The biokinetic and dosimetric model of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract applied in current documents of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was developed in the mid-1960s. The model was based on features of a reference adult male and was first used by the ICRP in Publication 30, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers (Part 1, 1979). In the late 1990s an ICRP task group was appointed to develop a biokinetic and dosimetric model of the alimentary tract that reflects updated information and addresses current needs in radiation protection. The new age-specific and gender-specific model, called the Human Alimentary Tract Model (HATM), has been completed and will replace the GI model of Publication 30 in upcoming ICRP documents. This paper discusses the basis for the structure and parameter values of the HATM, summarises the uncertainties associated with selected features and types of predictions of the HATM and examines the sensitivity of dose estimates to these uncertainties for selected radionuclides. Emphasis is on generic biokinetic features of the HATM, particularly transit times through the lumen of the alimentary tract, but key dosimetric features of the model are outlined, and the sensitivity of tissue dose estimates to uncertainties in dosimetric as well as biokinetic features of the HATM are examined for selected radionuclides.

The dosimetry of radon-220, often known as thoron, and its decay products has received less attention than has that of radon-222. Dose coefficients used by international bodies such as UNSCEAR and ICRP and by the UK's former National Radiological Protection Board are based on calculations from the 1980s. We present calculations for thoron decay products using the most recent ICRP models. These indicate that the effective dose is dominated by the doses to lung and that, under the present models, these doses are somewhat higher than under the previous consensus. Conversely, the present models give doses to organs outside the respiratory tract that are somewhat lower than those previously calculated. Dose coefficients for children are somewhat higher than those for adults. However, breathing rates for children are lower than those for adults and there are no great differences in annual doses.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract