|Appears in Collections:
|Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles
|Peer Review Status:
|The estimation of absorbed dose rates for non-human biota: an extended intercomparison
|Vives i Batlle, Jordi
Beresford, Nicholas A
Vives Lynch, Sandra
Wood, Michael D
|Vives i Batlle J, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Beresford NA, Copplestone D, Horyna J, Hosseini A, Johansen M, Kamboj S, Keum D, Kurosawa N, Newsome L, Vandenhove H, Ryufuku S, Vives Lynch S, Wood MD & Yu C (2011) The estimation of absorbed dose rates for non-human biota: an extended intercomparison. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 50 (2), pp. 231-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-010-0346-5
|An exercise to compare 10 approaches for the calculation of unweighted whole-body absorbed dose rates was conducted for 74 radionuclides and five of the ICRP’s Reference Animals and Plants, or RAPs (duck, frog, flatfish egg, rat and elongated earthworm), selected for this exercise to cover a range of body sizes, dimensions and exposure scenarios. Results were analysed using a non-parametric method requiring no specific hypotheses about the statistical distribution of data. The obtained unweighted absorbed dose rates for internal exposure compare well between the different approaches, with 70% of the results falling within a range of variation of ±20%. The variation is greater for external exposure, although 90% of the estimates are within an order of magnitude of one another. There are some discernible patterns where specific models over- or under-predicted. These are explained based on the methodological differences including number of daughter products included in the calculation of dose rate for a parent nuclide; source–target geometry; databases for discrete energy and yield of radionuclides; rounding errors in integration algorithms; and intrinsic differences in calculation methods. For certain radionuclides, these factors combine to generate systematic variations between approaches. Overall, the technique chosen to interpret the data enabled methodological differences in dosimetry calculations to be quantified and compared, allowing the identification of common issues between different approaches and providing greater assurance on the fundamental dose conversion coefficient approaches used in available models for assessing radiological effects to biota.
|The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
|Fulltext - Published Version
|Under Embargo until 3000-01-01 Request a copy
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.