Calculation of dose conversion coefficients for radioactive cesium in contaminated soil by depth and density

  • Il Park
  • Jin O Lee
  • Tae Gwan Do
  • Min Jun Kim
  • A Ra Go
  • Kwang Pyo Kim
Article
First Online:
Received:
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Radiation dose to personnel on the ground contaminated with radioactive cesium after nuclear power plant accident depends on cesium activity, depth profile of the activity, and soil mass density. A dosimetry method was developed to calculate radiation dose resulting from external exposure to radioactive cesium in soil with arbitrary depth profile. Dose conversion coefficients to calculate effective dose based on cesium radioactivity in soil were produced by using a radiation transport code. The dose conversion coefficient was produced for each 1 cm thickness disk source by soil depth by changing soil mass density from 0.5 to 2 g/cm3. Radiation dose due to a volumetric source can be calculated with summation of radiation doses from multiple thin disk sources. When radioactive cesium is distributed within 0–1 cm depth of soil with mass density of 1 g/cm3, effective dose conversion coefficients were 6.2 × 10−6 and 2.4 × 10−6 mSv/h per kBq/m2 for 134Cs and 137Cs nuclides, respectively. Effective doses decreased exponentially with increasing soil depth or mass density. Radiation dose on the contaminated ground can be calculated with the dose database established in this study for any shape of depth profile.

Keywords

Nuclear power plant accident Radioactive cesium Soil contamination External exposure Depth profile Soil mass density 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grant (20141510101630) from the Energy Technology Development Project of Korea.

References

  1. 1.
    IAEA (2015) The Fukushima Daiichi accident: technical volume 4/5. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsubokura M, Nihei M, Sato K, Masak S, Sakuma Y, Kato S, Hayano R (2013) Measurement of internal radiation exposure among decontamination workers in villages near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Health Phys 105:379–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Takahara S, Iijima M, Kimura M, Kinase S, Homma T (2011) Proceedings of Annual/Fall Meetings of Atomic Energy Society of Japan  https://doi.org/10.11561/aesj.2011f.0.821.0
  4. 4.
    ICRP (2010) Conversion coefficients for radiological protection quantities for external radiation exposures. ICRP Publication 116. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ICRP (1996) Conversion coefficients for use in radiological protection against external radiation. ICRP Publication 74. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    EPA (1993) External exposure to radionuclides in air, water, and soil. Federal guidance report no. 12. Envrionment Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zankl M, Petoussi-Henns N, Drexler G, Saito K (1997) The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using reference human phantoms and monte carlo methods part VII: organ doses due to parallel and environmental exposure geometries. GSF-Report 8/97. Institut fuer Strahlenschutz, GSF-Forschungszentrum fuer Umwelt und Gesundheit, Neuherberg-MuenchenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koblinger L, Nagy G (1985) Calculation of the relationship between gamma source distribution in the soil and external doses. Sci Total Environ 45:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacob P, Paretzke HG, Rosenbaum H, Zankl M (1986) Effective dose equivalents for photon exposures from plane sources on the ground. Radiat Prot Dosim 14:299–310Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DOE (1988) External dose-rate conversion factors for calculation of dose to the public. DOE/EH-0070. Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saito K, Petoussi-Henns N, Zankl M, Veit R, Jacob P, Drexler G (1990) Calculation of organ doses from environmental gamma rays using human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods. Part I: monoenergetic sources and natural radionuclides in the ground. GSF-Report 2/90. GSF—National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saito K, Petoussi-Henns N, Zankl M, Veit R, Jacob P, Drexler G (1991) Organ doses as a function of body weight for environmental gamma rays. J Nucl Sci Technol 28:627–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saito K, Petoussi-Henss N, Zankl M (1998) Calculation of the effective dose and its variation from environmental gamma ray sources. Health Phys 74:698–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacob P, Rosenbaum H, Petoussi-Henss N, Zankl M (1990) Calculation of organ doses from environmental gamma rays using human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods, part II: radionuclides distributed in the air or deposited on the ground. GSF-Report 2/90. GSF—National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, GermanGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petoussi-Henns N, Zankl M, Jacob P, Saito K (1991) Organ doses for foetuses, babies, children and adults from environmental gamma rays. Radiat Prot Dosim 37:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zankl M, Drexler G, Petoussi-Henss N, Saito K (1997) The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods. GSF-Report 8/97. Institut fuer Strahlenschutz, GSF-Forschungszentrum fuer Umwelt und Gesundheit, Neuherberg-MuenchenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petoussis-Henss N, Schlattl H, Zankl M, Endo A, Saito K (2012) Organ doses from environmental exposure calculated using voxel phantoms of adults and children. Phys Med Biol 57:5679–5713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petoussi-Henss N, Saito K (2009) In: Xu XG, Eckerman KF (eds) Handbook of anatomical models for radiation dosimetry. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saito K, Petoussi-Henns N (2014) Ambient dose equivalent conversion coefficients for radionuclides exponentially distributed in the ground. J Nucl Sci Technol 51:1274–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Satoh D, Furuta T, Takahashi F, Endo A, Lee CS, Bolch WE (2016) Age-dependent dose conversion coefficients for external exposure to radioactive cesium in soil. J Nucl Sci Technol 53:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ICRU (1994) Gamma-ray spectrometry in the environment. ICRU Report 53. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walling DE, Quine TA (1990) Calibration of caesium 137 measurements to provide quantitative erosion rate data. Land Degrad Dev 2:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xinbao Z, Higgitt DL, Walling DE (1990) A preliminary assessment of the potential for using caesium-137 to estimate rates of soil erosion in the Loess Plateau of China. Hydrol Sci J 35:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walling DE, He Q, Appleby PG (2002) In: Zapata F (ed) Handbook for the assessment of soil erosion and sedimentation using environmental radionuclide. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bunzl K, Schimmack W, Krouglov SV, Alexakhin RM (1995) Changes with time in the migration of radiocesium in the soil, as observed near Chernobyl and in Germany, 1986–1994. Sci Total Environ 175:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kato H, Onda Y, Teramage M (2012) Depth distribution of 137Cs, 134Cs, and 131I in soil profile after Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. J Environ Radioact 111:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    JAEA (2015) Remediation of contaminated areas in the aftermath of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: overview, analysis and lessons learned part 1: a report on the “Decontamination Pilot Project”. JAEA Publication No. 2014-051. Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai, IbarakiGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walling DE, Zhang Y, He Q (2007) Models for converting measurements of environmental radionuclide inventories (137Cs, Excess 210Pb, and 7Be) to estimates of soil erosion and deposition rates (including software for model implementation). University of Exeter, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Poreba Grzegorz J (2006) Caesium-137 as a soil erosion tracer: a review. Geochronometria 25:37–46Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arata L, Meusburger K, Frenkel E, Campo-Neuen A, Iurian AR, Ketterer ME, Mabit L, Alewell C (2016) Modelling deposition and erosion rates with radionuclides (MODERN)—part 1: A new conversion model to derive soil redistribution rates from inventories of fallout radionuclides. J Environ Radioact 162–163:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ICRU (1998) Conversion coefficients for use in radiological protection against external radiation. ICRU Report 57. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taria Y, Hayashida N, Orita M, Tamaguchi H, Ide J, Endo Y, Yamashita S, Takamura N (2014) Evalulation of environ mental contamination and estimated exposure doses ager residents return home in kawauchi village, Fukushima prefecture. Environ Sci Technol 48:4556–4563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berger MJ, Coursey JS, Zucker MA, Chang J (1999) Stopping-power and range tables for electrons, protons, and helium ions. NIST, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ICRP (2009) Adult reference computational phantoms. ICRP Publication 110. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kyung Hee UniversityYongin-SiRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations