs.
linear) are low at the both sites, but the simulated and the observed
medians are close to each other and FA<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> shows high values at the
both sites. Consequently, the current simulation is credible enough for the
quantitative assessment of the annual radiocesium budget.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of the surface air concentration of (black) observed
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and (colors) simulated daily <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs levels on the left and
scatterplots between observed and simulated total (i.e., sum of colors)
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs at <bold>(a)</bold> Namie and <bold>(b)</bold> Tsukuba. The colored lines indicate
simulated <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations due to (red) re-suspension from soil
using the scheme given in Ishizuka et al. (2016) (five times), (green)
re-suspension from forest with a re-suspension rate of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
(blue) emission from the FDNPP reactor buildings with a constant emission
rate of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The deposition parameters of the simulation in the
figure are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>As discussed in Sect. 2.2, note that the re-suspension flux due to the dust
emission module (Ishizuka et al., 2016) is multiplied by 5 in this study
in order to adjust to the observation level at Namie in the cold season
(January to March, October to December). Also note that the re-suspension
coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>const</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (4) was set as 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in order to adjust to the observation level at Namie in the warm season (May
to September). The emission flux reported by TEPCO varied from 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to
10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during the study period but we set it to 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for
simplicity. We did not try to precisely adjust <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>const</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the
observation by, for example, using inverse modeling, and instead we simply
multiplied by power-of-10 values (except for dust emission, which is five),
which are constant in time and space because (1) this facilitated
straightforward interpretation of the simulation results by keeping the
simulated variation solely originating from the variation in boundary
conditions (i.e., emission and meteorology), and therefore (2) this provided
simple but useful clues for understanding the re-suspension mechanisms,
which remain unknown.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Annual total amounts of <bold>(a)</bold> the re-suspension and <bold>(b)</bold> the
re-deposition of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs. The total activities are presented as numbers.
Fractions of the re-suspension and the re-deposition to the observed
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs deposited amounts are also shown in <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold>, respectively.
The deposition parameters of the simulation in the figure are
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Using the dust emission module (which has a physical basis), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs flux
re-suspended from soil could account for the level of the observed surface
air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs at Namie in the cold season. Under the
influence of the northwesterly winter monsoon, the surface wind speed is
high over the contaminated area compared to the summer (as shown later in
Fig. 10). Note that the flux might be a maximum estimate since it does not
consider land surface processes (such as soil moisture, snow cover, or
migration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs in the soil and biota) and decontamination, which
could reduce the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension flux. In contrast, in the warm
season, the estimated flux significantly underestimated the observation by
1 to 2 orders of magnitude due to the weak surface wind, indicating that
the dust emission process may not be the sole process involved in sustaining
the air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs during this period. Introducing the
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension component from forest with a resuspension
coefficient of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a monthly variation in the green area
fraction (derived from NDVI) could quantitatively account for the observed
air concentration together with its seasonal variation at Namie. Even though
both the simulated re-suspension from soil and forests reproduced the
quantity and seasonal variation in the background concentration (in other
words, concentrations originating from continuously presenting emissions,
such as natural emissions, and not accidental ones) at Namie, sporadic peak
events, such as the daily mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration exceeding 10 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as observed in June and August at Namie, were not simulated.
Some specific re-suspension events might occur from the highly contaminated
areas such as the premises of FDNPP (e.g., debris removal operations) or very
close to FDNPP on these days, as indicated later in Sect. 5.2. The simulated
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations due to the monthly mean emission from the reactor
buildings (i.e., 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) significantly underestimated the observed
concentration by more than 3 orders of magnitude at Namie and by 2
orders of magnitude at Tsukuba. Even the maximum estimate of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
does not reach the observed level. The emission from FDNPP may not have been
the sole process sustaining the air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs in 2013,
supporting the discussion in Igarashi et al. (2015), which concluded that
direct emission from the FDNPP played a minor role in the observed
atmospheric radiocesium concentrations over Tsukuba during 2013–2014.</p>
      <p>The observed air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs at Tsukuba was about 1 to 2
orders of magnitude lower than that at Namie. The simulated difference
between the two sites inside and outside of the contaminated areas was
consistent with the observed difference. This finding indicates that the
current LM simulation provided consistent features of re-suspension,
transport, and re-deposition in the Tohoku and Kanto regions of Japan of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs originating from Fukushima.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of observed (black) and simulated (colors) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
surface air concentration at Namie (<bold>a</bold>, <bold>c</bold>) in winter from January to March
and (<bold>b</bold>, <bold>d</bold>) in summer from June to August 2013. The colors of the lines are
the same as in Fig. 7 but the time variation is hourly. The shaded areas
indicate the range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentrations obtained when the
simulations were run using the optimized parameter ranges <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03–0.05 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05–0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Budget analysis</title>
      <p>Figure 8 illustrates the simulated (with the reference parameters) annual
amounts of total re-suspension and re-deposition of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs, together
with their ratios to the observed deposition (Fig. 4a). The simulated areal
total re-suspended amount was 1.28 TBq, which was equivalent to 0.048 % of
the total deposited amount, 2.68 PBq. The areal total re-deposited amount
(with the reference parameters) was 0.22 TBq (0.18–0.23 TBq for the
optimized range of the deposition parameters), corresponding to
approximately 17.2 (14.1–18.0) % of the re-suspended amount deposited
mainly in the Tohoku region, with the remainder being transported out of the
model domain. Therefore, the regional mean rate in the decrease of the land
surface <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration due to re-suspension was estimated to be
0.040 (0.039–0.041) % yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula><fn id="Ch1.Footn2"><p>The amount re-suspended, excluding
re-deposition (1.28 TBq minus 0.22 (0.18–0.23) TBq) for the year 2013,
divided by the total deposited amount of 2.68 PBq.</p></fn>, equivalent to 1.1
(1.06–1.12) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The spatial distribution of the
re-suspension and re-deposition ratio to the primary deposition ranged from
0.01 to 0.3 and 0.001 to 0.03 %, respectively. The spatial
distribution of the land surface <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs deposition decay due to
re-suspension ranged from 2.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 8.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Re-suspension therefore had a negligible effect on reducing land surface
radioactive contamination.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>Seasonal variation in the surface activity concentration and its source
contributions are extensively discussed in Sect. 5.1. A possible source of
the observed sporadic peak events, which could not be reproduced by the
simulation, is discussed in Sect. 5.2. The effects of other processes that
were not considered in the model, such as land surface processes and
decontamination, are discussed based on the dose rate measurements from the
monitoring posts in Fukushima in Sect. 5.3. Future issues are summarized in
Sect. 5.4.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Seasonal variation and source contribution</title>
      <p>The discussion in this section expands on that in Sect. 4.2. Figure 9 shows
the same temporal variation as Fig. 7 but for simulated (using the optimized
ranges of parameters) results for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs from dust and FDNPP in winter
(January to March) and from forest and FDNPP in summer (June to August).</p>
      <p>In the winter, the simulated trend for dust agreed well with the observed
trend (Fig. 9a), and the surface air concentration during this period was
positively correlated with the surface wind speed in both the simulation
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.88 on an hourly basis) and the observations (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.32 on a daily basis). There was a sporadic peak in the observational data of
6.7 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from the 17 March  at 13:00 local time (LT) to 18 March  at
13:00 LT that could not be reproduced by the dust module, and this peak
coincided with a plume arriving from FDNPP, as shown in Fig. 9c. Therefore,
the observed peak could be accounted for by specific re-suspension events on
the order of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (the left axis divided by the right axis
multiplied by 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in Fig. 9c) if they occurred on the premises of
FDNPP or close to the area. There are also two events exceeding 2 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, one in January and another in February. It is unlikely that the
two peaks originated from the direct emission from FDNPP and likely that
they originated from the dust emission because the observed peaks coincided
with the simulated dust peaks (Fig. 9a) and not with the simulated peaks due
to the FDNPP emission (Fig. 9c).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Seasonal mean surface (10 m above ground level) wind vector and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs surface concentration <bold>(a)</bold> due to dust re-suspension in winter
from January to March and <bold>(b)</bold> due to forest re-suspension in summer from
June to August. The deposition parameters of the simulation in the figure
are <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In the summer, the simulated quantity as well as the variation in the forest
data agreed well with the observed data (Fig. 9b). Because there is only
monthly variation in the simulated emission, the simulated daily trend
solely originated from variations in the meteorological parameters (wind
field, turbulent mixing, and wet scavenging). A significant peak of 60.4 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is observed from 14 August  at 13:00 LT to 15 August  at 13:00 LT.
