International intercomparison on internal dose assessment (ICIDOSE 2017)

Internal dose assessment intercomparison exercises are useful tools: to verify the performance of an internal dosimetry service; to promote the harmonisation of dose assessments; and to identify weaknesses where further improvements are necessary. However, no such international intercomparisons have been performed for more than ten years. In the period May 2014–May 2016, the 'Technical Recommendations for Monitoring Individuals for Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides' were developed on the initiative of the European Commission, and later published within the EC Radiation Protection series, as RP188. In 2017 the Working Group 'Internal Dosimetry' of the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) organised a new intercomparison action, named ICIDOSE 2017, with the main aim of testing the practical applicability of these technical recommendations (RP188). Four case studies were proposed to participants: an artificially created case of inhalation of ⁶⁰Co to simulate a simple special monitoring case; a real case of inhalation of ¹²⁵I, with simple routine monitoring; a real and more complex case of incorporation of ^234+235+238U, featuring both confirmatory and special monitoring; and a complex real case of an accidental incorporation of ²⁴¹Am, including multiple administrations of diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA). Results were received from 66 participants from 26 countries; these were compared to reference or recommended solutions, developed for each case based on the application of RP188. In cases 1, 2 and 4 only a small number of results were identified as outliers, with the spread of all the results, expressed as the geometric standard deviation (GSD) of the values, assessed as 1.07, 1.04 and 1.43, respectively. This observed spread of the submitted results was improved from those obtained from similar cases in previous intercomparison exercises, showing that the availability of RP188 contributes to the harmonisation of the internal dose assessment process. There was a much wider spread of results for the uranium case: this case was characterised by an absence of any prior knowledge of the exposure scenario, and participants assumed a range of different exposure pathways and patterns. (paper)