Advertisement

Validation of a system of models for plutonium decorporation therapy

  • Sara DumitEmail author
  • Maia Avtandilashvili
  • Stacey L. McComish
  • Daniel J. Strom
  • George Tabatadze
  • Sergei Y. Tolmachev
Original Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

A recently proposed system of models for plutonium decorporation (SPD) was developed using data from an individual occupationally exposed to plutonium via a wound [from United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries (USTUR) Case 0212]. The present study evaluated the SPD using chelation treatment data, urine measurements, and post-mortem plutonium activities in the skeleton and liver from USTUR Case 0269. This individual was occupationally exposed to moderately soluble plutonium via inhalation and extensively treated with chelating agents. The SPD was linked to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 66 Human Respiratory Tract Model (HRTM) and the ICRP Publication 30 Gastrointestinal Tract model to evaluate the goodness-of-fit to the urinary excretion data and the predictions of post-mortem plutonium retention in the skeleton and liver. The goodness-of-fit was also evaluated when the SPD was linked to the ICRP Publication 130 HRTM and the ICRP Publication 100 Human Alimentary Tract Model. The present study showed that the proposed SPD was useful for fitting the entire, chelation-affected and non-affected, urine bioassay data, and for predicting the post-mortem plutonium retention in the skeleton and liver at time of death, 38.5 years after the accident. The results of this work are consistent with the conclusion that Ca-EDTA is less effective than Ca-DTPA for enhancing urinary excretion of plutonium.

Keywords

Plutonium Chelating agents Decorporation therapy Biokinetic modeling Human data United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the many helpful comments and suggestions from anonymous reviewers and the editor. Funding was provided by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES, Brazil), under Grant award no. 013355/2013-09 to S.D., and by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Domestic and International Health Studies (AU-13), under Grant award no. DE-HS0000073 to the USTUR. This study was performed as a part of the USTUR research program, which was reviewed and approved by Washington State University Institutional Review Board no. 11573.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Avtandilashvili M, Dumit S, Tolmachev SY (2018) USTUR whole-body Case 0212: 17-year follow-up of plutonium contaminated wound. Radiat Prot Dosim 178:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett PH, Bell BM, Cobelli C, Golde H, Schumitzky A, Vicini P, Foster DM (1998) SAAM II: simulation, analysis and modeling software for tracer and pharmacokinetic studies. Metabolis 4:484–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birchall A, Vostrotin V, Puncher M, Efimov A, Dorrian M-D, Sokolova A, Napier B, Suslova K, Miller S, Zhdanov A, Strom DJ, Scherpelz R, Schadilov A (2017) Mayak Worker Dosimetry System (MWDS-2013) for internally deposited plutonium: an overview. Radiat Prot Dosim 176:10–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breustedt B, Blanchardon E, Berard P, Fritsch P, Giussani A, Lopez MA, Luciani A, Nosske D, Piechowski J, Schimmelpfeng J, Sérandour AL (2009) Biokinetic modelling of DTPA decorporation therapy: the CONRAD approach. Radiat Prot Dosim 134:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castellani CM, Marsh JW, Hurtgen C, Blanchardon E, Berard P, Giussani A, Lopez MA (2013) IDEAS guidelines (Version 2) for the estimation of committed doses from incorporation monitoring data. European Radiation Dosimetry Group Report; Mar. Report No.: EURADOS Report 2013-01, Braunschweig. http://www.eurados.org/-/media/Files/Eurados/documents/EURADOS-Report-2013-01-online-version.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018
  6. Dumit S, Avtandilashvili M, Strom DJ, McComish SL, Tabatadze G, Tolmachev SY (2019) Improved modeling of plutonium-DTPA decorporation. Radiat Res.  https://doi.org/10.1667/RR15188.1.Google Scholar
  7. International Atomic Energy Agency (2004) Methods for assessing occupational radiation doses due to intakes of radionuclides. Safety Reports Series No. 37. STI/PUB/1190. IAEA Publications, Vienna. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1190/Pub1190_web.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2018
  8. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1979) Limits for intakes of radionuclides by workers. ICRP Publication 30 (Part 1). Ann ICRP 3(3–4)Google Scholar
  9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1993) Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides—part 2 ingestion dose coefficients. ICRP Publication 67. Ann ICRP 23(3–4)Google Scholar
  10. International Commission on Radiological Protection (1994) Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. ICRP Publication 66. Ann ICRP 24(1–3)Google Scholar
  11. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2006) Human alimentary tract model for radiological protection. ICRP Publication 100. Ann ICRP 36(1–2)Google Scholar
  12. International Commission on Radiological Protection (2015) Occupational intakes of radionuclides: part 1. ICRP Publication 130. Ann ICRP 44(2)Google Scholar
  13. James AC, Sasser LB, Stuit DB, Glover SE, Carbaugh EH (2007) USTUR whole body Case 0269: demonstrating effectiveness of i.v. Ca-DTPA for Pu. Radiat Prot Dosim 127:449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Konzen K, Brey R, Miller S (2016) Plutonium-DTPA model application with USTUR Case 0269. Health Phys 110:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leggett RW, Eckerman KF, Khokhryakov VF, Suslova KG, Krahenbuhl MP, Miller SC (2005) Mayak worker study: an improved biokinetic model for reconstructing doses from internally deposited plutonium. Radiat Res 164:111–122ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luciani A, Polig E (2000) Verification and modification of the ICRP-67 model for plutonium dose calculation. Health Phys 78:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McInroy JF, Boyd HA, Eutsler BC, Romero D (1985) The U.S. Transuranium Registry report of the 241Am content of a whole body. Part IV: preparation and analysis of the tissues and bones. Health Phys 49:587–621Google Scholar
  18. Moody CA, Glover SE, Stuit DB, Filby RH (1998) Pre-concentration and separation of thorium, uranium, plutonium and americium in human soft tissues by extraction chromatography. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 234:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2006) Development of a biokinetic model for radionuclide-contaminated wounds and procedures for their assessment, dosimetry and treatment. NCRP Report No. 156. NCRP Publications, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  20. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2008) Management of persons contaminated with radionuclides: handbook. NCRP Report No. 161. NCRP Publications, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  21. Puncher M, Birchall A, Tolmachev SY (2017) The Mayak Worker Dosimetry System (MWDS 2013): a re-analysis of USTUR Case 0269 to determine whether plutonium binds to the lungs. Radiat Prot Dosim 176:50–61Google Scholar
  22. Qu H, Stuit D, Glover SE, Love SF, Filby RH (1998) Preconcentration of plutonium and americium using the actinide-CU™ resin for human tissue analysis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 234:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Dumit
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maia Avtandilashvili
    • 1
  • Stacey L. McComish
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Strom
    • 1
  • George Tabatadze
    • 1
  • Sergei Y. Tolmachev
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Transuranium and Uranium RegistriesWashington State UniversityRichlandUSA
  2. 2.Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA

Personalised recommendations