Findings and recommendations from an international comparison of models and approaches for the estimation of radiological exposure to non-human biota

Beresford, Nicholas A.; Barnett, C.L.; Beaugelin­-Seiller, K.; Brown, Justin; Cheng, Jing-Jy; Copplestone, David; Gaschak, S.; Hingston, J. L.; Horyna, J.; Hosseini, A.; Howard, B.J.; Kamboj, S.; Крышев, А. И.; Nedveckaitė, T.; Olyslaegers, G.; Сазыкина, Т. Г.; Smith, J.T.; Telleria, D.; Batlle, J. Vives i; Yankovich, T.L.; Heling, R.; Yu, C.

doi:10.1051/radiopro/20095104

Cited by 29 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In part, this is a consequence of the different organisms considered in the three models. It is also in agreement with other comparisons of models/approaches used to estimate exposure of biota which have demonstrated that the dosimetry components generally estimate comparable results [1][2][3]. The greater variability observed in estimated RQ values between models when assuming 1 Bq kg −1 in freshwater sediments may be the consequence of RESRAD-BIOTA using terrestrial soil-soil water k d values rather than freshwater sediment-water k d values [10].…”

Section: Variation In Estimated Rq Valuessupporting

confidence: 76%

“…The large variation within RQ values estimated by the approaches requires further investigation as it does not promote the level of confidence required by the user. Furthermore, this work adds to the recommendations made elsewhere [2] that there is a clear need to better share knowledge on the parameterisation of radionuclide transfer to biota and to provide authoritative collations of those data which are available.…”

Section: Variation In Estimated Rq Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of models/approaches/tools to estimate the exposure of wildlife to ionising radiation have been produced or are being developed for use in assessments [1][2][3]. Many of the approaches use some form of tiered (iterative) assessment consistent with approaches used for other stressors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Assessment approaches – practicality, relevance and merits

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In common with the assessment of chemical stressors many of the methods used for the assessment of risk of non-human biota exposed to radiation use tiered approaches. The initial tier within these approaches is designed to be simple and conservative with the aim to identify sites of negligible concern which can be excluded from more detailed assessment with a high degree of confidence. In this paper we compare the outputs of the screening tiers of three tools which are freely available as software packages. Outputs were compared for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems assuming 1 Bq per unit media. Considerable variability between the risk quotients (RQ) estimated by the three approaches used was seen for some radionuclide-organism-ecosystem combinations. Reasons for this are explored with differences in transfer parameters used by the models being a common contributor. The large variation within RQ values estimated by the approaches requires further investigation as it does not promote the level of confidence required by the user. The practicalities of applying a single generic screening dose rate in assessments are also explored.

show abstract

Section: Variation In Estimated Rq Valuessupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Variation In Estimated Rq Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Assessment approaches – practicality, relevance and merits

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Validation and comparison of the radioecological and dosimetry components of various approaches are required and this has begun through the Biota Working Group of the IAEA's EMRAS programme [4]. It is also important that approaches used are practicable, credible to stakeholders and fit for purpose [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Review of current regulatory approaches to both chemicals and radioactive substances

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Assessment tools and frameworks have been developed that allow environmental assessments to be conducted and which can be used to demonstrate whether non-human species are protected from the impact of exposure to ionising radiation released under regulation. Frameworks are often tiered, increasing in the level of complexity, input data requirements and need for expert involvement as the assessment moves to successively higher tiers. These are, conceptually, similar to assessment approaches available for chemical risk assessment. What criteria (e.g. numeric benchmarks) should be used, and how these should be defined, are currently under debate, but it is likely that use will be made of approaches developed for setting assessment criteria for chemicals. However it will be necessary to ensure that any assessment criteria developed are fit for use in a regulatory context. This paper reviews the similarities and differences between regulation of, and assessment methods for, chemicals and radioactive substances and presents recommendations regarding how components of chemicals risk assessment may be adopted for radioactive substances.

show abstract

“…Model intercomparison exercises have identified radionuclide transfer predictions as the greatest source of uncertainty in biota dose assessments [1,2]. In response to this an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Working Group was established to develop an international database of transfer parameters for wildlife [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing current knowledge gaps on radionuclide transfer to reptiles

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Model intercomparison exercises have identified radionuclide transfer predictions as the greatest source of uncertainty in biota dose assessments. One wildlife group for which few transfer data exist is reptiles, Given that reptiles are an important, and often protected, component of many ecosystems and that assessments of radiation impact on ecosystems are becoming increasingly necessary due to the current nuclear renaissance, there is a need to further develop our current database on transfer to reptiles or find alternative approaches to estimate reptile transfer parameters. Three approaches that have the potential to increase the availability of parameters to predict radionuclide transfer to reptiles are the use of nonlethal sampling techniques, phylogenetic relationships and allometric relationships. Non-lethal sampling is an attractive long term option for deriving transfer parameters, but the derivation of phylogenetic and allometric relationships could provide ways of predicting transfer in the interim.

show abstract

Findings and recommendations from an international comparison of models and approaches for the estimation of radiological exposure to non-human biota

Cited by 29 publications

References 5 publications

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Assessment approaches – practicality, relevance and merits

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Assessment approaches – practicality, relevance and merits

Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context (PROTECT): Review of current regulatory approaches to both chemicals and radioactive substances

Addressing current knowledge gaps on radionuclide transfer to reptiles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About