This observed level was approximately 2 orders of magnitude larger than
the simulated level and 1 to 2 orders of magnitude larger than the
observed level for the other days in this period. Therefore, continuous
emission such as re-suspension from forest is less likely to be the origin
of the peak. Because the observed peak and the simulated peak of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
from FDNPP coincided (Fig. 9d), the observed level could be accounted for by
specific re-suspension events on the order of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> either on the
premises of FDNPP or close to the area. There have been several arguments
that the observed peaks in August 2013 were associated with debris removal
operations at FDNPP, and this is discussed separately in Sect. 5.2.</p>
      <p>Figure 10 illustrates the seasonal mean surface wind vector and surface air
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration (simulated using the reference parameters) due to
(a) dust re-suspension in the winter and (b) forest re-suspension in the
summer. Due to the prevailing northwesterly winter monsoon, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs was
carried southeastward in the winter. In the summer, under the influence of
the Pacific high-pressure system, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs was carried inland. The monthly
mean wind speed is high in winter and low in summer. The upper panels of
Fig. 11 illustrate the observed and simulated (using the optimized ranges of
parameters) total (from soil, forest, and FDNPP) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration at
Namie and Tsukuba. The time resolutions of the simulation are daily for
Namie and weekly for Tsukuba to be consistent with the sampling intervals of
the two respective sites. The simulation successfully reproduced the
quantity and variation in the observed background concentration at Namie and
Tsukuba but could not reproduce the sporadic peak events observed at Namie,
as discussed above. The simulation also significantly underestimated the
observations at Tsukuba from January to March, 2013. Due to the
northwesterly monsoon (Fig. 10a), there was less air mass transported from
FDNPP to Tsukuba in the winter and therefore this underestimation is
probably due specifically to underestimation of the simulated re-suspension
around Tsukuba. The lower panels of Fig. 11 show the relative contributions
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs from soil and forests at Namie and Tsukuba. The contribution
from FDNPP was negligible throughout the year. At both sites, the
contribution from dust was high (0.7–0.9) in the cold season and low (0.2–0.4) in the warm season due to higher surface wind speed in the cold
season.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of (<bold>a</bold>, <bold>b</bold>; black) the observed and (purple) the
simulated surface <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration due to total re-suspension and
(<bold>c</bold>, <bold>d</bold>) the relative contribution of (red) dust and (green) forest
re-suspension to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration at (<bold>a</bold>, <bold>c</bold>) Namie and (<bold>b</bold>, <bold>d</bold>)
Tsukuba. The shaded areas of <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> indicate the range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
concentrations obtained when the simulations were run using the optimized
parameter ranges <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03–0.05 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05–0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Monthly mean <bold>(a)</bold> observed mean, observed median and simulated
Namie to Tsukuba <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration ratio and <bold>(b)</bold> simulated
re-suspension source area (where the observed deposition amount &gt; 300 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> contributions to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs air concentration at Namie and
Tsukuba. The deposition parameters of the simulation in the figure are
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><caption><p>48 h forward trajectory (statistical locations of LPs within 1 km
AGL) predicted by the LM starting at <bold>(a)</bold> 12:00 LT and <bold>(c)</bold> 15:00 LT on 14 August
and <bold>(b)</bold> 09:00 LT and <bold>(d)</bold> 15:00 LT on 19 August. Blue lines indicate median
locations of LPs at 1 h and 1-day intervals as blue and red dots,
respectively. Sky-blue lines indicate 17th and 83rd percentile locations of
LPs and red dashed circles indicate areas containing 66 % of the LPs.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure 12a shows the observed and simulated (with the reference parameters)
monthly Namie to Tsukuba <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration ratios. The mean
concentration ratio exceeded 100 in June and 200 in August due to the
sporadic peak events. The monthly median would be relevant for comparing the
background observation with the simulation results by considering only
continuous emission sources. The values of the simulated concentration ratio
and its seasonal variation agreed fairly well with the observed monthly
median ratio: the observed and simulated annual means were 38.9 and 31.1,
respectively. Figure 12b shows the monthly mean simulated re-suspension source
area contributions to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs air concentration at Namie and Tsukuba.
The re-suspension source area is defined as the model grid where the
observed deposition amount exceeded 300 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4a) and includes
the Namie grid (2300 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Eighty to 90 % of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs air
concentration at Namie originated from the source region, and there was no
clear seasonal variation in the value. In contrast, Tsukuba is characterized
as a downwind region and there was clear seasonal variation in the source
contribution ratio: high in summer and low in winter, due to the summer and
winter monsoons, as discussed above. Nonetheless, the highest value at
Tsukuba was 0.4 in July, and so more than half of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
concentration at Tsukuba originated locally or from areas other than the
contaminated regions throughout the year. As shown in Fig. 11a and b, the
variability in the simulated concentration at Tsukuba due to uncertainty in
the deposition parameters was much larger than that at Namie. The
differences in the variability indicated that the Namie and Tsukuba sites
can be characterized as the source area and the downwind area, respectively:
as the time required for the plume to move from the emission site to the
observation site increases, the variability becomes larger due to the
increased chance for the plume to experience dry and wet scavenging.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><caption><p>Daily mean gamma dose rate at the six monitoring sites: (<bold>a</bold>; red)
Okuma and (orange) Namie (Omaru district) in the coastal area, (<bold>b</bold>; blue) village of Iitate and (sky blue) town of Kawamata in the Abukuma highland
area, and (<bold>c</bold>; green) cities of Fukushima and (greenish yellow) Shirakawa in
the Nakadori valley area of Fukushima prefecture as presented in Fig. 1b for
two fiscal years (from April 2012 to March 2014). The first-order
decreasing rates of the least-squares approximation over the period of no
snow cover (May to October, 2012 and 2013) is also presented, along with the
radioactive decay (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs plus <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs, by assuming the same amount
of activity on 12 March  2011) in April 2012 and March 2013.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/13149/2016/acp-16-13149-2016-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Possible source of sporadic peak events</title>
      <p>There have been several scientific studies and governmental reports on the
unexpected re-suspension from FDNPP in August 2013. The high-dose-rate alarm
was activated on August 19 within the premises of FDNPP associated with the
debris removal operation. Matsunami et al. (2016) related the radiocesium
contamination of brown rice in Fukushima in 2013 to this operation, whereas
MAFF (2015) denied any association. The NRA estimated the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
emission rate during the debris removal operation as 6.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and the cumulative amount
as 1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq (NRA, 2014).
TEPCO (2014c) estimated the emission rate during the operation as
5.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and the cumulative
amount as 1.3–2.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq. Steinhauser et al. (2015)
estimated the gross amount as 2.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>11</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq using measurements
of weekly air filter sampling and monthly deposition, and a numerical
simulation. Their estimates are similar in magnitude to our
estimate (10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; see Sect. 5.1) but the dates are different: our
observed peak was earlier than the reported removal operation.</p>
      <p>Our daily sampling showed a peak concentration (60.4 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from
14 August at 13:00 LT to 15 August  at 13:00 LT before the reported
operation but did not detect high concentrations in the 19 August  (0.33 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for August 18 at 13:00 LT to 19 August at 13:00 LT and 1.2 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
for 19 August  at 13:00 to 20 August  at 13:00 LT). Figure 13 shows the forward
trajectories predicted by the LM (statistical locations of LPs) starting
from FDNPP on 14 August  (left) and 19 August  (right). The sky-blue lines and
red dashed circles indicate areas containing approximately two-thirds of the
LPs within 1 km AGL: the extent of the area reflects horizontal and vertical
atmospheric diffusion. The highest dose rate peaks were observed from 13:50 to 14:10 LT on 19 August  at 2.8–8.3 km north and north-northwest of
FDNPP on the leeward side, as reported by Fukushima prefecture
(<uri>https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/download/1/20130827moni.pdf.pdf</uri>). The forward trajectories on 12 August  indicated that
plumes during the debris removal operation traveled north-northwest to north
of FDNPP (Fig. 13b and d), rather than towards the west-northwest, where
the Namie site is located. On 14 August, on the other hand, plumes were
transported towards the west (starting at 12:00 LT, Fig. 13a), and then to the
north (starting at 15:00 LT, Fig. 13c) due to fast changes in wind direction,
resulting in the simulated peak concentration shown in Fig. 9d during this
period. Our simulation and observations together indicated that the same
order of magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs emission occurred on August 14–15 and on 19
August. Alarm activation was not reported on August 14–15, but debris
removal operation was also conducted on August 14 and 16 (MAFF, 2015).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Land surface processes, decontamination, and dust emission suppression due
to snow cover</title>
      <p>Figure 14 presents the time series of ambient gamma dose rates measured at
the monitoring posts in Fukushima prefecture indicated in Fig. 1b. The data
were obtained from the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), Japan, website
(<uri>http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/map/ja/index.html</uri>). A total of six monitoring posts, two from each of the three geographical
areas (Hamadori coastal area, Abukuma highland area, and Nakadori valley
area), were selected. There are tens to hundreds of monitoring posts in each
municipality (village, town, and city) in Fukushima prefecture. We selected
a monitoring post in each municipality by applying the following conditions:
a post showing the highest dose rate of all posts in the municipality at the
time of downloading (around 11:00, 28 December  2015), data are
available since 1 April  2012, and the instruments are situated 100 cm above
the ground.</p>
      <p>In April 2012, the government of Japan designated the evacuation-directed zones as a
difficult-to-return zone (DRZ; &gt; 50 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; 9.55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), a
habitation-restricted zone (HRZ; 20–50 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; 3.85–9.55 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
and a zone being prepared to have the evacuation directive lifted (&lt; 20 mSv yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; 3.85 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (METI, 2012). The two sites in the
Hamadori area, Okuma and Omaru, have been designated DRZ (13.6 and 11.8 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on 28 December  2015).
