Register for Updates | Search | Contacts | Site Map | Member Login

news

View Comment

Submitted by Marie Claire Cantone, International Committee of AIRP, Italian Association of Radiation Protection
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides Part 4
 

Comments on ‘Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 4’
by Committee of AIRP, Italian Association of Radiation Protection

General Comments
This document is part of a series on occupational intake of radionuclides, including a meta analysis of existing literature as regards models and biodistribution and the estimation of updated dose  factors.
The methodology is consistent with previous publications in this series,  and the document is clear and well written. Moreover we have received by our members very positive comments on this document, since it has been seen as an extensive, detailed and fruitful work in  the field of intake of elements of lanthanides and actinides,  where experimental data are difficult/impossible to obtain directly, and a number of assumptions have to be taken.


Specific Comments
Pag 2 Lines 75 -80,  Pag 7 Lines 269-275, and Pag 12 Lines 505-510  - The document presents the dosimetric data for lanthanides and actinides for a total of 25 elements, but in pag 2, pag 7 and pag 12, when referring the data included in the document, only 24 elements are indicated:  Lanthanum is missing in the three lists.

Pag 11 Lines 474-475  -It is written ‘tables of committed effective dose per content (Sv per unit activity measurements (Bq)) ‘ and Line 251 reports ‘ committed effective dose per content (Sv per Bq measurements). It is substantially the same thing, but probably it would be better to use the same wording as ICRP 130 (OIR, Part 1) that is : (54) “… table of committed effective dose per intake (Sv Bq-1), tables of committed effective dose per content (Sv Bq-1)….”

Pag 18 and Pag 19, Fig. 2.2.  -The graphs show the comparison of biokinetics of lanthanides inhaled by mice, by reporting  the “activity in Lung” (or in Blood/Liver/Skeleton) as a function of “Time(day)”.  But the graphs are not evidently showing the behavior of activity (in Bq) as function of time (day).
Consider to change ‘activity in Lung’ with ‘activity in Lung (percent)’ . The same graphs as in Fig 2.2 are available in the paper by Leggett et al., 2014, Int. J. Radiat. Biol,  but in that case it is used the term ‘Lung content, percent’ as a function on time.


Pag 20, Line 799 and Line 803 – Change “Fig. 2” with “Fig. 2.3.”


Pag 32, Fig. 2.7 – The figure reports the structure of the systemic biokinetic models for the lantanide elements. With respect to the previously showed and used structure (i.e. ICRP 67 and 72) there is a change, from the use of the two compartments ‘Kidney’ and ‘Urinary Path’ to the two compartments ‘Kidney 1’ and ‘Kidney 2’ . This change is not mentioned here, in the draft Part 4, or in the previous OIR publications (ICRP 130 Part1 and draft Part2, draft Part3). Consider to mention this change in Part 4, i.e. in paragraph 2.2.3.2, as already done, for example, in case of Pu model, for which the changes introduced in this Part 4 are presented and explained  in para (535) and (536).


Pag. 89, Table 8.2 – Change “Measurementa” in ‘Measurementa ‘ and “Measurementb” in ‘Measurement b with ‘a’ and ‘b’ as superscript letters.


Pag.154 – Table 18.6, reporting the transfer coefficient in the model for systemic Pu, seems not consistent with Fig. 18.4 and also with para 538 describing circulation for Pu. Indeed the Table considers 3 compartments as sources (Blood; Blodd 1; Blood 2), while in the figure the compartments are 2 (Blood1 and Blood 2) and in Line 5729 is clearly written “Blood consists of two compartments, Blood 1 and Blood 2.”
Moreover in paragraph 557, attention is given on the possibility to remove the trasfer from compartment Blood to Blood 1 and to add a trasfer from Blood 1 to ST0. The model for Pu as a progeny eliminates the compartment Blood.  If this aspect is already included in Fig 18.4, it would be better to present the question already in correspondance of the figure itself. 

Pag 240 – Table 22.11, in line 6 and line 7, le letters ‘d’ and ‘e’ has to be palced as superscript letters after ‘ceramic’ and ‘non-ceramic’respectively.

Pag 249 – Table 22.13, in the last line ‘gamma’ of gamma-ray, is missed.

Table 22.11.  In different footnotes of this table it is indicated “See text for ….”. It would be useful to report, at the same time, also an indication of the corresponding paragraph. Moreover, in the text it could be useful, in view of the extention and the complexity of the text itself, to cite the corresponding Table 22.11, in some main points, i.e. it could be useful to mention that table at lines 7331-7333; 7690-7692;8071-8073; and so on. Up to now this table seems not cited in any point in the text.

More in general. All the figures are cited and explained in the text (a part Fig 21.1, which may be easily cited in Lines 6933-6935), but this is not the case for the tables. The majority of the tables are not cited in the text. Consider that in some case can be of help for the reader to have a refer of the table in the text. 

Note that two tables with the same number (Table 20.2) exist, one at line 6509 for Absorption parameter values for protactinium, and the other at line 6592 for Monitoring techniques for Pa-231.