Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on January 12, 2006
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2006 118(3):280-289; doi:10.1093/rpd/nci345
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Obtaining an unbiased estimate of intake in routine monitoring when the time of intake is unknown
Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Radiation Protection Division, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RQ, UK
* Corresponding author: matthew.puncher{at}nrpb.org
Received March 7, 2005, amended August 17, 2005, accepted August 18, 2005
A common problem in internal dosimetry occurs in routine monitoring, when it is required to estimate an intake from a measurement made at the end of a monitoring interval, and the time of intake is unknown. ICRP suggests that, in these cases, it should be assumed that the intake occurred in the middle of the monitoring period. However, it has been shown that this will, in the long term, lead to biased estimates of a worker's intake and dose. In order to overcome this biasing, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) recommends a different method based on calculating the intakes for all possible intake-times in the interval, and then taking an arithmetic average. In this paper, it is shown that both the ICRP and USDOE methods are biased. An alternative method is suggested, which assumes a constant chronic intake throughout the monitoring interval. Monte Carlo simulations are used to estimate the magnitude of bias for two realistic monitoring programmes using all three methods. It is shown that the proposed method is unbiased and also yields estimates of intake that are generally closer to the actual intake, than the other two. The Monte Carlo conclusions are backed up by a theoretical analysis of bias. Finally, the source of bias in the apparently intuitive approach of the USDOE method is revealed by viewing the problem from a Bayesian perspective.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Kravchik and U. German A statistical model for reconstruction of historical internal doses for uranium workers Radiat Prot Dosimetry, September 1, 2009; 136(2): 87 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Marsh, C. M. Castellani, C. Hurtgen, M. A. Lopez, A. Andrasi, M. R. Bailey, A. Birchall, E. Blanchardon, A. D. Desai, M.-D. Dorrian, et al. INTERNAL DOSE ASSESSMENTS: UNCERTAINTY STUDIES AND UPDATE OF IDEAS GUIDELINES AND DATABASES WITHIN CONRAD PROJECT Radiat Prot Dosimetry, October 6, 2008; (2008) ncn218v2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Birchall, M. Puncher, and J. W. Marsh AVOIDING BIASED ESTIMATES OF DOSE WHEN NOTHING IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TIME OF INTAKE Radiat Prot Dosimetry, November 14, 2007; (2007) ncm286v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Puncher and A. Birchall ESTIMATING UNCERTAINTY ON INTERNAL DOSE ASSESSMENTS Radiat Prot Dosimetry, November 10, 2007; (2007) ncm361v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Bingham, M. Dolan, and R. J. Cockerill Assessment of dose from faecal measurement data Radiat Prot Dosimetry, November 1, 2007; 127(1-4): 402 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Molokanov and E. Blanchardon Dependence of the dose estimate on the time pattern of intake by the example of tritiated water intakes Radiat Prot Dosimetry, November 1, 2007; 127(1-4): 387 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Wilson and R. K. Bull Uncertainties in estimation of intakes of actinides for dose reconstruction cases Radiat Prot Dosimetry, November 1, 2007; 127(1-4): 563 - 568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Etherington, A Birchall, M Puncher, A Molokanov, and E Blanchardon Uncertainties in doses from intakes of radionuclides assessed from monitoring measurements Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2006; 121(1): 40 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|