Advertisement

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 349–373 | Cite as

Inter-comparison of absorbed dose rates for non-human biota

  • J. Vives i BatlleEmail author
  • M. Balonov
  • K. Beaugelin-Seiller
  • N. A. Beresford
  • J. Brown
  • J-J. Cheng
  • D. Copplestone
  • M. Doi
  • V. Filistovic
  • V. Golikov
  • J. Horyna
  • A. Hosseini
  • B. J. Howard
  • S. R. Jones
  • S. Kamboj
  • A. Kryshev
  • T. Nedveckaite
  • G. Olyslaegers
  • G. Pröhl
  • T. Sazykina
  • A. Ulanovsky
  • S. Vives Lynch
  • T. Yankovich
  • C. Yu
Original Paper

Abstract

A number of approaches have been proposed to estimate the exposure of non-human biota to ionizing radiation. This paper reports an inter-comparison of the unweighted absorbed dose rates for the whole organism (compared as dose conversion coefficients, or DCCs) for both internal and external exposure, estimated by 11 of these approaches for selected organisms from the Reference Animals and Plants geometries as proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Inter-comparison results indicate that DCCs for internal exposure compare well between the different approaches, whereas variation is greater for external exposure DCCs. Where variation among internal DCCs is greatest, it is generally due to different daughter products being included in the DCC of the parent. In the case of external exposures, particularly to low-energy β-emitters, variations are most likely to be due to different media densities being assumed. On a radionuclide-by-radionuclide basis, the different approaches tend to compare least favourably for 3H, 14C and the α-emitters. This is consistent with models with different source/target geometry assumptions showing maximum variability in output for the types of radiation having the lowest range across matter. The intercomparison demonstrated that all participating approaches to biota dose calculation are reasonably comparable, despite a range of different assumptions being made.

Keywords

Radionuclide International Atomic Energy Agency 234U Absorb Dose Rate Internal Exposure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all other participants of the Biota Working Group who have commented on this work. The authors would also like to thank Professor J. Pentreath, the Chairperson of ICRP Committee 5, for permission to use the proposed RAP geometries.

References

  1. 1.
    Beresford NA, Balonov M, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Børretzen P, Brown J, Cheng JJ, Copplestone D, Doi M, Gaschak S, Golikov S, Horyna J, Hosseini A, Howard BJ, Jasserand F, Kamboj S, Nedveckaite T, Olyslaegers G, Sazykina T, Vives i Batlle J, Yankovich T, Yu C (2005) Models and approaches available to estimate the exposure of non-human biota: an international comparison of predictions. In: 2nd international conference on radioactivity in the environment, Nice, 2–6 October 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ICRP (2005) The concept and use of reference animals and plants for the purposes of environmental protection (draft for discussion). In: Valentin J (ed) ICRP Publication XX, Annals of the ICRP, 46 pp. http://www.icrp.org/
  3. 3.
    Beresford NA, Barnett CL, Brown J, Cheng JJ, Copplestone D, Filistovic V, Hosseini A, Howard BJ, Jones SR, Kamboj S, Kryshev A, Nedveckaite T, Olyslaegers G, Saxén R, Sazykina T, Vives i Batlle J, Vives-Lynch S, Yankovich T, Yu C (2007) Inter-comparison of models to estimate radionuclide activity concentrations in non-human biota. Ecol Model (Submitted)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    FASSET (2003) Dosimetric models and data for assessing radiation exposures to biota. In: Pröhl G (ed) FASSET (Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Impact) Deliverable 3 Report for the EC 5th Framework Programme Contract FIGE-CT−2000-00102. 103 pp. http://www.erica-roject.org/
  5. 5.
    Vives i Batlle J, Jones SR, Gómez-Ros JM (2004) A method for calculation of dose per unit concentration values for aquatic biota. J Radiol Prot 24:A13–A34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ulanovsky A, Pröhl G (2006) A practical method for assessment of dose conversion coefficients for aquatic biota. Radiat Environ Biophys 45:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beresford N, Brown J, Copplestone D, Garnier-Laplace J, Howard B, Larsson C-M, Oughton D, Pröhl G, Zinger I (2007) D-ERICA: an integrated approach to the assessment and management of environmental risks from ionising radiation. A deliverable of the ERICA project (FI6R-CT-2004–508847). Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), Stockholm. http://www.erica-project.org/
  8. 8.
    Krane KS (1988) Introductory nuclear physics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woodhead DS (1979) Methods of dosimetry for aquatic organisms. In: Methodology for assessing impacts of radioactivity on aquatic ecosystems. Technical Reports Series No. 190, International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blaylock BG, Frank ML, O’Neal BR (1993) Methodology for estimating radiation dose rates to freshwater biota exposed to radionuclide in the environment. Report ES/ER/TM-78, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICRP (1983) Radionuclide transformations—energy and intensity of transmissions. ICRP Publication 38 (Annals of the ICRP 11), Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amiro BD (1997) Radiological dose conversion factors for generic non-human biota used for screening potential ecological impacts. J Environ Radioact 35:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    FASSET (2003) Handbook for assessment of the exposure of biota to ionising radiation from radionuclides in the environment. In: Brown J, Strand P, Hosseini A, Børretzen P (eds) FASSET Deliverable 5 Report for the EC 5th Framework Programme Contract FIGE-CT-2000-00102, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, Norway, 101 pp. http://www.erica-project.org/
  14. 14.
    DOE (2004). ISCORS (Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards) - RESRAD-BIOTA User’s Guide, Version 1. A Tool for Implementing a Graded Approach to Biota Dose Evaluation. Technical Report 2004-02, US DOE/EH-0676. http://www.iscors.org/doc/RESRADBIOTA.pdf
  15. 15.
    Sazykina TG (2000) ECOMOD—an ecological approach to radioecological modelling. J Environ Radioact 50:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellet WH, Humes RM (1971) Absorbed fractions for small volumes containing photon-emitting radioactivity. J Nucl Med 5:27–31Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brownell GL, Ellett WH, Reddy AR (1968) Absorbed fractions for photon dosimetry. J Nucl Med 9:27–39Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beaugelin-Seiller K, Jasserand F, Garnier-Laplace J, Gariel JC (2006) Modeling radiological dose in non-human species: principles, computerization, and application. Health Phys 90:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    OECD (1997) JEF-PC version 2.0. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Copplestone D, Bielby S, Jones SR, Patton D, Daniel CP, Gize I (2001) Impact assessment of ionising radiation on wildlife. R&D Publication 128, Environment Agency and English Nature, BristolGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Copplestone D, Wood MD, Bielby S, Jones SR, Vives i Batlle J, Beresford NA (2003) Habitat regulations for stage 3 assessments: radioactive substances authorisations. R&D Technical Report P3–101/SP1a. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berger MJ (1968) Energy deposition in water by photons from point isotropic sources. J Nucl Med 9:15–25Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berger MJ (1971) Distribution of absorbed doses around point sources of electrons and beta particles in water and other media. J Nucl Med 12:5–23ADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    EPIC (2003) The “EPIC” impact assessment framework. Towards the protection of the arctic environment from the effects of ionising radiation. In: J. Brown, H. Thorring and A. Hosseini (eds) EPIC (Environmental Protection from Ionising Contaminants) Report ICA2-CT-2000-10032. Østerås, Norway, http://www.erica-project.org/
  25. 25.
    Loevinger R, Japha EM, Brownell GL (1956) Discrete radioisotope sources. In: Hine GJ, Brownell GL (eds) Radiation dosimetry. Academic Press, New York, pp 693–799Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woodhead DS (2000) Environmental dosimetry: the current position and the implications for developing a framework for environmental protection. R&D Technical Report P350, England & Wales Environmental Agency, Bristol, UK, 48ppGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    IAEA (1979) Methodology for assessing impacts of radioactivity on aquatic ecosystems. Technical Report Series No. 190, International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Golikov V, Brown JE (2003) Internal and external dose models. Deliverable report 4 for epic. EC Inco-Copernicus project ICA2-CT-2000-10032, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østerås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larsson C-M, Jones SR, Gomez-Ros JM, Zinger I (2004) Framework for assessment of environmental impact of ionising radiation in major European ecosystems. Deliverable 6 for the FASSET project Contract No. FIGE-CT-2000-00102, Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, Stockholm. http://www.erica-project.org/
  30. 30.
    Nedveckaite T, Filistovic V, Marciulioniene D, Kiponas D, Remeikis V, Beresford NA (2007) Exposure of biota in the cooling pond of Ignalina NPP: hydrophytes. J Environ Radioact (in press)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waters LS (2002) MCNPX user’s manual version 2.4.0. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-CP-02-408. http://www.Nea.Fr/abs/html/ccc-0715.Html
  32. 32.
    DOE (2002) A graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota. Technical Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MEE (2001) Mathcad 2001i. Mathsoft Engineering and Education Inc., Cambridge. http://www.mathcad.com/
  34. 34.
    Hubbell H, Seltzer SM (1996) Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients. Ionizing Radiation Division, Physics Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, May 1996—last update July 2004. http://www.physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/cover.html
  35. 35.
    ANS (1992) American national standard for gamma-ray attenuation coefficients and buildup factors for engineering materials. ANSI/ANS-6.4.3-1991, American Nuclear Society, La Grange ParkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    IAEA (1992) Effects of ionizing radiation on plants and animals at levels implies by current radiation protection standards. Technical Report Series No. 332, International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  38. 38.
    Komsta L (2005) Moments: moments, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. R package version 0.1. http://www.r-project.org, http://www.komsta.net/
  39. 39.
    PROPHET (1997) Prophet statguide: possible alternatives if your data violate normality test assumptions. http://www.Basic.Northwestern.Edu/statguidefiles/n-dist_alts.html
  40. 40.
    Thompson M, Wood R (1993) International harmonized protocol for proficiency testing of (chemical) analytical laboratories. J Pure Appl Chem 65:2123–2144Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lawn RE, Thompson M, Walker RF (1997) Proficiency testing in analytical chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry, 110 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    ISO (1997) Proficiency testing by inter-laboratory comparisons part 1: development and operation of proficiency testing schemes. International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO/IEC Guide 43–1Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Povinec PP (2004) Developments in analytical technologies for marine radionuclide studies. In: Livingston HD (ed) Marine radioactivity, radioactivity in the environment, vol 6, pp 237–294 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kocher DC, Sjoreen AL (1985) Dose-rate conversion factors for external exposure to photon emitters in soil. Health Phys 48:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eckerman KF, Ryman JC (1993) External exposure to radionuclides in air, water, and soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93–081Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kamboj S, LePoire D, Yu C (2002) External exposure model in the RESRAD computer code. Health Phys 82:831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Vives i Batlle
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Balonov
    • 2
  • K. Beaugelin-Seiller
    • 3
  • N. A. Beresford
    • 4
  • J. Brown
    • 5
  • J-J. Cheng
    • 6
  • D. Copplestone
    • 7
  • M. Doi
    • 8
  • V. Filistovic
    • 9
  • V. Golikov
    • 10
  • J. Horyna
    • 11
  • A. Hosseini
    • 5
  • B. J. Howard
    • 4
  • S. R. Jones
    • 1
  • S. Kamboj
    • 6
  • A. Kryshev
    • 12
  • T. Nedveckaite
    • 9
  • G. Olyslaegers
    • 13
  • G. Pröhl
    • 14
  • T. Sazykina
    • 12
  • A. Ulanovsky
    • 14
  • S. Vives Lynch
    • 1
  • T. Yankovich
    • 15
  • C. Yu
    • 6
  1. 1.Westlakes Scientific Consulting LtdCumbriaUK
  2. 2.International Atomic Energy AgencyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté NucléaireClamartFrance
  4. 4.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyLancasterUK
  5. 5.Norwegian Radiation Protection AuthorityOsterasNorway
  6. 6.Argonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA
  7. 7.England and Wales Environment AgencyWarringtonUK
  8. 8.National Institute of Radiological SciencesChibaJapan
  9. 9.Institute of PhysicsVilniusLithuania
  10. 10.Institute of Radiation HygieneSt. PetersburgRussia
  11. 11.SÚJB - State Office for Nuclear SafetyPragueCzech Republic
  12. 12.SPATyphoonObninskRussia
  13. 13.SCK·CEN - Belgian Nuclear Research CentreBoeretangBelgium
  14. 14.GSF - National Research Centre for Environment and Health, Institute of Radiation ProtectionNeuherbergGermany
  15. 15.Atomic Energy Canada LimitedChalk RiverCanada

Personalised recommendations