An international comparison of models and approaches for the estimation of the radiological exposure of non-human biota

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology - Lancaster, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK.
Applied Radiation and Isotopes (Impact Factor: 1.23). 06/2008; 66(11):1745-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2008.04.009
Source: PubMed


Over the last decade a number of models and approaches have been developed for the estimation of the exposure of non-human biota to ionising radiations. In some countries these are now being used in regulatory assessments. However, to date there has been no attempt to compare the outputs of the different models used. This paper presents the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency's EMRAS Biota Working Group which compares the predictions of a number of such models in model-model and model-data inter-comparisons.

Download full-text


Available from: J. Horyna, Mar 17, 2015
  • Source
    • "other models and by limited direct comparison with measured data, results of these evaluations being found elsewhere (Beresford et al. 2008a, b). These exercises have included a comparison of the ERICA Tool with the equally comprehensive RESRAD‐Biota methodology (USDOE 2002) and demonstrate that for certain assessment components, particularly those considering transfer, differences in output can be substantial. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent developments have seen the expansion of the system of radiological protection for humans to one including protection of the environment against detrimental effects of radiation exposure although a fully developed framework for integration of human and ecological risk assessment for radionuclides is only at an early stage. In the context of integration, significant differences can be seen to exist between assessment methodologies for humans and the environment in terms of transfer, exposure and dosimetry. The aim of this elaboration was to explore possible implications of the simplifications made within the system of environmental radiological protection in terms of the efficacy and robustness of dose-rate predictions. A comparison was conducted between human radiological assessment and environmental radiological assessment for an anthropomorphic surrogate, the results for which, produced by both the environmental and human oriented risk assessment systems, were critically compared and contrasted. The approach adopted split the calculations in to several parts, these being (i) physical transfer in an ecosystem, (ii) transfer to humans, (iii) internal doses to humans and (iv) external doses to humans. The calculations were performed using both a human radiological assessment and ecological risk assessment system for the same surrogate. The results of this comparison provided indications as to where the two systems are amenable to possible integration and where such integration may prove difficult. Initial stage transport models appear to be an obvious component amenable for integration, although complete integration is arguably unattainable as the differences between endpoints mean that the relevant outputs from the models will not be the same. For the transfer and dosimtery components of two typical methodologies, it appears that the efficacy of the environmental system is radionuclide dependent, the predictions given by the environmental system for 90Sr and 60Co being unsatisfactory and those for 239Pu and 210Po being evidently poor. Integration in this context might take the form of exploring the biokinetic models developed for humans with regards to selected animals and radionuclides. External dose assessment for environmental and human systems provide results for the surrogate that correspond quite closely providing an indication that integration in this regard is perhaps unnecessary. Integr Environ Assess Manag © 2013 SETAC.
    Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 01/2014; 10(1). DOI:10.1002/ieam.1454 · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Components of the models used to conduct these assessments are parameters to determine the transfer of the many potential radionuclides to a wide range of wildlife. A number of recent evaluations have clearly demonstrated that the largest contribution to variability between model predictions is the parameterization of the model transfer components (Avila et al. 2004; Beresford et al. 2008a, b, 2010; Vives i Batlle et al. 2007; Yankovich et al. 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bats are a protected species and as such may be an object of protection in radiological assessments of the environment. However, there have previously been only few radioecological studies of species of bats. In this paper, results for >140 measurements of (90)Sr and (137)Cs in 10 species of bats collected within the Chernobyl zone are presented. There was some indication of a decreasing transfer of (90)Sr with increasing deposition, although this was inconsistent across species and explained little of the observed variability. There was no difference between male and female bats in the transfer (expressed as the ratio of whole-body activity concentrations to those in soil) of either radionuclide. There was considerable variability in transfer across all species groups. At two sites where there were sufficient data, Eptesicus serotinus was found to have higher transfer than other species.
    Biophysik 11/2010; 49(4):635-44. DOI:10.1007/s00411-010-0322-0 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A radiation dose assessment exercise was carried out for the Ipomea batata, Allium sativum, Dacaus carota, and Solanum tuberosum due to naturally available radionuclide 40K, 238U and 232Th in the Domiasiat area of Meghalaya. The concentration of radionuclides in biota as well as corresponding soil was measured by precipitation method using NaI detector for continuous 12 months. Transfer factor was calculated and was, for 40K(3.96E−05, 3.40E−05, 3.40E−05, 2.70E−05), for 232Th(3.94E−05, 3.20E−05, 3.20E−054.93E−05), for 238U(3.60E−05, 3.89E−05, 3.85E−054.57E−05), respectively in each biota due to each radionuclide. The point source dose distribution (source ↔ target) hypotheses was applied for the consideration of absorbed fraction. The generated data were modeled using the FASSET method and obtained dose was 8.42E−03, 8.36E−03, 7.78E−03, 7.74E−03 μGy h−1, respectively and finally compared with the IAEA and UNSCEAR dataset for screening level dose for terrestrial biota.
    Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 10/2011; 290(1). DOI:10.1007/s10967-011-1148-1 · 1.03 Impact Factor
Show more