The dose rates at the two sites in the Abukuma
area, Iitate and Kawamata, dropped below the HRZ level during the analysis
period in this study (1.17 and 0.521 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on 28 December  2015). The
dose rates in the Nakadori area are below 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.242 and 0.201 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>Sv h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on 28 December  2015).</p>
      <p>The dose rate significantly dropped when the ground was covered with snow,
in January and December 2013 in Hamadori and Nakadori, and from January to
early March and December 2013 in Abukuma (the elevation of Abukuma is 500–1000 m and higher than Hamadori and Nakadori). Snow cover suppresses
re-suspension due to dust emission. Namie (Tsushima) is located in Abukuma
and the ground was covered with snow until early March (Ishizuka et al.,
2016). The observed air concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs at Namie (Tsushima) was
correlated with the wind speed in the winter from January to March,
indicating that re-suspension during the period was mechanically induced. In
the winter, dust re-suspension from outside Abukuma, such as from Hamadori
and Nakadori, or from land surface where the snow cover was partly melted
due to solar radiation, might be the dominant source contributing to the
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs surface air concentration at Namie (Tsushima) when the ground was
covered with snow.</p>
      <p>The first-order decreasing rates fitted by the least-squares approximation
for the period without snow cover, May to October 2012 and 2013, are
presented in Fig. 14. The rates ranged from 5.2 to 12.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The monthly mean radioactive decay rates of total radiocesium
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs), determined by assuming that the activities of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs were equivalent in March 2011, were 4.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 3.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in April 2012 and March 2014,
respectively, due to the difference in half-life of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs (2.07  and 30.1 years, respectively). By assuming that the gamma
dose rate primarily originated to radiation from the land surface
radiocesium, the radioactive decay accounted for 35–50 % of the
decreasing rate of total ground radioactivity; the exception was Shirakawa,
where radioactive decay accounted for 55–80 % of the decrease. In other
words, 50–65 % of the ground radioactivity decrease was likely due to
land surface processes, decontamination, and re-suspension to air. As
discussed in Sect. 4.3, the estimated decreasing rate due to re-suspension
was 2.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–8.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is 2 to
3 orders of magnitude smaller than the decreasing rates due to the other
processes (10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p>It is difficult to distinguish the contributions of land surface processes
and decontamination. By subtracting the radioactive decay rate (3.0–4.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the decreasing rate due to re-suspension
(2.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–8.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the gross
decreasing rate (5.2–12.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), the estimated
decreasing rates due to land surface processes and decontamination ranged
from 1.0 to 7.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Matsuda et al. (2015) summarized the
depth profiles of radiocesium in soil at more than 80 locations in
Fukushima, including Hamadori, Abukuma, and Nakadori. They found that the
radiocesium levels have been slowly migrating downward, with rates ranging
from 1.7 to 9.6 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (equivalent to 1.1–6.0 mm yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for a dust
particle density of 2650 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a porosity of 0.4 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
for example). Evrard et al. (2015) summarized that significant transfer of
particulate-bound radiocesium occurs during major rainfall and runoff events
(e.g., typhoons and spring snowmelt). Together with the relaxation depth–dose rate relationship provided by Saito and Petoussi-Hess (2014), the
decreasing rate due to land surface processes such as downward migration,
runoff, and erosion could be quantified and thus the decontamination effect
could be separately extracted.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <title>Future issues</title>
      <p>Issues that remain to be resolved in future research are summarized in this
section. First of all, re-suspension from biota could be predominant in the
warm season, but the re-suspension sources as well as mechanisms remain
essentially unknown. Further study is needed to understand the mechanism
based on field experiments and numerical simulations. The current estimation
could account for the measured background concentration (0.1–1 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but could not reproduce the observed sporadic peak
concentration (1–10 mBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the Namie site. Further study is
needed to identify the cause. The dust flux module has been validated at a
single location. The module needs to be improved to be applicable to various
land use and soil texture conditions. The decontamination may reduce
resuspension afterward, whereas the resuspension may occur during
decontamination-related work. This effect should be evaluated in the future.
The current estimation was based on a single model simulation. Variability
in multi-model simulations is rather large (SCJ, 2014; Draxler et al., 2015)
and therefore multi-model assessment will be indispensable for long-term
re-suspension analysis.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>The long-term effect of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension from contaminated soil and
biota due to the Fukushima nuclear accident has been quantitatively assessed
using a numerical simulation, a field experiment on dust emission in the
contaminated area (Namie, Fukushima), and air concentration measurements
inside (Namie) and outside (Tsukuba, Ibaraki) of the area. The re-suspension
mechanism remains unknown. We therefore utilized the observational data
obtained both inside and outside the contaminated area, together with a
transport model, to provide a robust budget analysis of the re-suspension,
transport, and re-deposition of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs in the eastern part (the Tohoku
and Kanto regions) of Japan. Our findings are summarized as follows:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p>Optimization of the deposition parameters of the LM for simulating the
emergency situation of March 2011, using aircraft observation data (NRA,
2012) and the prescribed emission inventory (Katata et al., 2015), provided
0.1 (0.05–0.1) cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for a dry deposition velocity over land and 0.04
(0.03–0.05) for a hydrometeor collection efficiency for aerosols. The
optimized (or validated) ranges of the deposition parameters were applied to
long-term re-suspension assessment for the year 2013.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>Using the dust emission module (Ishizuka et al., 2016), which was developed
based on physical parameters, simulated <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs re-suspension from soil
multiplied by 5 accounted for the observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs surface air
concentration measured at Namie during only the cold season; the module
underestimated the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs concentration by 1 to 2 orders of
magnitude in the warm season.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>Introducing re-suspension from forest using a constant re-suspension
coefficient of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and monthly green area fraction could
quantitatively account for the observed concentration together with its
seasonal variation.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></list-item><list-item>
      <p>The contribution from additional emission from the reactor buildings of
FDNPP (10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was negligible throughout the year and underestimated
the observed air concentration by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude at both
observation sites.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>At Namie and Tsukuba, the simulated contribution of re-suspension from soil
was high (0.7–0.9) in the cold season and low (0.2–0.4) in the warm
season; the remaining contribution was from forest and was low in winter and
high in summer. The contribution of the re-suspension from the source area
(where the aircraft-observed deposition exceeded 300 kBq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the air
concentration at Namie was 0.8–0.9 throughout the year, while that at
Tsukuba varied from 0.1 to 0.4, and was high in the summer and low in the
winter.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>The simulated annual total re-suspended amount for the whole region was 1.28 TBq,
equivalent to 0.048 % of the aircraft-observed total deposited amount of
2.68 PBq. The total re-deposition was 0.18–0.23 TBq, equivalent to 14.1–18.0 % of the total re-suspended amount: the rest of the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs was
transported out of the model domain. The spatial distribution of the
decreasing rate of land surface <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs due to re-suspension ranged from
2.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–8.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>The first-order decrease rate of the ambient gamma dose rate in Fukushima
prefecture ranged from 5.2 to 12.1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. By subtracting
the radioactive decay rate of 3.0–4.2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the ground
radioactivity decay due to land surface processes, decontamination, and
re-suspension was found to range from 1.0 to 7.9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
estimated re-suspension rate was 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than
the decrease in rate due to the other processes, showing that re-suspension
contributed negligibly towards reducing ground radioactivity.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <title>Data availability</title>
      <p>All data are available upon request to the authors.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <title>Model description</title>
      <p>The current study employs a Lagrangian type model for the simulation of
emission (either point sources or areal sources), horizontal and vertical
diffusion and advection, gravitational settling, dry and wet depositions,
and radioactive decay in the air. As described in Sect. 2.1, the current
Lagrangian model (LM) uses simple parameterizations for dry and wet
deposition schemes for computational efficiency, so long-term assessment and
parameter sweep experiments are easily feasible. The source code for the
model is open with the BSD 3-Clause License and is available on the web
(<uri>https://ebcrpa.jamstec.go.jp/isetr_a01-1/</uri>, in Japanese).</p>
      <p>The coordinate system of the model is horizontal for longitude and latitude
and vertical for pressure level, consistent with meteorological analysis
data commonly used. The model can be driven only by fundamental
meteorological parameters such as temperature, humidity, 3-D wind field,
geopotential height, and surface precipitation provided by meteorological
analysis data such as GPV-MSM. The model does not need to drive
meteorological models to predict detailed meteorological variables such as
cloud microphysics, turbulence quantities, and surface variables. Since the
temporal and spatial resolution of the meteorological analysis is not very
high (e.g., 3 h and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11 km, respectively, for GPV-MSM), linear
interpolation is conducted in time and space. Alternatively, higher temporal
and spatial resolution can be achieved by using a meteorological model.
