Technical basis for using nose swab bioassay data for early internal dose assessment

One of the challenges to the dose assessment team in response to an inhalation incident in the workplace is to provide the occupational physicians, operational radiation protection personnel and line managers with early estimates of radionuclide intakes so that appropriate consequence management and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiation protection dosimetry 2007, Vol.127 (1-4), p.356-360
Hauptverfasser: Guilmette, Raymond A., Bertelli, Luiz, Miller, Guthrie, Little, Tom T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:One of the challenges to the dose assessment team in response to an inhalation incident in the workplace is to provide the occupational physicians, operational radiation protection personnel and line managers with early estimates of radionuclide intakes so that appropriate consequence management and mitigation can be done. For radionuclides such as Pu, where in vivo counting is not adequately sensitive, other techniques such as the measurement of removable radionuclide from the nasal airway passages can be used. At Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), nose swabs of the ET1 region have been used routinely as a first response to airborne Pu releases in the workplace, as well as for other radionuclides. This paper presents the results of analysing over 15 years of nose swab data, comparing these with dose assessments performed using the Bayesian methods developed at LANL. The results provide empirical support for using nose swab data for early dose assessments. For Pu, a rule of thumb is a dose factor of 0.8 mSv Bq−1, assuming a linear relationship between nasal swab activity and committed effective dose equivalent. However, this value is specific to the methods and models used at LANL, and should not be applied directly without considering possible differences in measurement and calculation methods.
ISSN:0144-8420
1742-3406
DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncm354