Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The equation for Dext is an approximation that only holds if the organism and the surrounding medium are of the same density and elemental composition.

  2. MCNPX (Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code Version X) is an extension of the Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP) capable of simulating particle interactions of 34 different types of particles at all energies, including those simulated by MCNP.

  3. Skewness and kurtosis are measures of the lack of symmetry and the heaviness of the tails in a distribution, relative to the normal distribution.

  4. The CVs in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are calculated using the raw rather than the robust mean and standard deviation of data, differing in this respect from efficiency measures. For this reason, CVs and Z-scores as given in this paper are not directly comparable.

  5. In this calculation 90Sr includes 90Y, 137Cs includes 137mBa, and 238U includes 234Th, 234mPa and 234Pa in secular equilibrium with the parent radionuclide.

References

  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 2005

  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. 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)

  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. 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–A34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ulanovsky A, Pröhl G (2006) A practical method for assessment of dose conversion coefficients for aquatic biota. Radiat Environ Biophys 45:203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Krane KS (1988) Introductory nuclear physics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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, Vienna

  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, Tennessee

  11. ICRP (1983) Radionuclide transformations—energy and intensity of transmissions. ICRP Publication 38 (Annals of the ICRP 11), Pergamon Press, Oxford

  12. Amiro BD (1997) Radiological dose conversion factors for generic non-human biota used for screening potential ecological impacts. J Environ Radioact 35:37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Sazykina TG (2000) ECOMOD—an ecological approach to radioecological modelling. J Environ Radioact 50:207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellet WH, Humes RM (1971) Absorbed fractions for small volumes containing photon-emitting radioactivity. J Nucl Med 5:27–31

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brownell GL, Ellett WH, Reddy AR (1968) Absorbed fractions for photon dosimetry. J Nucl Med 9:27–39

    Google Scholar 

  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 90:485–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. OECD (1997) JEF-PC version 2.0. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  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, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  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, Bristol

  22. Berger MJ (1968) Energy deposition in water by photons from point isotropic sources. J Nucl Med 9:15–25

    Google Scholar 

  23. Berger MJ (1971) Distribution of absorbed doses around point sources of electrons and beta particles in water and other media. J Nucl Med 12:5–23

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  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. Loevinger R, Japha EM, Brownell GL (1956) Discrete radioisotope sources. In: Hine GJ, Brownell GL (eds) Radiation dosimetry. Academic Press, New York, pp 693–799

    Google Scholar 

  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, 48pp

  27. IAEA (1979) Methodology for assessing impacts of radioactivity on aquatic ecosystems. Technical Report Series No. 190, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

  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, Norway

  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. 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)

  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. 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 DC

  33. MEE (2001) Mathcad 2001i. Mathsoft Engineering and Education Inc., Cambridge. http://www.mathcad.com/

  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. 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 Park

  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, Vienna

  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. 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. PROPHET (1997) Prophet statguide: possible alternatives if your data violate normality test assumptions. http://www.Basic.Northwestern.Edu/statguidefiles/n-dist_alts.html

  40. Thompson M, Wood R (1993) International harmonized protocol for proficiency testing of (chemical) analytical laboratories. J Pure Appl Chem 65:2123–2144

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lawn RE, Thompson M, Walker RF (1997) Proficiency testing in analytical chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry, 110 pp

  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 43–1

  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

  44. Kocher DC, Sjoreen AL (1985) Dose-rate conversion factors for external exposure to photon emitters in soil. Health Phys 48:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eckerman KF, Ryman JC (1993) External exposure to radionuclides in air, water, and soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93–081

  46. Kamboj S, LePoire D, Yu C (2002) External exposure model in the RESRAD computer code. Health Phys 82:831–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Westlakes Scientific Consulting Ltd, The Princess Royal Building, Westlakes Science and Technology Park, Moor Row, Cumbria, CA24 3LN, UK

    J. Vives i Batlle, S. R. Jones & S. Vives Lynch

  2. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria

    M. Balonov

  3. Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Clamart, France

    K. Beaugelin-Seiller

  4. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster, UK

    N. A. Beresford & B. J. Howard

  5. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Osteras, Norway

    J. Brown & A. Hosseini

  6. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, USA

    J-J. Cheng, S. Kamboj & C. Yu

  7. England and Wales Environment Agency, Warrington, UK

    D. Copplestone

  8. National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Chiba, Japan

    M. Doi

  9. Institute of Physics, Vilnius, Lithuania

    V. Filistovic & T. Nedveckaite

  10. Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg, Russia

    V. Golikov

  11. SÚJB - State Office for Nuclear Safety, Prague, Czech Republic

    J. Horyna

  12. SPATyphoon, Obninsk, Russia

    A. Kryshev & T. Sazykina

  13. SCK·CEN - Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Boeretang, Belgium

    G. Olyslaegers

  14. GSF - National Research Centre for Environment and Health, Institute of Radiation Protection, Neuherberg, Germany

    G. Pröhl & A. Ulanovsky

  15. Atomic Energy Canada Limited, Chalk River, ON, Canada

    T. Yankovich

Authors
  1. J. Vives i Batlle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Balonov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Beaugelin-Seiller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. A. Beresford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J-J. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Copplestone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Doi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. V. Filistovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. V. Golikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. J. Horyna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. A. Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. B. J. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. S. R. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. S. Kamboj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. A. Kryshev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. T. Nedveckaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. G. Olyslaegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. G. Pröhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. T. Sazykina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. A. Ulanovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. S. Vives Lynch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. T. Yankovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. C. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Vives i Batlle.

Additional information

Dedication: This paper is dedicated to the memory of our co-author Dr. Masahiro Doi, who sadly passed away in July 2006. We will miss his friendship and input into the group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vives i Batlle, J., Balonov, M., Beaugelin-Seiller, K. et al. Inter-comparison of absorbed dose rates for non-human biota. Radiat Environ Biophys 46, 349–373 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-007-0124-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-007-0124-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation