Dosimetry − Poster presentations

A.A. Molokanov et al.

A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

A numerical statistical method application

experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special
monitoring data for nuclear power-plant workers

A.A. Molokanov, A.You.Bushmanov, B.A. Kukhta, V.N. Yatsenko

Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency, 123182
Moscow, Marshala Novikova 23, Russian Federation

Abstract
The procedure for assessing doses on the basis of routine monitoring results includes
use of standard model parameter values for the dose calculation and at least simple
estimation of the associated uncertainty due to uncertainty of the worker exposure
conditions, the uncertainty in the time of intake and the uncertainty of the measured
bioassay quantity method. If the upper value on assessed dose exceeds the reference
limit a special monitoring procedure is required that consist in performing additional
bioassay measurements to increase the reliability of the dose assessment by obtaining
better information on the model parameter values and by using statistical methods for
the calculation of the associated uncertainty. An example of a numerical method
application for the interpretation of in vivo and in vitro bioassay measurements of Со-
60 performed during special monitoring of four nuclear power-plant workers is
presented to illustrate a possibility of improving the dose assessment. It was shown that
from the two compounds used in the ICRP model for cobalt the type S was the best
option and the range of AMAD values could be reduced from (0,1 до 20) to (3 – 8)
microns. This resulted in the reduction the uncertainty of the dose assessment from
(144-155) % to (17-28) %. It was also shown that absorption type S compound was not
slow enough to describe the retention of the radionuclide Co-60 in lungs in the case
under study and a slower type like super S was needed.

Introduction
The annual intake of radionuclides (I) and the corresponding committed (and
committed effective) dose equivalents (CDE and CEDE) are the main safety limits for
occupational internal exposure. They are defined by monitoring an individual
occupational intake of radioactive material and assessing the resulting dose. A routine
monitoring programme usually consists in a set of measurements of the radiation
emitted from the body or the radioactive materials contained in biological samples such
as urine or feces during the calendar year. The required frequency of measurements in a
routine monitoring programme depends upon the retention and excretion of the
radionuclide, the sensitivity of the measurement techniques available, and the

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

1
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

acceptable uncertainty in the estimate of intake and committed effective dose (ICRP
1997). The procedure for assessing doses on the basis of routine monitoring results
includes use of standard model parameter values for the dose calculation and at least
simple estimation of the associated uncertainty due to uncertainty of the worker
exposure conditions, the uncertainty in the time of intake and the uncertainty of the
measured bioassay quantity method. If the upper value on assessed dose exceeds the
reference limit (annual dose limit for workers or part of it) a special monitoring
procedure is required.
The special monitoring procedure consist in performing additional in vivo and in
vitro bioassay measurements to increase the reliability of the dose assessment by
obtaining better information on the model parameter values and by using statistical
methods for the calculation of the associated uncertainty. Inhalation is the most often
route of intake for workers and the exposure conditions in this case are characterized by
the particle size distribution of the aerosol, as described by the Activity Median
Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD) and the absorption characteristics of the material, as
described by the absorption classification (Type M or S for cobalt compounds).
Numerical statistical methods find an increasing application for the interpretation of
internal exposure monitoring data for atomic industry workers. This is due to increasing
potentialities of modern computers allowing a direct modeling of biophysical processes
of the radionuclide intake, retention, excretion and measurement in a human using
Monte Carlo simulating technique.
The aim of the paper is to present the results of a numerical method application
(Molokanov et al. 2010) for the interpretation of in vivo and in vitro bioassay
measurements of Со-60 performed during special monitoring of four nuclear power-
plant workers.

Material and methods

The assessment of dose from intakes of radionuclides is a stepped process of
measurement and computation that is in essence a virtual biophysical experiment where
computation is the process of connecting and ordering of known data by means of
relations based on theory or established models in order to create new data and to reveal
new insight (Siebert 2006). Our virtual biophysical experiment is aimed to find a
relation between a measured quantity and a desired quantity on basis of ICRP biokinetic
model. Any physical quantity used in the biokinetic model can be considered as a
desired quantity such as organ absorbed dose versus time, committed and committed
effective dose equivalents, organ activity and any parameter of the model including the
aerosol absorption type and AMAD. For such a biophysical experiment the model can
be formulated as a cause-effect relation where a single intake at time τ is a cause and
quantities M and X are effects:
M (t M ) I ⋅ m (t M − τ,ξi (τ))
= = m M/X (t M ,t X ,τ ,ξ i (τ)) (1)
X (t X ) I ⋅ x (t X − τ,ξi (τ ))

where I is a value of a single intake of a radionuclide occurred at time τ; m(t-τ, ξ) and

x(t-τ, ξ) are functions of time t derived from ICRP model; tM is the measurement (or
sampling) time; tX is the desired quantity fixed time; ξi(τ) is a set of the model
parameter values at time of the intake.

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

2
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

Two tasks can be considered using the model described by equation (1): evaluation of
quantity X and evaluation of the model specific parameter ξi(τ). In the first case we
analyze quantity M/X in the second case we analyze quantity M1 / M2 where M1 and
M2 are two independent measurement results that may define the parameter ξi(τ). In the
case of a single inhalation intake of Co-60 the following equations sequent to equation
(1) will be used.
For the dose and intake calculation:
N N

∑ M L ( t n ) = ∑ X ⋅ mM L / X ( t n − τ , w, AMAD ) = Φ( X )
n =1 n =1
(2)

where M L ( t n ) are result of Со-60 measurement in the worker lungs at time t n ; X –the
intake or the dose value; w is a parameter, characterizing absorption type (fraction of
type S compound in a mixture of M and S), N is the number of measurements during
the observation period.
For absorption type investigation:
N −1 N N −1 N

∑ ∑ M L ( t j ) / M L ( tn ) = ∑
j =1 n = j +1
∑m
j =1 n = j +1
L ( t j − τ , w, AMAD ) / m L ( t n − τ , w, AMAD ) = Φ L ( w ) (3)

For AMAD investigation:

N K N K

∑∑ M L ( t n ) / MU ( t k ) = ∑∑ mL ( t n − τ , w, AMAD) / mU ( t k − τ , w, AMAD) = Φ L / U ( AMAD)

n=1 k =1 n=1 k =1
(4)

and
Z K Z K

∑∑ M
z =1 k =1
F ( t z ) / M U ( t k ) = ∑∑ mF ( t z − τ , w, AMAD ) / mU ( t k − τ , w, AMAD ) = Φ F / U ( AMAD ) (5)
z =1 k =1

where M U ( t k ) and M F ( t z ) are results of Со-60 measurement in urine and feces of a

worker at time t k and t z correspondingly; m L ( t , w, AMAD ) , mU ( t , w, AMAD ) and
m F ( t , w, AMAD ) are functions, derived from ICRP model showing the activity value in
the lungs, daily urine and feces samples correspondingly versus time t after a single
inhalation intake of the radionuclide.
Equations (2) - (5) give experimental value of the measured quantities or their
combination – left side, and a theoretical value of the measured quantities or their
combination according to ICRP model – right side of the equation.
For determination of the desired quantity value (intake, dose, w and AMAD) the result
of measurement (or the combination of the measurement results) is compared with the
theoretical values of the measured quantity or a combination of the measured quantities
calculated using equations (2) - (5) for the set of the desired quantity values and fixed
values of the other parameters of the model. Namely, Φ(X) in equation (2) is calculated
for the set of X1, X2, …, Xj values, ΦL(w) in equation (3) is calculated for the set of w1,
w2, …, wj values and ΦL/U(AMAD) in equation (4) and ΦF/U(AMAD) in equation (5) are
calculated for the set of AMAD1, AMAD 2, …, AMAD j values. The value of a parameter
at which the calculated theoretical value of the measured quantity agrees with the

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

3
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

measured experimental value represents the estimate of the parameter according to the
accepted ICRP model.
In fact, the measured quantity values are variables and the model parameter values are
not known exactly. In this case a likelihood function is used to describe the probable
value of the quantity that was measured and the probability density function (PDF) is
used to describe probable values of the model parameters. Likelihood function,
L(M|X,ξi), describes the probability of observing a value M provided the values X and
ξi are known. Values of the likelihood function can be calculated numerically using
Monte Carlo integration technique. For that at the first step the model parameter values,
ξi, are sampled from their PDFs and the value of the measured quantity M or a
combination of the measured quantities Φ(Mn) is calculated using the likelihood
function(s), L(Mn|X,ξi) and a fixed value of the desired quantity X. Repeating this
procedure many times a set of the measured quantity values {Mk} or {Φk(Mn)} is
generated. A frequency distribution of these quantities is found By sorting {Mk} or
{Φk(Mn)} that represents a random sample of the likelihood function L(M|X) or
L(Φ(Mn)|X) for the measured quantity M or a combination Φ(Mn).
Thus, the theoretical values of the measured quantity or a combination of the measured
quantities are represented as the likelihood function L(M|X) or L(Φ(Mn)|X), where M
or Mn are arguments and the desired quantity X is a parameter. In this case the
experimental value М0 or a combination of the experimental values (Φ(Mn0) are
compared with a set of the likelihood functions L(M|X) or L(Φ(Mn)|X) for a set of
desired quantity values X1, X2, …, Xj. The value Хα at which fulfills a condition:
M0 Φ( M n 0 )

∫ L( M | X α ) ⋅ dM = 1 − α
0
or ∫ L( Φ( M
0
n ) | X α ) ⋅ dΦ( M n ) = 1 − α (6)

represents the estimate of the parameter with a confidence level α (Neyman 1937, Yao
W.-M. et al. 2006) according to the accepted ICRP model, the model parameter
assumptions and the assumed likelihood function for the measured quantities.

Results
Special monitoring measurements of four nuclear power-plant workers consisted of in
vivo measurements of Со-60 in lungs during 200 days after an acute intake and several
in vitro measurements of urine and feces samples performed 200 days after an acute
intake that occurred 05.02.2009. The results of the measurements are presented in tables
1 and 2.
Table 1. Results of in vivo measurements of Со-60 in lungs for four nuclear power-plant workers
during a year 2009, Bq/Lungs.

Date of measurement
Wor-
ker 26.02 11.03 16.03 23.03 24.03 30.03 03.04 06.04 29.07 10.08 24.08

W1 80053 78889 76450 81908 75016 57284 40664

W2 32747 31965 32180 32564 32200 28107
W3 25275 27633 24918 18748 18299 19828
W4 40530 42000 35319 26996

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

4
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

Table 2. Results of in vitro measurements of Со-60 in urine (U) and feces (F) samples for four
nuclear power-plant workers taken in august 2009, Bq/day (in brackets are values normalized to
average mass of the fecal daily sample equal 152 g).

Date of sampling
Worker
20.08 21.08 24.08 25.08 26.08 27.08
V., ml/day 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4
U
A, Bq/day 20 10.5 14.5 18.7 25.7
W1
Mass, g/day 274.8 329.1
F
A, Bq/day 160 (88) 165 (76)
V., ml/day 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
U
A, Bq/day 2.3 2.0 6.0 9.0 11.0
W2
F Mass, g/day 120.2 93 70.2
A, Bq/day 17 (21) 22 (36) 17 (37)
V., ml/day 3.0 2.0 2.5 1.8 1.5
U
A, Bq/day 9.0 4.0 7.5 10.2 6.0
W3
F Mass, g/day 243.8 200.7 166.5
A, Bq/day 65 (40) 50 (39) 31 (28)
V., ml/day 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
U
A, Bq/day 4.7 5.0 6.5 11.5 9.3
W4
F Mass, g/day 170.7 118.9 96.7
A, Bq/day 30 (27) 20 (26) 8.6 (14)

Uncertainty of in vivo measurements of Со-60 in lungs presented in table 1 has two

components: type A and Type B. Type A uncertainty arises from the statistics of
counting measurements and described using the Poisson distribution. Type B
uncertainty includes variability of the measurement geometry and uncertainty of the
calibration. Type A uncertainty for the observed activity levels did not exceed 1 % and
Type B uncertainty was described by lognormal PDF with geometric standard deviation
equal 1.2 (Doerfel et al. 2006).
Uncertainty of in vitro measurements of urine and feces samples presented in table 2
also has two components: type A and Type B. Type A uncertainty for the observed
sample activity levels was about 20 %. Type B uncertainty due to variation of excretion
rate is usually described by lognormal PDF with geometric standard deviation equal 1.3
– 1.8 for urine and 1.5 – 5 for feces /6/ . Using table 2 data we estimated variation of
urine excretion by the value of 1.4 and feces excretion by the value of 1.5.
Results of absorption type investigation using equation (3) and the results of
measurements of four nuclear power-plant workers presented in table 1 are shown in
figure 1.

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

5
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

1,8
Ф(w)/Ф(w=1)
Фmin
1,6 Фmax
Expr/Ф(w=1)
1,4 Emax
Emin
ФL(w)

1,2 Super S

0,8

0,6
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
w
Fig. 1. Theoretical value of function ΦL(w)/ΦL(w=1), calculated using equation (3) versus parameter
N −1 N
w in comparison with values
∑ ∑M
j =1 n = j +1
L ( t j ) / M L ( t n ) obtained in experiment.

Absorption characteristics of the material in case of cobalt compounds classified by two

types: M and S. We introduced a parameter w to characterize a fraction of type S
compound in a mixture of M and S compounds. In figure 1 a theoretical value of the
ratio ΦL(w)/ΦL(w=1) is presented as a function of w. Horizontal lines are the values of
N −1 N
the combination of measured results ∑ ∑M
j =1 n = j +1
L ( t j ) / M L ( t n ) normalized to ΦL(w=1).

Average, maximum and minimum values of the above quantitities for four workers and
different values of AMAD in the range 0.1 – 10 microns are presented in figure 1. It
follows from figure 1 that the most probable value of the parameter w is w >1. It means
that Type S compound is not slow enough to describe the retention of the radionuclide
Co-60 in lungs in the case under study and a slower type like super S is needed. But
from the two compounds used in the ICRP model type S is the best option.
Results of the Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter (AMAD) investigation
using equations (4) and (5) and the results of measurements of four nuclear power-plant
workers presented in table 1 and 2 are shown in figures 2 and 3.

3 Ф(AMAD)/Ф(AMAD=10)
Фmax
Фmin
Expr/Ф(AMAD=10)
2,5 Emax
Emin
ФL/U(AMAD)

1,5

0,5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AMAD
Fig. 2. Theoretical value of function ΦL/U(AMAD)/ΦL/U(AMAD=10), calculated using equation (4)
N K
versus parameter AMAD in comparison with values
∑∑ M
n =1 k =1
L ( t n ) / M U ( t k ) obtained in experiment.

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

6
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

3 Ф(AMAD)/Ф(AMAD=10)
Фmax
Фmin
2,5 Expr/Ф(AMAD=10)
Emax
Emin
ФF/U(AMAD)

1,5

0,5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AMAD
Fig. 3. Theoretical value of function ΦF/U(AMAD)/ΦF/U(AMAD=10), calculated using equation (5)
Z K
versus parameter AMAD in comparison with values
∑∑ M
z =1 k =1
F ( t z ) / M U ( t k ) obtained in experiment.

Parameter AMAD in working area vary in the range from 0.1 to 20 microns. Aerosols
of desintegration usually have AMAD more than 1 micron and condensation aerosols -
less than 1 micron. In figure 2 and 3 a theoretical value of the ratios
ΦL/U(AMAD)/ΦL/U(AMAD=10) and ΦF/U(AMAD)/ΦF/U(AMAD=10) are presented as a
function of AMAD. Horizontal lines are the values of the combination of measured
N K Z K
results ∑∑ M L ( t n ) / MU ( t k ) and
n =1 k =1
∑∑ M
z =1 k =1
F ( t z ) / M U ( t k ) normalized to ΦL/U(AMAD=10) or

ΦF/U(AMAD=10). Average, maximum and minimum values of the above quantitities for
four workers are presented in figures 2 and 3. In all cases type S compound was used. It
follows from the figures 2 and 3 that the avarage value of AMAD is in the range (4,5 -
5,5) microns and figure 3 data show a smaller range of (3-8) microns.
Results of the committed effective dose calculation for the four nuclear power-
plant workers using equations (2) and (6) are presented in table 3.
Table 3. Results of the committed effective dose calculation for the four nuclear power-plant
workers, mSv

Dose estimate Confidence interval

Worker (Еmax-Е50)/Е50,
Е50 (α=0,50) Еmin (α=0,025) Еmax (α=0,975) %
30.8 25.7 35.9 17
W1 (20) (5.2) (51) (155)
13.6 11.1 16.8 24
W2 (8) (2) (20) (150)
10.4 8.15 13.0 25
W3 (7.1) (1.8) (17.3) (144)
17.9 13.9 23.0 28
W4 (12.5) (3.3) (31) (150)

For the dose calculation only in vivo measurements of Со-60 in lungs were used and
the following assumptions were taken: Type A uncertainty for the in vivo
measurements of Со-60 in lungs equals 1%, Type B uncertainty is described by
lognormal PDF with geometric standard deviation equal 1.2, absorption type is
characterized by the type S compound, AMAD vary in the range 3-8 microns with
uniform probability. Normal PDF is taken as a likelihood function. In table 3 the

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland

7
 Dosimetry − Poster presentations
A.A. Molokanov et al.
A numerical statistical method application experience for the interpretation of Со-60 special monitoring data for nuclear power-
plant workers

estimate with a confidence level α=0.5 is taken as the dose estimate and the estimates
with confidence levels α=0.025 and α=0.975 are taken as lower and upper limits of the
confidence interval. In brackets the same estimates are shown but calculated using the
first measurement only and assuming that absorption type is unknown (M or S) and
AMAD varies in the range 0.1 – 10 microns.

Conclusions
The presented example of a numerical method application for the interpretation of
bioassay measurements of Со-60 performed during special monitoring of four nuclear
power-plant workers showed a possibility of improving the dose assessment by
obtaining better information on the model parameter values and by using statistical
methods for the calculation of the associated uncertainty. From the two compounds
used in the ICRP model for cobalt the type S was taken as the best option and the range
of AMAD values was reduced from (0,1 до 20) to (3 – 8) microns. This result in the
reduction the uncertainty of the dose assessment from (144-155) % to (17-28) %.
The presented committed effective doses for the nuclear plant workers are the
estimates with a confidence level α calculated in accordance with the ICRP model and
with the assumptions of the model parameter values and the assumed likelihood
function for the measured quantities.
On the other hand the parameter model investigation showed that absorption type
S compound is not slow enough to describe the retention of the radionuclide Co-60 in
lungs in the case under study and a slower type like super S is needed.

References
J. Neyman, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London, Series A, 236, 333 (1937), reprinted in A
Selection of Early Statistical Papers on J. Neyman, (University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1967).
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Individual monitoring for
internal exposure of workers. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 78;
Ann. ICRP 27(3/4); 1997.
Doerfel H., Andrasi A., Bailey M.R., Berkovski V., Blanchardon E., Castellani C.-M.,
Hurtgen C., Le Guen B., Malatova I., Marsh J. and Stather J. General Guidelines
for the Estimation of Committed Effective Dose from Incorporation Monitoring
Data (Project IDEAS –EU Contract No. FIKR-CT2001-00160), Research Centre
Karlsruhe. Research Report FZKA 7243; 2006, Karlsruhe. ISSN 0947-8620.
B.R. Siebert. Uncertainty in radiation dosimetry: basic concepts and methods. Radiation
Protection Dosimetry; 2006, 121, 3-11.
Yao W.-M. et al. Particle Data Group. Confidence intervals and limits. J Physics G
33:306; 2006. Available at http://pdg.lbl.gov/. Accessed 7 June 2009.
A. Molokanov, E. Chojnacki, E. Blanchardon. A simple algorithm for solving the
inverse problem of interpretation of uncertain individual measurement in internal
dosimetry. Health Physics; 2010, 98, (1), 12-19.

Proceedings of Third European IRPA Congress 2010 June 14−18, Helsinki, Finland