Furthermore, although currently not implemented, detailed variables
predicted by a meteorological model can be used for more accurate
predictions of turbulent diffusion, surface flux, and dry and wet
deposition.</p>
      <p>In the LM model, LPs are released constantly in time but the initial
activity of LPs (Bq LP<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) differs according to the emission flux (Bq h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
initial positions of LPs were randomly distributed within a fixed volume (or
line) of plume centered at a point emission source such as FDNPP for the
primary emission case simulation, or randomly distributed within a
horizontal model grid for the areal emission cases (such as re-suspension
from soil and forest). LPs do not disappear unless transported across
lateral and upper boundaries or if they reach the surface layer due to
gravitational settling (technically, gravitational settling velocity in the
surface layer is included in the dry deposition velocity). The other
processes, such as dry deposition, wet deposition and radioactive decay, do
not decrease the number of LPs but do decrease the radioactivity carried by
LPs because LPs represent an air mass rather than an actual particle, except
in the case of gravitational settling. The lowest level permitted for the
position of LPs is set as 2 m AGL and LPs going down across the level due to
vertical turbulent motion will rebound at the level and go up. An LP whose
radioactivity is smaller than a preset value, i.e., 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Bq, due to
deposition or radioactive decay will disappear from the computation to
maintain computational efficiency, since the cost of the computation is
proportional to the number of LPs in the model domain. To output the model
results, the LP fields are converted to Eulerian concentration (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and deposition (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fields on a prescribed coordinate system of
grids. In Lagrangian type models, the spatial resolution of tracer emission,
concentration, and deposition fields can be set independent of each other
and with the spatial resolution of meteorological fields. In the current
implementation of the LM, the coordinate systems of meteorological fields and radioactivity fields are horizontally in common but vertically different: meteorological fields are provided on isobaric levels, whereas radioactivity fields are calculated on height AGL.</p>
      <p>The horizontal and vertical diffusion calculation followed JMA (2008), using
the horizontal diffusion scheme of Uliasz (1990) with a constant horizontal
diffusivity of 5.864 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and using a vertical
diffusivity calculated based on Louis et al. (1982; see Eqs. 8.1.8 through
8.1.15 of JMA, 2008, for details).</p>
      <p>The wet scavenging rate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>wet</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is simply parameterized as a
function of the surface precipitation rate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) as

              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>wet</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

        where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the collection efficiency of aerosols by the
hydrometeor, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the mean radii of
the hydrometeor and aerosols, respectively (JMA, 2008). Empirically,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is characterized by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as

              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.35</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn>0.25</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

        JMA (2008) uses 0.05 for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the current study, instead of
explicitly predicting <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, its range was set for the
sensitivity tests as listed in Table 2.</p>
      <p>Conceptually, Eq. (A1) is the formulation for the washout process, i.e., the
collection of aerosols by the settling hydrometeor particles such as rain
and snow. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should differ for rain and
snow, but common parameters are used in the current simulation. Also, Eq. (A1) is not applicable for the rainout process, since this process-cloud
condensation nuclei or ice nuclei activation and deposition via subsequent
cloud microphysical processes is totally different from the washout
process. Because meteorological models were not utilized in this study and
thus only relative humidity and surface precipitation rate are available and
no cloud microphysical information (such as hydrometeors mixing ratio in
each model grid) is available, Eq. (A1) is applied for all the LPs located
above the grid with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. In order to partly account for the rainout
process, Eq. (A1) is not applied to LPs in a grid, where the relative
humidity is lower than the minimum value, set as 95 % in the simulation.</p>
      <p>The dry deposition velocity <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of aerosols (or gases) is
conventionally formulated, using an electrical analogy, as an inverse of the
summation of resistances (s m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) representing turbulent diffusion in the
surface layer, Brownian diffusion (or molecular diffusion for gases),
interaction with the land surface (soil, water, and vegetation), and
gravitational settling for aerosols (e.g., Wesely and Hicks, 2000).
Therefore, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a function of height as well as of turbulent flux and
surface conditions. Nevertheless, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is set as constant in the
simulation, but the height dependency of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is considered in the dry
scavenging rate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dry</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), following Furuno et al. (1999) as

              <disp-formula id="App1.Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dry</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mtext>srf</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mtext>srf</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

        where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the height of the LP (m AGL) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mtext>srf</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
surface layer height set as 100 m AGL in the study. Instead of explicitly
predicting <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, its range was set at around 0.1 cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, a typical speed
for a range of aerosols around 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in diameter, for the sensitivity
tests, as listed in Table 2. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is applied over land,
whereas <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the ocean is multiplied by 0.1, because <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over a
flat surface is approximately 1 and 2 orders of magnitude smaller than
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over short vegetation such as grass and tall vegetation such as
forest, respectively (e.g., Petroff and Zhang, 2010).</p>
</app>

<app id="App1.Ch1.S2">
  <title>Statistical accuracy of the current simulation setting</title>
      <p>Because the statistical error of Lagrangian simulation is inversely
proportional to the square of the number of LPs, the statistical accuracy of
the current simulation setting was evaluated using the following measures
(relative errors of quantities of the sensitivity runs to those of the
reference run):

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sens</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="App1.Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sens</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> indicate grid points on the longitudinal and
latitudinal axes, respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sens</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sens</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
indicate temporal mean surface concentrations (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and temporal
cumulative depositions (Bq m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the sensitivity runs, respectively.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the same as
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sens</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sens</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but for the reference run.
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were sampled only at grids where
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) are greater than their areal mean
values, respectively.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Statistical measures of temporal mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs surface
concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and cumulative deposition
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the sensitivity runs against the reference run for
(top) the point source case and (bottom) the areal emission case.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Number emission</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Median</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Median</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">rate of LP, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(–)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(cm s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(25th–75th percentile)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(25th–75th percentile)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Point source case, March 2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference run</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">32 000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensitivity runs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Deposition parameters</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">32 000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.03–0.05</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.05–0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.7 (0.37–5.0)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.5 (3.6–13)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">128 000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.51 (0.21–0.96)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.72 (0.32–1.5)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.95 (0.39–1.8)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.6 (0.73–2.9)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Areal emission case, 2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(re-suspension from forest)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Reference run</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensitivity runs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Deposition parameters</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.03–0.05</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.05–0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7.3 (2.6–13)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.7 (3.6–17)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.39 (0.17–0.78)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.0 (1.3–2.6)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.78 (0.34–1.5)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.3 (1.5–3.1)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Collection efficiency; see Eq. (A1). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>b</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Dry deposition
velocity over land; see Eq. (A3). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>c</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Relative errors of temporal mean
surface concentration at each grid cell of the sensitivity run to that of
the reference run; see Eq. (B1). <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mtext>d</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Same as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but for
cumulative deposition; see Eq. (B2).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Point source case</title>
      <p>The number emission rate of LPs, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, was set as 32 000 h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a point source emission case
such as the primary emission in March 2011 and additional emission from the
reactor buildings in 2013. The median values together with the 25th and 75th
percentile values of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
sensitivity runs (sensitivity to deposition parameters and sensitivity to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> against the reference run are listed on the rows of the top half
of Table B1. Both <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 were significantly lower
than those for the deposition parameters sensitivity run. This result
indicates that 32 000 h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was sufficient to allow a
statistically significant simulation for the purpose of this study, as shown
in Figs. 4 and 5: the difference in concentration and deposition due to the
deposition parameters was much larger than the difference due to model
uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25 (which are also
smaller than those of the deposition parameters sensitivity run) are larger
than those of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4,
indicating fairly good accuracy convergence of the LM model.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Areal emission case</title>
      <p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was 16 h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the areal emission
case simulating re-suspension from soil and forests in 2013. The lower half
of Table B1 is the same as the upper half except for the areal emission case
(re-suspension from forest). Both <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 were much lower than
those for the deposition parameters sensitivity run, indicating that 16 h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> supports a statistically significant simulation for the purpose of
this study, as shown in Figs. 7–12. Usually, Lagrangian-type models are not appropriate for solving areal emission problems, because they require many more LPs for areal emission cases compared to point source cases and thus become computationally too expensive to obtain statistical accuracy (i.e., to set large number of LPs). In the case of this
simulation, especially for the concentration, sensitivity to deposition
parameters was much more significant than sensitivity to model uncertainty
in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>LP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using the sufficiently small number of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 16 h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>con</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>dep</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 are smaller than those of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">_</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25,
indicating fair accuracy convergence of the LM model.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>
</app>
  </app-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This research was mainly supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research
on Innovative Areas (JP24110002 and JP20110003) from the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), and partly supported by the
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Ministère des
Affaires Étrangères et du Développement International (MAEDI)
under the Japan-France Integrated Action Program (SAKURA), as well as by KAKENHI
grant numbers JP15K16121, JP24340115, and JP26310201 from MEXT. Partial expenses
were covered by the Japanese Radioactivity Survey from the NRA, Japan. The
authors are grateful for useful discussions with and comments from
Yuichi Moriguchi of University of Tokyo,  Hiromi Yamazawa of Nagoya
University, and  Haruo Tsuruta of Remote Sensing Technology Center of
Japan (RESTEC). The authors are thankful to Masayuki Takigawa of JAMSTEC for the maintenance of the website of LM. The LM was developed by M. Inatsu, C. Yoshikawa, M. Takigawa, and M. Kajino.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Y. Balkanski<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: three anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Adachi, K., Kajino, M., Zaizen, Y., and Igarashi, Y.: Emission of spherical
cesium-bearing particles from an early stage of the Fukushima nuclear
accident, Scientific Report, 3, 2554, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep02554" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep02554</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Chino, M., Nakayama, H., Nagai, H., Terada, H., Katata, G., and Yamazawa,
H.: Preliminary estimation of release amounts of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>131</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>I and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs
accidentally discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into
atmosphere, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 48, 1129–1134, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Danielache, S. O., Yoshikawa, C., Priyadarshi, A., Takemura, T., Ueno, Y.,
Thiemens, M. H., and Yoshida, N.: An estimation of the radioactive <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>35</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>S
emitted into the atmospheric from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
by using a numerical simulation global transport, Geochem. J., 46,
355–339, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Danielache, S. O., Yoshikawa, C., Kajino, M., Itou, S., Kakeya, W., Yoshida,
N., and Igarashi, Y.: Radioactive <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>35</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>S emitted from the Fukushima Nuclear
Power Plan studied by a modified regional model,  in
preparation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R., Arnold, D., Chino, M., Galmarini, S., Hort, M., Jones, A.,
Leadbetter, S., Malo, A., Maurer, C., Rolph, G., Saito, K., Servranckx, R.,
Shimbori, T., Solazzo, E., and Wotawa, G.: World Meteorological Organization's
model simulations of the radionuclide dispersion and deposition from the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, J. Environ. Radioact., 139,
172–184, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Evangeliou, N., Balkanski, Y., Cozic, A., and Møller, A. P.: Global and local
cancer risks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident as seen from
Chernobyl: A modeling study for radiocaesium (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs &amp; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs),
Environ. Int., 64, 17–27, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Evrard, O., Laceby, J. P., Lepage, H.,
Onda, Y., Cerdan, O., and Ayrault, S.: Radiocesium transfer from hillslopes to
the Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident: A
review, J. Environ. Radioact., 148, 92–110, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Furuno, A., Chino, M., and Yamazawa, H.: Worldwide version of System of
Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (WSPEEDI) Model Code
(II) – Three-dimensional Atmospheric Dispersion Model for Synoptic Scale:
GEARN, JAERI-Data/Code 99-044, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Japan, 68 pp., 1999 (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Garger, E. K., Paretzke, H. G., and Tschiersch, J.: Measurement of resuspended
aerosol in the Chernobyl area, Part III: size distribution and dry
deposition velocity of radioactive particles during anthropogenic enhanced
resuspension, Radiat. Environ. Bioph., 37, 201–208, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Garger, E. K., Kuzmenko, Y. I., Sickinger, S., and Tschiersch, J.: Prediction of
the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs activity concentration in the atmospheric surface layer of
the Chernobyl exclusion zone, J. Environ. Radioact., 110, 53–58, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Girard, S., Mallet, V., Korsakissok, I., and Mathieu, A.: Emulation and
Sobl' sensitivity analysis of an atmospheric dispersion model applied to the
Fukushima nuclear accident, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 3484–3496,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023993" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023993</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Groëll J., Quélo, D., and Mathieu, A.: Sensitivity analysis of the
modelled deposition of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs on the Japanese land following the
Fukushima accident, Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 55, 67–75, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Gutman, G. and Ignatov, A.: The derivation of green vegetation fraction
from NOAA/AVHRR data for use in numerical weather prediction models, Int. J.
Remote Sens., 19, 1533–1543, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Hatano, Y. and Hatano N.: Formula for the resuspension factor and
estimation of the date of surface contamination, Atmos. Environ., 37,
3475–3480, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Hirao, S., Yamazawa, H., and Nagae, T.: Estimation of release rate of iodine-131
and cesium-137 from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, J. Nucl. Sci.
Technol., 50, 139–147, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2013.757454" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00223131.2013.757454</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Holländer, W. and Garger, E.: Contamination of Surface by Resuspended
Material, ECP–1, Final Report, Rep. EUR 16527, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hososhima, M. and Kaneyasu, N.: Altitude-dependent distribution of ambient
gamma dose rates in mountainous area of Japan caused by the Fukushima
nuclear accident, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 3341–3348, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Igarashi, Y., Kajino, M., Zaizen, Y., Adachi, K., and Mikami, M.:
Atmospheric radioactivity over Tsukuba, Japan: a summary of three years of
observations after the FDNPP accident, Prog. Earth Planet.
Sci., 2, 19 pp., <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40645-015-0066-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1186/s40645-015-0066-1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Ishizuka, M, Mikami, M., Tanaka, T. Y., Igarashi, Y., Kita, K., Yamada, Y.,
Yoshida, N., Toyoda, S., Satou, Y., Kinase, T., Ninomiya, K., and Shinohara, A.:
Use of a size-resolved 1-D resuspension scheme to evaluation resuspended
radioactive material associated with mineral dust particles from the ground
surface, J. Environ. Radioact., 13 pp., <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.12.023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.12.023</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>JMA: Japan Meteorological Agency's Non-Hydrostatic Model II, <italic>Suuchi Yohoka Hokoku Bessatsu</italic> (Additional Volume to Report of Numerical Prediction
Division) 54, 265 pp., 2008 (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Kaneyasu, N., Ohashi, H., Suzuki, F., Okada, T., and Ikemori, F.: Sulfate
aerosol as a potential transport medium of radiocesium from the Fukushima
nuclear accident, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 5720–5726, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Katata, G., Terada, H., Nagai, H., and Chino, M.: Numerical reconstruction
of high dose rate zones due to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
accident, J. Environ. Radioact., 111, 2–12, 2012a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Katata, G., Ota, M., Terada, H., Chino, M., and Nagai, H.: Atmospheric
discharge and dispersion of radionuclides during the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Nuclear Power Plant accident, Part I: Source term estimation and local-scale
atmospheric dispersion in early phase of the accident, J. Environ. Radioact.,
109, 103–113, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.02.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.02.006</ext-link>, 2012b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Katata, G., Chino, M., Kobayashi, T., Terada, H., Ota, M., Nagai, H., Kajino, M., Draxler, R., Hort, M. C., Malo, A.,
Torii, T., and Sanada, Y.: Detailed source term estimation of the atmospheric release for the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station accident by coupling simulations of an atmospheric dispersion model with an improved deposition
scheme and oceanic dispersion model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 1029–1070, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1029-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-1029-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Kinase, T., Kita, K. Igarashi, Y., Adachi, K., Ninomiya, K., Shinohara, A.,
Okochi, H., Ogata, Y., Ishizuka, M., Toyoda, S., Yamada, K., Yoshida, N.,
Zaizen, Y., Mikami, M., Demizu, H., and Onda, Y.: Seasonal variation in
activity concentration of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn>134</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and their possibile
resuspension host aerosol observed at Tsuahima and Yamakiya, Fukushima,
Prog. Earth Planet. Sci.,  in review, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Kristiansen, N. I., Stohl, A., Olivié, D. J. L., Croft, B., Søvde, O. A., Klein, H., Christoudias, T., Kunkel, D.,
Leadbetter, S. J., Lee, Y. H., Zhang, K., Tsigaridis, K., Bergman, T., Evangeliou, N., Wang, H., Ma, P.-L.,
Easter, R. C., Rasch, P. J., Liu, X., Pitari, G., Di Genova, G., Zhao, S. Y., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Faluvegi, G. S.,
Kokkola, H., Martin, R. V., Pierce, J. R., Schulz, M., Shindell, D., Tost, H., and Zhang, H.: Evaluation of observed
and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3525–3561, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Loosmore, G. A. and Hunt, J. R.: Dust resuspension without saltation, J.
Geophys. Res., 105, 20663–20671, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900271" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900271</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Louis, J. F., Tiedtke, M., and Geleyn, J. F.: A short history of the PBL
parameterization at ECMWF, Workshop on planetary boundary layer
parameterization, ECMWF, 59–80, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries): Fukushima
Prefecture, Tohoku Agricultural Research Center, National Institute for
Agro-Environmental Sciences: Investigation of the cause for brown rice
exceeding the allowable radiocesium concentration, available at:
<uri>http://www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/joho/saigai/fukusima/pdf/150526_youin_chosa.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2015 (in
Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Masson, O., Baeza, A., Bieringer, J., Brudecki., Bucci, S., Cappai, M.,
Carvalho, F. P., Connan, O., Cosma, C., Dalheimer, A., Didier, D., Depuydt,
G., De Geer, L. E., De Vismes, A., Gini, L., Groppi, F., Gudnason, K.,
Gurriaran, R., Hainz, D., Halldórsson, O., Hammond, D., Hanley, O.,
Holey, K., Homoki, Zs., Ioannidou, A., Isajenko, K., Jankovic, M.,
Katzlberger, C., Kettunen, M., Kierepko, R., Kontro, R., Kwakman, P. J. M.,
Lecomte, M., Leon Vintro, L., Leppänen, A.-P., Lind, B., Lujaniene, G.,
Mc Ginnity, P., Mc Mahon, C., Malá, H., Manenti, S., Manolopoulou, M.,
Mattila., A., Mauring., A., Mietelski, J. W., Moller, B., Nielsen, S. P.,
Nikolic, J., Overwater, R. M. W., Pálsson, S. E., Papastefanou, C.,
Penev, I., Pham, M. K., Povinec, P. P., Ramebäck, H., Reis, M. C.,
Ringer, W., Rodriguez, A., Rulik, P., Saey, P. R. J., Samsonov, V.,
Schlosser, C., Sgorbati, G., Silobritiene, B. V., Söderström, C.,
Sogni, R., Solier, L., Sonck, M., Steinhauser, G., Steinkopff, T.,
Steinmann, P., Stoulos, S., Sýkora, I., Todorovic, D., Tooloutalaie, N.,
Tositti, L., Tschiersch, J., Ugron, A., Vagena, E., Vargas, A., Wershofen,
H., and Zhukova, O.: Tracking of Airborne Radionuclides from the Damaged
Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Reactors by European Networks, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 45, 7670–7677, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Masson, O., Ringer, W., Malá, H., Rulik, P., Dlugosz-Lisiecka, M.,
Eleftheriadis, K., Meisenberg, O., De Vismes-Ott, A., and Gensdarmes, F.:
Size distribution of airborne radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear
Accident at several places in Europe, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47,
10995–11003, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Matsunami H., Murakami, T., Fujiwara, H., and Shinano, T.: Evaluation of the
cause of unexplained radiocaesium contamination of brown rice in Fukushima
in 2013 using autoradiography and gamma-ray spectrometry, Sci. Rep.,
6, 20386, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20386" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep20386</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry): Convention on Nuclear Safety
National Report of Japan for the Second Extraordinary Meeting, July 2012,
Government of Japan, available at:
<uri>http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3512451/www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2012/pdf/0705_01b.pdf</uri> (last
access: 26 July 2016), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Miller, D. A. and White, R. A.: A conterminous United States multi-layer
soil characteristics data set for regional climate and hydrology modeling,
Earth Interact., 2, 1–26, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Matsuda, N., Mikami, S., Shimoura, S., Takahashi, J., Nakano, M., Shimada,
K., Uno, K., Hagiwara, S., and Saito, K.: Depth profiles of radioactive
cesium in soil using a scraper plate over a wide area surrounding the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, Japan, J. Environ. Radioact.,
139, 427–434, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Morino, Y., Ohara, T., and Nishizawa, M.: Atmospheric behavior, deposition,
and budget of radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant in March 2011, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L00G11, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048689" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GL048689</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Morino, Y., Ohara, T., Watanabe, S., Hayashi, S., and Nishizawa, M.: Episode
analysis of deposition of radiocesium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant accident, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 2314–2322, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority): Airborne Monitoring Results in each
prefecture, available at:
<uri>http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/list/203/list-1.html</uri> (last access: 26 July
2016), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>NRA: Assessment of radionuclide emission involved in the debris removal
operations for reactor 3; Handout for the 28th meeting on the supervision of
a specific nuclear facility, available at:
<uri>http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000051154.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2014
(in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Ohmori, Y., Kajikawa, M., Nishida, S., Tanaka, N., Kobayashi, N. I., Tanoi,
K., Furukawa, J.,  and Fujiwara, T.: The effect of fertilization on cesium
concentration of rice grown in a paddy field in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011
and 2012, J. Plant Res., 127, 67–71, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Oura, Y., Ebihara, M., Tsuruta, H., Nakajima, T., Ohara, T., Ishimoto, M.,
Sawahata, H., Katsumura, Y., and Nitta, W.: A database of hourly atmospheric
concentrations of radiocesium (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>134</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>137</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>Cs) in suspended
particulate matter collected in March 2011 at 99 air pollution monitoring
stations in Eastern Japan, Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences,
15, 15–26, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Petroff, A. and Zhang, L.: Development and validation of a size-resolved particle dry deposition scheme for application in aerosol
transport models, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 753–769, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-753-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-753-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Pöhlker C., Wiedemann, K. T., Sinha, B., Shiraiwa, M., Gunthe, S. S.,
Smith, M., Su, H., Artaxo, P., Chen, Q., Cheng, Y., Elbert, W., Gilles, M.
K., Kilcoyne, A. L. D., Moffet, R. C., Weigand, M., Matin, S. T.,
Pöschl, U., and Andreae, M. O.: Biogenic potassium salt particles as
seeds for secondary organic aerosol in the Amazon, Science, 337, 1075–1078,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Quérel, A., Roustan, Y., Quélo, D., and Benoit, J. -P.: Hints to
discriminate the choice of wet deposition models applied to an accidental
radioactive release, Int. J.  Environ. Pollut., 58, 268–279,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Saito, K. and Petoussi-Henss, N.: Ambient dose equivalent conversion
coefficients for radionuclides exponentially distributed in the ground, J.
Nucl. Sci. Techonol., 51, 1274–1287, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2014.919885" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/00223131.2014.919885</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Saito, K., Shimbori, T., and Draxler, R.: JMA's regional atmospheric
transport model calculations for the WMO technical task team on
meteorological analyses for Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident,
J. Environ. Radioact., 139, 185–199, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Saunier, O., Mathieu, A., Didier, D., Tombette, M., Quélo, D., Winiarek, V., and Bocquet, M.: An inverse
modeling method to assess the source term of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident using gamma dose
rate observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11403–11421, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11403-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-11403-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>SCJ (Science Council of Japan): A review of the model comparison of
transportation and deposition of radioactive materials released to the
environment as a result of the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, available at:
<uri>http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-22-h140902-e1.pdf</uri> (last access:
26 July 2016), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Sekiyama, T. T., Kunii, M., Kajino, M., and Shimbori, T.: Horizontal
resolution dependence of atmospheric simulations of the Fukushima nuclear
accident using 15 km, 3 km, and 500 m grid models, J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,
93, 49–64, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Sekiyama, T. T., Kajino, M., and Kunii, M.: Ensemble dispersion simulation
of a point-source radioactive aerosol using a square root Kalman filter, J.
Geophys. Res., in review, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Grill, D. O., Barker, D. M.,
Duda, M. G., Huang, X. Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A description of the
advanced research WRF version 3, Tech. Note, NCAR/TN475<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>STR, 125 pp., Natl. Cent. For Atmos. Res., Boulder, Colo., 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Steinhauser, G., Niisoe, T., Harada, K. H., Shozugawa, K., Schneider, S.,
Synal, H.-A, Walther, C., Christl, M., Nanba, K., Ishikawa, H., and Koizumi,
A: Post-accident sporadic releases of airborne radionuclides from the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Site, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49,
14028–14035, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03155" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.5b03155</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Stohl, A., Seibert, P., Wotawa, G., Arnold, D., Burkhart, J. F., Eckhardt, S., Tapia, C., Vargas, A., and
Yasunari, T. J.: Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear
power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2313–2343, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2313-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-2313-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.): Estimation of additional emissions
from nuclear reactor buildings (30 July 2012), available at:
<uri>http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/m120730_05-j.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2012 (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(30 May 2013), available at:
<uri>http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d130530_05-j.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2013 (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(27 March 2014), available at:
<uri>http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d140327_06-j.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2014a (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(25 December 2014), available at:
<uri>http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d141225_08-j.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2014b (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>TEPCO: Estimation of radioactive material released during debris removal
operations at reactor unit 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in
August 2013, available at: <uri>http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000051136.pdf</uri> (last
access: 26 July 2016), 2014c (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(9 October 2015), available at:
<uri>http://www.tepco.co.jp/life/custom/faq/images/d151109_11-j.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2015 (in Japanese).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Terada, H., Katata, G., Chino, M., and Nagai, H.: Atmospheric discharge and
dispersion of radionuclides during the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant accident, Part II: Verification of the source term and analysis of
regional-scale atmospheric dispersion, J. Environ. Radioact., 112, 141–154,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Tsuruta, H., Oura, Y., Ebihara, M., Ohara, T., and Nakajima, T.: First
retrieval of hourly atmospheric radionuclides just after the Fukushima
accident by analysing filter-tapes of operational air pollution monitoring
stations, Scientific Reports, 4, 6717, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep06717" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep06717</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Uliasz, M.: Development of the mesoscale dispersion modelling system using
personal computers, Part I: Models and computer implementation, Z. Meteor.,
40, 110–120, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wesely, M. L. and Hicks, B. B.: A review of the current status of knowledge
on dry deposition, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2261–2282, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Winiarek, V., Bocquet, M., Saunier, O., and Mathieu, A.: Estimation of
errors in the inverse modeling of accidental release of atmospheric
pollutant: Application to the reconstruction of the cesium-137 and
iodine-131 source terms from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, J. Geophys.
Res., 117, D05122,  <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016932" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016932</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Winiarek, V., Bocquet, M., Duhanyan, N., Roustan, Y., Saunier, O., and
Mathieu, A.: Estimation of the caesium-137 source term from the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant using a consistent joint assimilation of air
concentration and deposition observations, Atmos. Environ., 82, 268–279,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Yasunari, T. J., Stohl A., Hayano R. S., Burkhart J. F., Eckhardt S., and
Yasunari T.: Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due
to the Fukushima nuclear accident, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 19530–19534,
2011.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Yumimoto, K., Morino, Y., Ohara, T., Oura, Y., Ebihara, M., Tsuruta, H., and
Nakajima, T.: Inverse modeling of the 137Cs source term of the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident constrained by a deposition map
monitored by aircraft, J. Environ. Radioact., 164, 1–12, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Long-term assessment of airborne radiocesium after the Fukushima nuclear
accident: re-suspension from bare soil and forest ecosystems</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">The long-term effect of <sup>137</sup>Cs re-suspension from contaminated soil and
forests due to the Fukushima nuclear accident has been quantitatively
assessed by numerical simulation, a field experiment on dust emission flux
in a contaminated area (town of Namie, Fukushima prefecture), and air
concentration measurements inside (Namie) and outside (city of Tsukuba, Ibaraki
prefecture) the contaminated area. In order to assess the long-term effect,
the full year of 2013 was selected to study just after the start of the
field experiments. The <sup>137</sup>Cs concentrations at Namie and Tsukuba were
approximately 10<sup>−1</sup>–1 and 10<sup>−2</sup>–10<sup>−1</sup> mBq m<sup>−3</sup>,
respectively. The observed monthly median concentration at Namie was 1 to
2 orders of magnitude larger than that at Tsukuba. This observed
difference between the two sites was consistent with the simulated
difference, indicating successful modeling of <sup>137</sup>Cs re-suspension and
atmospheric transport. The estimated re-suspension rate was approximately
10<sup>−6</sup> day<sup>−1</sup>, which was significantly lower than the decreasing rate of the
ambient gamma dose rate in Fukushima prefecture (10<sup>−4</sup>–10<sup>−3</sup> day<sup>−1</sup>)
as a result of radioactive decay, migration in the soil and biota, and
decontamination. Consequently, re-suspension contributed negligibly in
reducing ground radioactivity. The dust emission model could reproduce the
air concentration of <sup>137</sup>Cs in winter, whereas the summer air
concentration was underestimated by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.
Re-suspension from forests at a constant rate of 10<sup>−7</sup> h<sup>−1</sup>, multiplied by
the green area fraction, could explain the air concentration of <sup>137</sup>Cs
at Namie and its seasonal variation. The simulated contribution of dust
re-suspension to the air concentration was 0.7–0.9 in the cold season and
0.2–0.4 in the warm season at both sites; the remainder of the
contribution was re-suspension from forest. The re-suspension mechanisms,
especially through the forest ecosystems, remain unknown. This is the first
study that provides a crude estimation of the long-term assessment of
radiocesium re-suspension. Additional research activities should investigate
the processes/mechanisms governing the re-suspension over the long term.
This could be achieved through conducting additional field experiments and
numerical simulations.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adachi, K., Kajino, M., Zaizen, Y., and Igarashi, Y.: Emission of spherical
cesium-bearing particles from an early stage of the Fukushima nuclear
accident, Scientific Report, 3, 2554, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep02554" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/srep02554</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Chino, M., Nakayama, H., Nagai, H., Terada, H., Katata, G., and Yamazawa,
H.: Preliminary estimation of release amounts of <sup>131</sup>I and <sup>137</sup>Cs
accidentally discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into
atmosphere, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 48, 1129–1134, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Danielache, S. O., Yoshikawa, C., Priyadarshi, A., Takemura, T., Ueno, Y.,
Thiemens, M. H., and Yoshida, N.: An estimation of the radioactive <sup>35</sup>S
emitted into the atmospheric from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
by using a numerical simulation global transport, Geochem. J., 46,
355–339, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Danielache, S. O., Yoshikawa, C., Kajino, M., Itou, S., Kakeya, W., Yoshida,
N., and Igarashi, Y.: Radioactive <sup>35</sup>S emitted from the Fukushima Nuclear
Power Plan studied by a modified regional model,  in
preparation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R., Arnold, D., Chino, M., Galmarini, S., Hort, M., Jones, A.,
Leadbetter, S., Malo, A., Maurer, C., Rolph, G., Saito, K., Servranckx, R.,
Shimbori, T., Solazzo, E., and Wotawa, G.: World Meteorological Organization's
model simulations of the radionuclide dispersion and deposition from the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, J. Environ. Radioact., 139,
172–184, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Evangeliou, N., Balkanski, Y., Cozic, A., and Møller, A. P.: Global and local
cancer risks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident as seen from
Chernobyl: A modeling study for radiocaesium (<sup>134</sup>Cs &amp; <sup>137</sup>Cs),
Environ. Int., 64, 17–27, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Evrard, O., Laceby, J. P., Lepage, H.,
Onda, Y., Cerdan, O., and Ayrault, S.: Radiocesium transfer from hillslopes to
the Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident: A
review, J. Environ. Radioact., 148, 92–110, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Furuno, A., Chino, M., and Yamazawa, H.: Worldwide version of System of
Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (WSPEEDI) Model Code
(II) – Three-dimensional Atmospheric Dispersion Model for Synoptic Scale:
GEARN, JAERI-Data/Code 99-044, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Japan, 68 pp., 1999 (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Garger, E. K., Paretzke, H. G., and Tschiersch, J.: Measurement of resuspended
aerosol in the Chernobyl area, Part III: size distribution and dry
deposition velocity of radioactive particles during anthropogenic enhanced
resuspension, Radiat. Environ. Bioph., 37, 201–208, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Garger, E. K., Kuzmenko, Y. I., Sickinger, S., and Tschiersch, J.: Prediction of
the <sup>137</sup>Cs activity concentration in the atmospheric surface layer of
the Chernobyl exclusion zone, J. Environ. Radioact., 110, 53–58, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Girard, S., Mallet, V., Korsakissok, I., and Mathieu, A.: Emulation and
Sobl' sensitivity analysis of an atmospheric dispersion model applied to the
Fukushima nuclear accident, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 3484–3496,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023993" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2015JD023993</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Groëll J., Quélo, D., and Mathieu, A.: Sensitivity analysis of the
modelled deposition of <sup>137</sup>Cs on the Japanese land following the
Fukushima accident, Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 55, 67–75, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Gutman, G. and Ignatov, A.: The derivation of green vegetation fraction
from NOAA/AVHRR data for use in numerical weather prediction models, Int. J.
Remote Sens., 19, 1533–1543, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Hatano, Y. and Hatano N.: Formula for the resuspension factor and
estimation of the date of surface contamination, Atmos. Environ., 37,
3475–3480, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Hirao, S., Yamazawa, H., and Nagae, T.: Estimation of release rate of iodine-131
and cesium-137 from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, J. Nucl. Sci.
Technol., 50, 139–147, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2013.757454" target="_blank">doi:10.1080/00223131.2013.757454</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Holländer, W. and Garger, E.: Contamination of Surface by Resuspended
Material, ECP–1, Final Report, Rep. EUR 16527, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hososhima, M. and Kaneyasu, N.: Altitude-dependent distribution of ambient
gamma dose rates in mountainous area of Japan caused by the Fukushima
nuclear accident, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 3341–3348, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Igarashi, Y., Kajino, M., Zaizen, Y., Adachi, K., and Mikami, M.:
Atmospheric radioactivity over Tsukuba, Japan: a summary of three years of
observations after the FDNPP accident, Prog. Earth Planet.
Sci., 2, 19 pp., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40645-015-0066-1" target="_blank">doi:10.1186/s40645-015-0066-1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Ishizuka, M, Mikami, M., Tanaka, T. Y., Igarashi, Y., Kita, K., Yamada, Y.,
Yoshida, N., Toyoda, S., Satou, Y., Kinase, T., Ninomiya, K., and Shinohara, A.:
Use of a size-resolved 1-D resuspension scheme to evaluation resuspended
radioactive material associated with mineral dust particles from the ground
surface, J. Environ. Radioact., 13 pp., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.12.023" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.12.023</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
JMA: Japan Meteorological Agency's Non-Hydrostatic Model II, <i>Suuchi
Yohoka Hokoku Bessatsu</i> (Additional Volume to Report of Numerical Prediction
Division) 54, 265 pp., 2008 (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Kaneyasu, N., Ohashi, H., Suzuki, F., Okada, T., and Ikemori, F.: Sulfate
aerosol as a potential transport medium of radiocesium from the Fukushima
nuclear accident, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 5720–5726, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Katata, G., Terada, H., Nagai, H., and Chino, M.: Numerical reconstruction
of high dose rate zones due to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
accident, J. Environ. Radioact., 111, 2–12, 2012a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Katata, G., Ota, M., Terada, H., Chino, M., and Nagai, H.: Atmospheric
discharge and dispersion of radionuclides during the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Nuclear Power Plant accident, Part I: Source term estimation and local-scale
atmospheric dispersion in early phase of the accident, J. Environ. Radioact.,
109, 103–113, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.02.006" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.02.006</a>, 2012b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Katata, G., Chino, M., Kobayashi, T., Terada, H., Ota, M., Nagai, H., Kajino, M., Draxler, R., Hort, M. C., Malo, A.,
Torii, T., and Sanada, Y.: Detailed source term estimation of the atmospheric release for the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station accident by coupling simulations of an atmospheric dispersion model with an improved deposition
scheme and oceanic dispersion model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 1029–1070, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1029-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-1029-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Kinase, T., Kita, K. Igarashi, Y., Adachi, K., Ninomiya, K., Shinohara, A.,
Okochi, H., Ogata, Y., Ishizuka, M., Toyoda, S., Yamada, K., Yoshida, N.,
Zaizen, Y., Mikami, M., Demizu, H., and Onda, Y.: Seasonal variation in
activity concentration of atmospheric <sup>134, 137</sup>Cs and their possibile
resuspension host aerosol observed at Tsuahima and Yamakiya, Fukushima,
Prog. Earth Planet. Sci.,  in review, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Kristiansen, N. I., Stohl, A., Olivié, D. J. L., Croft, B., Søvde, O. A., Klein, H., Christoudias, T., Kunkel, D.,
Leadbetter, S. J., Lee, Y. H., Zhang, K., Tsigaridis, K., Bergman, T., Evangeliou, N., Wang, H., Ma, P.-L.,
Easter, R. C., Rasch, P. J., Liu, X., Pitari, G., Di Genova, G., Zhao, S. Y., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Faluvegi, G. S.,
Kokkola, H., Martin, R. V., Pierce, J. R., Schulz, M., Shindell, D., Tost, H., and Zhang, H.: Evaluation of observed
and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3525–3561, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Loosmore, G. A. and Hunt, J. R.: Dust resuspension without saltation, J.
