A number of approaches have been proposed to estimate the exposure of non-human biota to ionizing radiation. This paper reports an inter-comparison of the unweighted absorbed dose rates for the whole organism (compared as dose conversion coefficients, or DCCs) for both internal and external exposure, estimated by 11 of these approaches for selected organisms from the Reference Animals and Plants geometries as proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Inter-comparison results indicate that DCCs for internal exposure compare well between the different approaches, whereas variation is greater for external exposure DCCs. Where variation among internal DCCs is greatest, it is generally due to different daughter products being included in the DCC of the parent. In the case of external exposures, particularly to low-energy beta-emitters, variations are most likely to be due to different media densities being assumed. On a radionuclide-by-radionuclide basis, the different approaches tend to compare least favourably for (3)H, (14)C and the alpha-emitters. This is consistent with models with different source/target geometry assumptions showing maximum variability in output for the types of radiation having the lowest range across matter. The intercomparison demonstrated that all participating approaches to biota dose calculation are reasonably comparable, despite a range of different assumptions being made.

The objective of the present paper is to validate the deterministic JSP5 model for external exposures to population groups living in the areas contaminated with radionuclides after the Chernobyl accident. For this purpose inhabitants of contaminated areas wore TL-dosimeters for about 1 mo in the spring/summer periods of the years 1989 to 1994. External doses due to the Chernobyl accident were determined from the dosimeter readings by subtracting the natural background. 2,342 results for rural inhabitants and 420 results for inhabitants of the town Novozybkov passed reliability checks. These data show that the average dose in inhabitants of a rural settlement predicted by the model is in the range 0.69-1.55 of the measured values with a confidence level of 95%. Differences are attributed to settlement specific location factors, which are supported by the very good agreement of model and measurements in Novozybkov. In this case location factors of the model were obtained from Novozybkov directly.

In Russia, especially in big cities like St. Petersburg, the annual number of interventional radiological (IR) examinations for both diagnostic and treatment purposes is increasing continuously. However, IR examinations might involve high patient doses and even the risk of skin injures that should be prevented. In this study, the exposure of patients caused by these examinations was analysed. Methods for the estimation of the effective dose (risk reduction of stochastic effects) were proposed. Thresholds for kerma-area product values that correspond to the occurrence of skin injury are also given.

In 2009-2014, dose surveys aimed to collect adult patient data and parameters of most common radiographic examinations were performed in six Russian regions. Typical patient doses were estimated for the selected examinations both in entrance surface dose and in effective dose. 75%-percentiles of typical patient effective dose distributions were proposed as preliminary regional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for radiography. Differences between the 75%-percentiles of regional typical patient dose distributions did not exceed 30-50% for the examinations with standardized clinical protocols (skull, chest and thoracic spine) and a factor of 1.5 for other examinations. Two different approaches for establishing national DRLs were evaluated: as a 75%-percentile of a pooled regional sample of patient typical doses (pooled method) and as a median of 75%-percentiles of regional typical patient dose distributions (median method). Differences between pooled and median methods for effective dose did not exceed 20%. It was proposed to establish Russian national DRLs in effective dose using a pooled method. In addition, the local authorities were granted an opportunity to establish regional DRLs if the local radiological practice and typical patient dose distributions are significantly different.

No abstract