Exposure of burrowing mammals to 222Rn

Assessment of radiation dose to people and wildife inhabiting the Grote Nete catchment in Belgium

We evaluate the impact of the radiological contamination of the Grote Nete catchment in Belgium to people and non-human biota. This region has received effluents from the phosphate and nuclear industries via tributaries of the Grote Nete river in past decades, resulting in the presence of radionuclides such as 241Am, 60Co, 137Cs, 40K, 210Pb, 238Pu, 239,240Pu, 226Ra, 228Ra, 228Th, 232Th, 234U, 235U and 238U. During the period 2016-2021, we measured these radionuclides in the water column, the bed sediment and riverbanks. Additionally, we carried out radon measurements on the riverbanks in 2022. Based on these measurements, the dose rates to people were calculated for different potential exposure scenarios, using the SCK CEN biosphere tool. We also performed an assessment of exposure of ionising radiation to non-human biota (including 222Rn and its daughters) using the ERICA Tool. We observed three types of areas at the Grote Nete riverbank: (a) a lower category exposure with 226Ra concentrations reflecting purely Belgian background values; (b) a middle category with enhanced 226Ra, mainly adsorbed on clay minerals and (c) an upper category extending to maximum values in the order of 103 Bq kg-1. The main component of the dose rate for terrestrial and aquatic organisms is 226Ra followed by 210Pb (terrestrial) or 228Ra, (aquatic). The anthropogenic vector of the contamination (40K, 60Co, 90Sr, 137Cs, 228Th, 232Th, 234,235,238U, 238,239Pu, 241Am) makes a negligible contribution to dose. Overall, the Grote Nete wildlife is not under significant risk from exposure to soil or water-borne radionuclides and radon emanating from the soil, even if the ERICA benchmark of 10 μGy h-1 is occasionally exceeded for 226Ra, 210Pb or 228Ra, because exposures are below the levels at which effects are known to occur. For people, radon inhalation is the main exposure pathway and exposures can reach 1 mSv y-1 for hypothetical residents living at the riverbanks and remaining most of their time in the area, but it can be expected that exposures are much lower at increasing distances from the river. It is concluded that neither people nor the environment are at any significant radiological risk from this situation.

Ensuring robust radiological risk assessment for wildlife: insights from the International Atomic Energy Agency EMRAS and MODARIA programmes

In response to changing international recommendations and national requirements, a number of assessment approaches, and associated tools and models, have been developed over the last circa 20 years to assess radiological risk to wildlife. In this paper, we summarise international intercomparison exercises and scenario applications of available radiological assessment models for wildlife to aid future model users and those such as regulators who interpret assessments. Through our studies, we have assessed the fitness for purpose of various models and tools, identified the major sources of uncertainty and made recommendations on how the models and tools can best be applied to suit the purposes of an assessment. We conclude that the commonly used tiered or graded assessment tools are generally fit for purpose for conducting screening-level assessments of radiological impacts to wildlife. Radiological protection of the environment (or wildlife) is still a relatively new development within the overall system of radiation protection and environmental assessment approaches are continuing to develop. Given that some new/developing approaches differ considerably from the more established models/tools and there is an increasing international interest in developing approaches that support the effective regulation of multiple stressors (including radiation), we recommend the continuation of coordinated international programmes for model development, intercomparison and scenario testing.

Radon-222: environmental behavior and impact to (human and non-human) biota

As an inert radioactive gas, ²²²Rn could be easily transported to the atmosphere via emanation, migration, or exhalation. Research measurements pointed out that ²²²Rn activity concentration changes during the winter and summer months, as well as during wet and dry season periods. Changes in radon concentration can affect the atmospheric electric field. At the boundary layer near the ground, short-lived daughters of ²²²Rn can be used as natural tracers in the atmosphere. In this work, factors controlling ²²²Rn pathways in the environment and its levels in soil gas and outdoor air are summarized. ²²²Rn has a short half-life of 3.82 days, but the dose rate due to radon and its radioactive progeny could be significant to the living beings. Epidemiological studies on humans pointed out that up to 14% of lung cancers are induced by exposure to low and moderate concentrations of radon. Animals that breed in ground holes have been exposed to the higher doses due to radiation present in soil air. During the years, different dose-effect models are developed for risk assessment on human and non-human biota. In this work are reviewed research results of ²²²Rn exposure of human and non-human biota.

Radionuclide transfer to wildlife at a 'Reference site' in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and resultant radiation exposures

This study addresses a significant data deficiency in the developing environmental protection framework of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, namely a lack of radionuclide transfer data for some of the Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs). It is also the first study that has sampled such a wide range of species (invertebrates, plants, amphibians and small mammals) from a single terrestrial site in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ). Samples were collected in 2014 from the 0.4 km² sampling site, located 5 km west of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power complex. We report radionuclide (¹³⁷Cs, ⁹⁰Sr, ²⁴¹Am and Pu-isotopes) and stable element concentrations in wildlife and soil samples and use these to determine whole organism-soil concentration ratios and absorbed dose rates. Increasingly, stable element analyses are used to provide transfer parameters for radiological models. The study described here found that for both Cs and Sr the transfer of the stable element tended to be lower than that of the radionuclide; this is the first time that this has been demonstrated for Sr, though it is in agreement with limited evidence previously reported for Cs. Studies reporting radiation effects on wildlife in the CEZ generally relate observations to ambient dose rates determined using handheld dose meters. For the first time, we demonstrate that ambient dose rates may underestimate the actual dose rate for some organisms by more than an order of magnitude. When reporting effects studies from the CEZ, it has previously been suggested that the area has comparatively low natural background dose rates. However, on the basis of data reported here, dose rates to wildlife from natural background radionuclides within the CEZ are similar to those in many areas of Europe.

