French experience in the field of internal dosimetry assessment at a nuclear workplace: Methods and results on industrial uranium dioxide
- 39 Downloads
- 2 Citations
Abstract
The implementation of the new ICRP recommendations and the diversity of industrial exposure materials make it necessary to modify our approach of assessing internal dosimetry.
This paper describes a methodology developed to assess different parameters such as (1) activity concentration and particle size distribution at the workplace; (2) physico-chemical characteristics of industrial dust handled, and (2) in vitro and in vivo, solubility in order to determine the absorption rate into blood. The determination of such specific parameters will lead to dose calculation in terms of committed effective Dose Per Unit of Intake (DPUI). Results obtained for an industrial uranium dioxide, UO2, at a French nuclear facility are presented.
Keywords
Particle Size Dust Uranium Particle Size Distribution Effective DosePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.ICRP 66, International Commission on Radiological Protection, “Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection, (Oxford Pergamon), Ann. ICRP 24 (1/4) 1994.Google Scholar
- 2.ICRP 30, International Commission on Radiological Protection, “Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, (Oxford: Pergamon), Ann. ICRP 2 (3/4) 1979.Google Scholar
- 3.H. SCHIEFERDECKER, H. DILGER, H. DOERFEL, Health Phys., 48 (1985) 29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.C.M. WEST, L.M. SCOTT, Health. Phys., 12 (1966) 1545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.C.M. WEST, L.M. SCOTT, Health. Phys., 17 (1969) 781.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.F. BOURDEIX, P. BERARD, J. ACHIARY, Radioprotection, 24 (1989) 181.Google Scholar
- 7.M.E. WRENN, L. BERTELLI, P.W. DURBIN, N.P. SINGH, K.F. ECKERMAN, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 53 (1994) 255.Google Scholar
- 8.J.B. HURSH, N.L. SPOOR, “Data on Man”, inUranium, Plutonium, Transplutonium Elements, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, (1973) 197.Google Scholar
- 9.H. METIVIER, J.L. PONCY, G. RATEAU, G.N. STRADLING, Radioprotection, 27 (1992) 263.Google Scholar
- 10.P.E. MORROW, F.R. GIBB, L.J. LEACH, Health Phys., 12 (1966) 1217.Google Scholar
- 11.P.W. DURBIN, M.E. WRENN, Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, (1976) 68.Google Scholar
- 12.G.N. STRADLING, J.W. STATHER, S.A. GRAY, Human Toxicol., 7 (1988) 133.Google Scholar
- 13.E. ANSOBORLO, P. BERARD, J. CHALABREYSSE, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 26 (1989) 101.Google Scholar
- 14.D.R. KALKWARF, Sci. Total Environ., 28 (1983) 405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.N. COOKE, F.B. HOLT, Health. Phys., 27 (1974) 69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.D.R. TASAT, B.M. DeREY, Environ. Res., 44 (1987) 71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.A.L. BATCHELOR, Phys. Med. Biol., 27 (1982) 949.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.E. ANSOBORLO, J. CHALABREYSSE, M.H. HENGE-NAPOLI, Environ. Health Perspect., 97 (1992) 139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.E. ANSOBORLO, M.H. HENGE-NAPOLI, M. DONNADIEU-CLARAZ, M. ROY, P. PIHET, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 53 (1994) 157.Google Scholar
- 20.M.H. HENGE-NAPOLI, E. ANSOBORLO, M. DONNADIEU-CLARAZ, J.P. BERRY, R. GILBERT, B. PRADAL, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 53 (1994) 163.Google Scholar
- 21.A. BIRCHALL, M.R. BAILEY, A.C. JAMES, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 38 (1991) 167.Google Scholar