Geophys. Res., 105, 20663–20671, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900271" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2000JD900271</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Louis, J. F., Tiedtke, M., and Geleyn, J. F.: A short history of the PBL
parameterization at ECMWF, Workshop on planetary boundary layer
parameterization, ECMWF, 59–80, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries): Fukushima
Prefecture, Tohoku Agricultural Research Center, National Institute for
Agro-Environmental Sciences: Investigation of the cause for brown rice
exceeding the allowable radiocesium concentration, available at:
<a href="http://www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/joho/saigai/fukusima/pdf/150526_youin_chosa.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/joho/saigai/fukusima/pdf/150526_youin_chosa.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2015 (in
Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Masson, O., Baeza, A., Bieringer, J., Brudecki., Bucci, S., Cappai, M.,
Carvalho, F. P., Connan, O., Cosma, C., Dalheimer, A., Didier, D., Depuydt,
G., De Geer, L. E., De Vismes, A., Gini, L., Groppi, F., Gudnason, K.,
Gurriaran, R., Hainz, D., Halldórsson, O., Hammond, D., Hanley, O.,
Holey, K., Homoki, Zs., Ioannidou, A., Isajenko, K., Jankovic, M.,
Katzlberger, C., Kettunen, M., Kierepko, R., Kontro, R., Kwakman, P. J. M.,
Lecomte, M., Leon Vintro, L., Leppänen, A.-P., Lind, B., Lujaniene, G.,
Mc Ginnity, P., Mc Mahon, C., Malá, H., Manenti, S., Manolopoulou, M.,
Mattila., A., Mauring., A., Mietelski, J. W., Moller, B., Nielsen, S. P.,
Nikolic, J., Overwater, R. M. W., Pálsson, S. E., Papastefanou, C.,
Penev, I., Pham, M. K., Povinec, P. P., Ramebäck, H., Reis, M. C.,
Ringer, W., Rodriguez, A., Rulik, P., Saey, P. R. J., Samsonov, V.,
Schlosser, C., Sgorbati, G., Silobritiene, B. V., Söderström, C.,
Sogni, R., Solier, L., Sonck, M., Steinhauser, G., Steinkopff, T.,
Steinmann, P., Stoulos, S., Sýkora, I., Todorovic, D., Tooloutalaie, N.,
Tositti, L., Tschiersch, J., Ugron, A., Vagena, E., Vargas, A., Wershofen,
H., and Zhukova, O.: Tracking of Airborne Radionuclides from the Damaged
Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Reactors by European Networks, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 45, 7670–7677, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Masson, O., Ringer, W., Malá, H., Rulik, P., Dlugosz-Lisiecka, M.,
Eleftheriadis, K., Meisenberg, O., De Vismes-Ott, A., and Gensdarmes, F.:
Size distribution of airborne radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear
Accident at several places in Europe, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47,
10995–11003, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Matsunami H., Murakami, T., Fujiwara, H., and Shinano, T.: Evaluation of the
cause of unexplained radiocaesium contamination of brown rice in Fukushima
in 2013 using autoradiography and gamma-ray spectrometry, Sci. Rep.,
6, 20386, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep20386" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/srep20386</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry): Convention on Nuclear Safety
National Report of Japan for the Second Extraordinary Meeting, July 2012,
Government of Japan, available at:
<a href="http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3512451/www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2012/pdf/0705_01b.pdf" target="_blank">http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3512451/www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2012/pdf/0705_01b.pdf</a> (last
access: 26 July 2016), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Miller, D. A. and White, R. A.: A conterminous United States multi-layer
soil characteristics data set for regional climate and hydrology modeling,
Earth Interact., 2, 1–26, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Matsuda, N., Mikami, S., Shimoura, S., Takahashi, J., Nakano, M., Shimada,
K., Uno, K., Hagiwara, S., and Saito, K.: Depth profiles of radioactive
cesium in soil using a scraper plate over a wide area surrounding the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, Japan, J. Environ. Radioact.,
139, 427–434, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Morino, Y., Ohara, T., and Nishizawa, M.: Atmospheric behavior, deposition,
and budget of radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant in March 2011, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L00G11, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048689" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011GL048689</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Morino, Y., Ohara, T., Watanabe, S., Hayashi, S., and Nishizawa, M.: Episode
analysis of deposition of radiocesium from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant accident, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 2314–2322, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority): Airborne Monitoring Results in each
prefecture, available at:
<a href="http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/list/203/list-1.html" target="_blank">http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/list/203/list-1.html</a> (last access: 26 July
2016), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
NRA: Assessment of radionuclide emission involved in the debris removal
operations for reactor 3; Handout for the 28th meeting on the supervision of
a specific nuclear facility, available at:
<a href="http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000051154.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000051154.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2014
(in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Ohmori, Y., Kajikawa, M., Nishida, S., Tanaka, N., Kobayashi, N. I., Tanoi,
K., Furukawa, J.,  and Fujiwara, T.: The effect of fertilization on cesium
concentration of rice grown in a paddy field in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011
and 2012, J. Plant Res., 127, 67–71, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Oura, Y., Ebihara, M., Tsuruta, H., Nakajima, T., Ohara, T., Ishimoto, M.,
Sawahata, H., Katsumura, Y., and Nitta, W.: A database of hourly atmospheric
concentrations of radiocesium (<sup>134</sup>Cs and <sup>137</sup>Cs) in suspended
particulate matter collected in March 2011 at 99 air pollution monitoring
stations in Eastern Japan, Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences,
15, 15–26, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Petroff, A. and Zhang, L.: Development and validation of a size-resolved particle dry deposition scheme for application in aerosol
transport models, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 753–769, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-753-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-3-753-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Pöhlker C., Wiedemann, K. T., Sinha, B., Shiraiwa, M., Gunthe, S. S.,
Smith, M., Su, H., Artaxo, P., Chen, Q., Cheng, Y., Elbert, W., Gilles, M.
K., Kilcoyne, A. L. D., Moffet, R. C., Weigand, M., Matin, S. T.,
Pöschl, U., and Andreae, M. O.: Biogenic potassium salt particles as
seeds for secondary organic aerosol in the Amazon, Science, 337, 1075–1078,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Quérel, A., Roustan, Y., Quélo, D., and Benoit, J. -P.: Hints to
discriminate the choice of wet deposition models applied to an accidental
radioactive release, Int. J.  Environ. Pollut., 58, 268–279,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Saito, K. and Petoussi-Henss, N.: Ambient dose equivalent conversion
coefficients for radionuclides exponentially distributed in the ground, J.
Nucl. Sci. Techonol., 51, 1274–1287, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2014.919885" target="_blank">doi:10.1080/00223131.2014.919885</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Saito, K., Shimbori, T., and Draxler, R.: JMA's regional atmospheric
transport model calculations for the WMO technical task team on
meteorological analyses for Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident,
J. Environ. Radioact., 139, 185–199, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Saunier, O., Mathieu, A., Didier, D., Tombette, M., Quélo, D., Winiarek, V., and Bocquet, M.: An inverse
modeling method to assess the source term of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident using gamma dose
rate observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11403–11421, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11403-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-11403-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
SCJ (Science Council of Japan): A review of the model comparison of
transportation and deposition of radioactive materials released to the
environment as a result of the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, available at:
<a href="http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-22-h140902-e1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-22-h140902-e1.pdf</a> (last access:
26 July 2016), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Sekiyama, T. T., Kunii, M., Kajino, M., and Shimbori, T.: Horizontal
resolution dependence of atmospheric simulations of the Fukushima nuclear
accident using 15 km, 3 km, and 500 m grid models, J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,
93, 49–64, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Sekiyama, T. T., Kajino, M., and Kunii, M.: Ensemble dispersion simulation
of a point-source radioactive aerosol using a square root Kalman filter, J.
Geophys. Res., in review, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Grill, D. O., Barker, D. M.,
Duda, M. G., Huang, X. Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A description of the
advanced research WRF version 3, Tech. Note, NCAR/TN475+STR, 125 pp., Natl. Cent. For Atmos. Res., Boulder, Colo., 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Steinhauser, G., Niisoe, T., Harada, K. H., Shozugawa, K., Schneider, S.,
Synal, H.-A, Walther, C., Christl, M., Nanba, K., Ishikawa, H., and Koizumi,
A: Post-accident sporadic releases of airborne radionuclides from the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Site, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49,
14028–14035, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03155" target="_blank">doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b03155</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Stohl, A., Seibert, P., Wotawa, G., Arnold, D., Burkhart, J. F., Eckhardt, S., Tapia, C., Vargas, A., and
Yasunari, T. J.: Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear
power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2313–2343, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2313-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-12-2313-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.): Estimation of additional emissions
from nuclear reactor buildings (30 July 2012), available at:
<a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/m120730_05-j.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/m120730_05-j.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2012 (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(30 May 2013), available at:
<a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d130530_05-j.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d130530_05-j.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2013 (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(27 March 2014), available at:
<a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d140327_06-j.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d140327_06-j.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2014a (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(25 December 2014), available at:
<a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d141225_08-j.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/roadmap/images/d141225_08-j.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2014b (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
TEPCO: Estimation of radioactive material released during debris removal
operations at reactor unit 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in
August 2013, available at: <a href="http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000051136.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000051136.pdf</a> (last
access: 26 July 2016), 2014c (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
TEPCO: Estimation of the additional emission from nuclear reactor buildings
(9 October 2015), available at:
<a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/life/custom/faq/images/d151109_11-j.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.tepco.co.jp/life/custom/faq/images/d151109_11-j.pdf</a> (last access: 26 July 2016), 2015 (in Japanese).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Terada, H., Katata, G., Chino, M., and Nagai, H.: Atmospheric discharge and
dispersion of radionuclides during the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Plant accident, Part II: Verification of the source term and analysis of
regional-scale atmospheric dispersion, J. Environ. Radioact., 112, 141–154,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Tsuruta, H., Oura, Y., Ebihara, M., Ohara, T., and Nakajima, T.: First
retrieval of hourly atmospheric radionuclides just after the Fukushima
accident by analysing filter-tapes of operational air pollution monitoring
stations, Scientific Reports, 4, 6717, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep06717" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/srep06717</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Uliasz, M.: Development of the mesoscale dispersion modelling system using
personal computers, Part I: Models and computer implementation, Z. Meteor.,
40, 110–120, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wesely, M. L. and Hicks, B. B.: A review of the current status of knowledge
on dry deposition, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2261–2282, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Winiarek, V., Bocquet, M., Saunier, O., and Mathieu, A.: Estimation of
errors in the inverse modeling of accidental release of atmospheric
pollutant: Application to the reconstruction of the cesium-137 and
iodine-131 source terms from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, J. Geophys.
Res., 117, D05122,  <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016932" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011JD016932</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Winiarek, V., Bocquet, M., Duhanyan, N., Roustan, Y., Saunier, O., and
Mathieu, A.: Estimation of the caesium-137 source term from the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant using a consistent joint assimilation of air
concentration and deposition observations, Atmos. Environ., 82, 268–279,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Yasunari, T. J., Stohl A., Hayano R. S., Burkhart J. F., Eckhardt S., and
Yasunari T.: Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due
to the Fukushima nuclear accident, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 19530–19534,
2011.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Yumimoto, K., Morino, Y., Ohara, T., Oura, Y., Ebihara, M., Tsuruta, H., and
Nakajima, T.: Inverse modeling of the 137Cs source term of the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident constrained by a deposition map
monitored by aircraft, J. Environ. Radioact., 164, 1–12, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