A method for assessing exposure of terrestrial wildlife to environmental radon (222Rn) and thoron (220Rn)

A method is presented to calculate radiation dose rates arising from radon, thoron and their progeny to non-human biota in the terrestrial environment. The method improves on existing methodologies for the assessment of radon to biota by using a generalised allometric approach to model respiration, calculating dose coefficients for the ICRP reference animals and plants, and extending the approach to cover thoron in addition to radon-derived isotopes. The method is applicable to a range of environmental situations involving these radionuclides in wildlife, with an envisaged application being to study the impact of human activities, which bring NORM radionuclides to the biosphere. Consequently, there is a need to determine whether there is an impact on non-human biota from exposure to anthropogenically enhanced radionuclides.

A soil radiological quality guideline value for wildlife-based protection in uranium mine rehabilitation

A soil guideline value for radiological protection of the environment was determined for the impending rehabilitation of Ranger uranium mine in the wet-dry tropics of northern Australia. The guideline value was 1000 Bq kg(-1) of (226)Ra in the proposed waste rock substrate of the rehabilitated landform and corresponded to an above-baseline dose rate of 100 μGy h(-1) to the most highly exposed individuals of the limiting organism. The limiting organism was reptile based on an assessment using site-specific concentration ratio data.

Should we ignore U-235 series contribution to dose?

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) methodology for radioactive substances is an important regulatory tool for assessing the safety of licensed nuclear facilities for wildlife, and the environment as a whole. ERAs are therefore expected to be both fit for purpose and conservative. When uranium isotopes are assessed, there are many radioactive decay products which could be considered. However, risk assessors usually assume (235)U and its daughters contribute negligibly to radiological dose. The validity of this assumption has not been tested: what might the (235)U family contribution be and how does the estimate depend on the assumptions applied? In this paper we address this question by considering aquatic wildlife in Canadian lakes exposed to historic uranium mining practices. A full theoretical approach was used, in parallel to a more realistic assessment based on measurements of several elements of the U decay chains. The (235)U family contribution varied between about 4% and 75% of the total dose rate depending on the assumptions of the equilibrium state of the decay chains. Hence, ignoring the (235)U series will not result in conservative dose assessments for wildlife. These arguments provide a strong case for more in situ measurements of the important members of the (235)U chain and for its consideration in dose assessments.

A method for estimating (41)Ar, (85)(,88)Kr and (131m,133)Xe doses to non-human biota

A method is presented for estimating (41)Ar, (85,88)Kr and (131m,133)Xe dose rates to terrestrial wildlife without having to resort to comparisons with analogue radionuclides. The approach can be used to calculate the dose rates arising from external exposures to given ambient air concentrations of these isotopes. Dose conversion coefficient (DCC) values for a range of representative organisms are calculated, using a Monte Carlo approach to generate absorbed fractions based on representing animals as reference ellipsoid geometries. Plume immersion is the main component of the total DCC. DCC values calculated for a human-sized organism are compared with human dose conversion factors from ICRP Publication 119, demonstrating the consistency of the biota approach with that for humans. An example of application is provided for hypothetical nuclear power plant atmospheric discharges with associated exposures to birds and insects. In this example, the dose rates appear to be dominated by (133)Xe and (88)Kr, respectively. The biota considered would be protected from the effects of noble gas radiation from a population protection perspective.

A comparison of the ellipsoidal and voxelized dosimetric methodologies for internal, heterogeneous radionuclide sources

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: (14)C, (36)Cl, (60)Co, (90)Sr, (131)I, (134)Cs, (137)Cs, and (210)Po. 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.

Transfer parameters for ICRP reference animals and plants collected from a forest ecosystem

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) have suggested the identification of a series of terrestrial, marine and freshwater sites from which samples of each Reference animal and plant (RAP) could be systematically collected and analysed. We describe the first such study in which six of the eight terrestrial RAPs, and associated soil samples, were collected from a site located in a managed coniferous forestry plantation in north-west England. Adult life stages of species representing six of the terrestrial RAPs (Wild grass, Pine tree, Deer, Rat, Earthworm and Bee) were sampled and analysed to determine concentrations of 60 elements and gamma-emitting radionuclides. The resultant data have been used to derive concentration ratios (CR(wo-soil)) relating element/radionuclide concentrations in the RAPs to those in soil. This paper presents the first-reported transfer parameters for a number of the RAP-element combinations. Where possible, the derived CR(wo-soil) values are compared with the ICRPs-recommended values and any appreciable differences discussed.