500 T oT —T “T | T W Sa 400-- 35 a = Sy ~ a 3-5 4 BS eG WO CF = 3.708 535CU S| gl 40 imo 5S 58 200;- 3 S& cc | L A Linear regression line “4 A y = 1.668x + 108.69 H S 8 100; S q 4 A 2§ Oo a 0 L 25 i «| 50 75 — 100 Concentration in soil — pCi/g dry weight Fig. 9. Correlation of the ay Cs concentration in mature Seaevola aud Messersehiitdaia leaves with the concentration of V3leg in the soil at the same site. for concentration site). factors caiculated Concentration factors calcu- for mature Seawevola and coconut leat lated from unassociated plant and samples for which no soil samples soil factors show a variation of From the same three orders of magnitude in the 37 location are available. We selected mature Seaevola and coco- case nut leaves for this comparison because Seuevola they provide factors calculated samples the largest number of of the ranges A comparison in Table 9 shows leaves while concentration from associated data vary by one order of magnitude in both the assoctated and unassocijiated categories. Cs uptake by mature of or less. These results agree with the wide range of concentration factors the Importance of using associated plant- calculated in previous surveys from soil data (data from the same’ sampling unassociated plant and soil samples.’ —-?0- . ; ]