| Literature DB >> 30964917 |
Mats Isaksson1, Martin Tondel2,3, Robert Wålinder2,3, Christopher Rääf4.
Abstract
The radiological consequences of a nuclear power plant (NPP) accident, resulting in the release of radionuclides to the environment, will depend largely on the mitigating actions instigated shortly after the accident. It is therefore important to make predictions of the radiation dose to the affected population, from external as well as internal exposure, soon after an accident, despite the fact that data are scarce. The aim of this study was to develop a model for the prediction of the cumulative effective dose up to 84 years of age based on the ground deposition of 137Cs that is determined soon after fallout. The model accounts for different assumptions regarding external and internal dose contributions, and the model parameters in this study were chosen to reflect various mitigating actions. Furthermore, the relative importance of these parameters was determined by sensitivity analysis. To the best of our knowledge, this model is unique as it allows quantification of both the external and the internal effective dose using only a fallout map of 137Cs after a nuclear power plant accident. The cumulative effective dose over a period of 50 years following the accident per unit 137Cs deposited was found to range from 0.14 mSv/kBq m-2 to 1.5 mSv/kBq m-2, depending on the mitigating actions undertaken. According to the sensitivity analysis, the most important parameters governing the cumulative effective dose to various adult populations during 50 years after the fallout appear to be: the correlation factor between the local areal deposition of 137Cs and the maximum initial ambient dose rate; the maximum transfer from regional average fallout on the ground to body burden; the local areal deposition of 137Cs; and the regional average 137Cs deposition. Therefore, it is important that mapping of local 137Cs deposition is carried out immediately after fallout from a nuclear power plant accident, followed by calculations of radiation doses for different scenarios using well-known parameters, in order to identify the most efficient mitigation strategies. Given this 137Cs mapping, we believe our model is a valuable tool for long-term radiological assessment in the early phase after NPP accidents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30964917 PMCID: PMC6456178 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Parameter values used to determine the internal effective dose for various sub-populations.
| Sub-population | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural non-farmers | 9.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 30 | 0.9 | 0.11 |
| Farmers | 11.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 15 | 0.9 | 0.10 |
| Urban residents | 11.0 | 1.0 | 0.75 | 15 | 1.0 | 0.10 |
| Reindeer herders | 200 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 15 | 1.0 | 0.10 |
| Hunters | 29.3 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 30 | 0.9 | 0.11 |
Description of the modelled scenarios.
| Scenario | Abbreviation | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | S | Default parameter values in |
| Variation in outdoor occupation and shielding factor | OS | ↑ |
| High transfer | TH | ↑ |
| Low transfer | TL | ↓ |
| High deposition | HD | ↑ |
| High deposition, maximum external component | HE | ↑ |
| High deposition, relocation | HR | ↑ |
| High deposition, food restrictions | HF | ↑ |
| Low deposition | LD | ↓ |
| Low deposition, maximum external component | LE | ↓ |
| Low deposition, relocation | LR | ↓ |
| Low deposition, food restrictions | LF | ↓ |
| Highly variable deposition: high county-averaged deposition, low local deposition | V1 | ↓ |
Parameter values for adult males, used for calculations in the various scenarios listed in Table 2.
(Shading indicates parameter values that are changed compared to the standard scenario (S)).
| Parameter | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario | ||||||||||||
| S | 15 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 15 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
| OS | 15 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 15 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
| TH | 15 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 15 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 30.0 |
| TL | 15 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 15 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 1.0 |
| HD | 100 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 100 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
| HE | 100 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 77.5 | 1 | 1.0 | 11.0 |
| HR | 0 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
| HF | 100 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 100 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 1.0 |
| LD | 5 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 5 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
| LE | 5 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 1.0 | 0.82 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5 | 77.5 | 1 | 1.0 | 11.0 |
| LR | 0 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
| LF | 5 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 5 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 1.0 |
| V1 | 5 | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 100 | 77.5 | 1 | 0.56 | 11.0 |
Fig 1Time-dependent transfer of 137Cs to various sub-populations.
Parameter values and probability distributions used in the sensitivity analysis.
Central estimates of parameters were those used in the standard scenario (S). The references for the choice of the minimum and maximum parameter values are given in the footnotes. Gray shading indicates parameters that are not applicable for the respective type of distribution.
| Parameter | Prob. density function | Mean | SD | Central estimate | Min. | Max. | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lognormal | 0.9793· | 1.252 | |||||
| Normal | 1.02 | 0.67 | |||||
| Normal | 0.2· | ||||||
| Normal | 0.2· | 1.0 | |||||
| Uniform | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.85 | ||||
| Uniform | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.97 | ||||
| Uniform | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.90 | ||||
| Triangular | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | ||||
| Triangular | 0.4 | 0.25 | 0.55 | ||||
| Lognormal | Variable | 20% | |||||
| Normal | 80 | 10 | |||||
| Uniform | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.0 | ||||
| Uniform | 0.6 | 0.2 | 1.0 | ||||
| Lognormal | 11.0 | 11.0 | |||||
| Normal | 1.0 | 5% | |||||
| Normal | 0.75 | 5% | |||||
| Norm | 15 | 5% | |||||
| Norm | 1.0 | 5% | |||||
| Norm | 0.10 | 5% |
1Geometric mean and standard deviation. Based on data from measurements by the Environmental Health Departments at Swedish municipalities.
2Data from Jönsson et al. [4]. The standard deviation also accounts for variations in the ratio between ambient dose equivalent rate and A.
3The value of the function f(t) at each time step τ is used as input. Data from Jönsson et al. [4].
4The value of the function r(t) at each time step τ is used as input. The probability density function is truncated at 1.0. Data from Jönsson et al. [4].
5Data from International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements [16] for photon energies between 300 and 1000 keV.
6Data from Finck [12].
7Data from International Commission on Radiological Protection [17] for photon energies between 150 and 1000 keV, for rotational and isotropic exposure geometry.
8Data from Almgren et al. [18].
9Data from Finck [12].
10Parameter value chosen based on simulations.
11Estimate based on data from Samuelsson and Hagman [22]: 77.5 kg for adult men (>18 years).
12Data from Tondel et al. [11].
13Central estimate from Edvarson [13].
14Data from Rääf et al. [10] and Tondel et al. [11].
Fig 2Effective dose rate (mSv y-1) for adult males during the 50 years following fallout, assuming the various scenarios described in Table 2.
Fig 3Cumulative effective dose (mSv) for adult males during 50 years, assuming the various scenarios described in Table 2.
Note the varying scales on the dose axis.
Cumulative effective dose (mSv) for adult males, CED(50), CED(50) per unit deposited activity, time (t95) at which a plateau is reached (95%), and maximum CED, CED, assuming the various scenarios described in Table 2.
| Scenario | External | Internal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | 2.06 | 1.01 | 3.08 | 0.205 | 35 | 3.14 |
| HD | 13.8 | 6.75 | 20.5 | 0.205 | 35 | 21.0 |
| HE | 29.7 | 7.59 | 37.3 | 0.373 | 27 | 37.8 |
| HR | 0 | 6.75 | 6.75 | 0.675 | 53 | 7.19 |
| HF | 13.8 | 0.61 | 14.4 | 0.144 | 21 | 14.4 |
| V1 | 0.69 | 6.75 | 7.44 | 1.488 | 52 | 7.87 |
| OS | 3.97 | 1.01 | 4.98 | 0.332 | 29 | 5.05 |
| TH | 2.06 | 2.76 | 4.83 | 0.322 | 44 | 5.01 |
| TL | 2.06 | 0.092 | 2.16 | 0.144 | 21 | 2.16 |
Fig 4Lifetime effective dose (mSv) up to age 84, E84, for males under various scenarios, as a function of age at the onset of exposure.
Note the different scales for three of the high-deposition scenarios.
Fig 5Areal deposition density of 137Cs that would result in a cumulative effective dose of 100 mSv up to an age of 84 years as a function of age at the onset of exposure, assuming low-, medium- and high-transfer scenarios, corresponding to T of 1.0, 11.0 and 30.0, respectively.
Fig 6Results of the sensitivity analysis of the cumulative effective dose for adult males after 50 years, CED(50).
Each parameter was varied by ±50% while all the other parameters retained the values they had in the standard scenario (left), or in the high-transfer scenario (right).
Spearman rank correlation coefficient, r, for CED(50).
Only parameters with a correlation coefficient greater than 0.1 are given.
| Parameter | |
|---|---|
| 0.70 | |
| 0.48 | |
| 0.35 | |
| 0.34 | |
| 0.12 |
Fig 7Fraction of correlation contributed by each parameter given in Table 6.
Fig 8Contribution to the total variance for parameters accounting for more than 1% of the variance in CED(50).
The segment “Other” includes all other parameters; the greatest contributions being from k, C, F, F, A, FR, h*, r(t) and c.
Fig 9Distribution of CED(50) (left) and CED(50)/Aesd (right) for adult males, fitted by lognormal distributions.
The curves representing medium transfer (standard scenario) were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation with T = 11, while the low-transfer and high-transfer curves were calculated using T = 1 and T = 30, respectively.
Fig 10Yearly effective dose, E, per unit areal activity deposition of 137Cs, A, calculated with the present model for urban residents and hunters, together with estimates based on measurements performed in three Russian villages [28], [29].