A comparison of the ellipsoidal and voxelized dosimetric methodologies for internal, heterogeneous radionuclide sources
Creators
- 1. Colorado State University, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Fort Collins, CO 80523 (United States)
- 2. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP (United Kingdom)
- 3. Oregon State University, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics, Corvallis, OR 97331 (United States)
Description
Non-human biota dosimetry has historically relied on ellipsoidal dosimetric phantoms. In 2008, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) presented a set of ellipsoidal models representative of wildlife, including dosimetric data for homogeneously distributed internal radionuclide sources. Such data makes it possible to quickly and easily estimate radiation dose rate. Voxelized modeling, first developed for use in human medical dosimetry, utilizes advanced imaging technologies to generate realistic and detailed dosimetric phantoms. Individual organs or tissues may be segmented and dosimetric data derived for each anatomic area of interest via Monte Carlo modeling. Recently, dosimetric data derived from voxelized models has become available for organisms similar to the ICRP's Reference Animals and Plants in 2008. However, if the existing ellipsoidal models are conservative, there may be little need to employ voxel models in regulatory assessments. At the same time, existing dosimetric techniques may be inadequate to resolve recent controversies surrounding the impact of ionizing radiation exposure on wildlife. This study quantifies the difference between voxel-calculated and ellipsoid-calculated dose rates for seven radionuclides assumed to be heterogeneously distributed: 14C, 36Cl, 60Co, 90Sr, 131I, 134Cs, 137Cs, and 210Po. Generally, the two methodologies agree within a factor of two to three. Finally, this paper compares the assumptions of each dosimetric system, the conditions under which each model best applies, and the implications that our results have for the ongoing dialog surrounding wildlife dosimetry. - Highlights: • Ellipsoidal models are fit-for-regulatory-purpose for wildlife investigated herein. • Use of realistic tissue versus 4-part tissue increases AF in an organ generally by less than 10%. • Ellipsoidal model estimates of organ dose rates are conservative by up to a factor of three
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2014.11.004Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2014.11.004;
- PII
- S0265-931X(14)00324-5;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
- Journal Volume
- 140
- Journal Page Range
- p. 70-77
- ISSN
- 0265-931X
- CODEN
- JERAEE
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 47010957
- Subject category
- S54: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES;
- Descriptors DEI
- ANIMAL TISSUES; CARBON 14; CESIUM 134; CESIUM 137; CHLORINE 36; COBALT 60; DOSE RATES; DOSIMETRY; IODINE 131; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ORGANS; PHANTOMS; PLANTS; POLONIUM 210; RADIATION DOSES; RADIATION PROTECTION; SIMULATION; STRONTIUM 90; WILD ANIMALS
- Descriptors DEC
- ALKALINE EARTH ISOTOPES; ALPHA DECAY RADIOISOTOPES; ANIMALS; BETA DECAY RADIOISOTOPES; BETA-MINUS DECAY RADIOISOTOPES; BETA-PLUS DECAY RADIOISOTOPES; BODY; CALCULATION METHODS; CARBON ISOTOPES; CESIUM ISOTOPES; CHLORINE ISOTOPES; COBALT ISOTOPES; DAYS LIVING RADIOISOTOPES; DOSES; ELECTRON CAPTURE RADIOISOTOPES; EVEN-EVEN NUCLEI; HEAVY NUCLEI; HOURS LIVING RADIOISOTOPES; INTERMEDIATE MASS NUCLEI; INTERNAL CONVERSION RADIOISOTOPES; IODINE ISOTOPES; ISOMERIC TRANSITION ISOTOPES; ISOTOPES; LIGHT NUCLEI; MINUTES LIVING RADIOISOTOPES; MOCKUP; NANOSECONDS LIVING RADIOISOTOPES; NUCLEI; ODD-EVEN NUCLEI; ODD-ODD NUCLEI; POLONIUM ISOTOPES; RADIOISOTOPES; STRONTIUM ISOTOPES; STRUCTURAL MODELS; YEARS LIVING RADIOISOTOPES
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.