Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-gnk9b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-17T23:37:14.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

EURADOS/REMPAN Review on Monitoring and Dosimetry for Radionuclide-contaminated Wounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2025

María Antonia López
Affiliation:
CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Madrid, Spain
Arlene Alves
Affiliation:
IRD, Instituto de Radioproteção e Dosimetria, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
Maia Avtandilashvili
Affiliation:
USTUR, United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries, Richland, WA, USA
Luiz Bertelli
Affiliation:
L. Bertelli & Associates, Murray, UT, USA
Sara Dumit
Affiliation:
LANL, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
Pavel Fojtík
Affiliation:
SÚRO, National Radiation Protection Institute, Prague, Czech Republic
Didier Franck
Affiliation:
IRSN, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Fontenay-au-Roses, France
Milan Gadd
Affiliation:
LANL, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
Luke Hetrick
Affiliation:
LANL, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
John Klumpp
Affiliation:
LANL, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
Chunsheng Li
Affiliation:
Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Juan Francisco Navarro Amaro
Affiliation:
CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Madrid, Spain
Jakub Ośko
Affiliation:
NCBJ, Nuclear Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock, Poland
Begoña Pérez López
Affiliation:
CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Madrid, Spain
Fabrice Petitot
Affiliation:
CEA, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, Paris, France
Deepesh Poudel*
Affiliation:
LANL, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
Anthony Riddell
Affiliation:
UKHSA, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
Martin Šefl
Affiliation:
USTUR, United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries, Richland, WA, USA
Steve Sugarman
Affiliation:
SummitET, St. Petersburg, FL, USA
Sergey Tolmachev
Affiliation:
USTUR, United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries, Richland, WA, USA
David Broggio
Affiliation:
IRSN, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Fontenay-au-Roses, France
*
Corresponding author: Deepesh Poudel; Email: dpoudel@lanl.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) and the WHO’s Radiation Emergency Medical Preparedness and Assistance Network (REMPAN) have collaborated to review best practices for managing radionuclide intakes through wounds. Rapid response and decisions on wound decontamination, tissue excision, and chelation therapy are based on measurements of the exposed individual and preliminary dose assessments using reasonable default assumptions. The goal is to minimize exposure, prevent tissue reactions, and reduce the risk of stochastic effects.

The management of a contaminated wound is always case-specific, but some general procedures typically apply for a proper evaluation of the contamination case. Medical doctors (surgeons and toxicologists) and internal dosimetrists should work together in the management of the contaminated wound case, with internal dosimetrists providing expert advice to aid clinical decision-making and communication with the patient and his/her family. The ISO standard 20031:2020 provides guidelines on the monitoring and dosimetry for internal exposures due to wound contamination with radionuclides. The Clinical Decision Guide was proposed by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements in its Report 161 to assist physicians in making treatment decisions for individuals with internal radionuclide intakes. Best practices for medical treatment, based on previous experience, are presented here.

Information

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc

A joint project was carried out as a collaboration between the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS e.V.)Reference Lopez, Balásházy and Bérard1 and the WHO Radiation Emergency Medical Preparedness and Assistance Network (WHO REMPAN) to review the status of monitoring, dose assessment, and medical management of workers internally contaminated through wounds.

Management of a wound contamination case requires reliable knowledge of the exposure scenario, including the time of intake, the radionuclide(s) involved, the physical and chemical form of the radioactive compound, and the location and extent of the contaminated area.

A monitoring program should be established soon after the incident identification according to the wound event, to perform direct measurements at the wound site, in vivo whole body/organ measurements and/or in vitro excreta analysis, to determine local activity in the wound, and to estimate systemic contamination.

ISO provides guidelines on monitoring and dosimetry for internal exposures due to wound contamination with radionuclides2. Available information on wound monitoring will help make decisions on the clinical management of the case, mainly on decontamination, surgical excision, and decorporation therapy.

NCRP Report No. 1613 provides guidance to those who must respond to radionuclide contamination incidents. The objective is an adequate medical management of individuals exposed to and potentially contaminated with radionuclides in such incidents.

Measurements of Exposed Persons Contaminated Through Wounds

Measurement of Local Activity in the Wound

Direct measurement of the activity in the wound site is required for the estimation of the activity retained in the wound. If surgical removal of tissues is involved, measurement of the wound site before and after the tissue excision and measurements of excised tissue is required.

Monitoring procedures include the scan of the wound area to identify the activity level, define the diameter of the contaminated region, and determine the wound depth.

Wound measurements allow the identification and quantification of x-ray and gamma emitting radionuclides deposited in the wound site. The determination of the wound contamination of alpha emitters emitting low energy photons is especially challenging. The sensitivity of the measurement to wound-to-detector geometry and to wound depth should be taken into consideration. In case of alpha or beta wound contamination, a standard contamination survey instrument may be used for wound monitoring.

Successive measurements of the wound site allow the determination of the retention of the activity of radionuclides as a function of time. Methods for the calibration of detection systems should be established by defining proper counting geometry and using appropriate calibration sources that simulate wound contamination. The use of wound phantoms allows for the efficient calibration of detection systems. Wound-depth calibration is especially challenging. An alternative assessment of local activity can be achieved using Monte Carlo simulations of the wound measurement.Reference Broggio, Zhang and de Carlan4, Reference Nadar, Patni and Akar5

No standard reference wound phantoms are available so far. The IRSN in France has fabricated a wound phantom using tissue substitute EVA (ethylvinylacetate) foam of circular shape (red in Figure 1). Partially contaminated cellulose filter and a drop of radioactive material (1 cm2) (blue plate in Figure 1) allow for the simulation of puncture-wound contamination. Tissue equivalent PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) blank plates with a diameter of 10 cm and a thickness of 0.2 cm are used to simulate different depths of contamination. The plate of the source can be placed between the standard blank plates (Figure 1).

Figure 1. IRSN (left and centre) and SÚRO (right) wound calibration phantoms (dimensions in mm).

SÚRO (Czech Republic) has developed a wound-depth calibration phantom for 241Am matrices or americium-containing Pu matrices6 (Figure 1). The phantom consists of an absorber made of PMMA with a tiny radionuclide source (an ion-exchange resin bead of a diameter 0.7–0.8 mm, with an average weight 0.4 mg and a volume of 0.18 mm3 for 0.8 mm diameter, containing 241Am bound) simulating a puncture-wound and containing a metrologically measured activity to carry out calibration procedures. The PMMA absorbers consist of (1) a cast PMMA block (20 mm thick) with a borehole (ø 1 mm) for inserting radionuclide sources and (2) PMMA plates of various thicknesses to simulating additional tissue layers when placed over the absorber. Fifty beads were selected and used for sorption of 241Am from a standard solution. Three types of phantoms were manufactured with different radionuclide source patterns: a single ion-exchange resin bead forming a point source for detector calibration purposes, 7 beads in a line forming a cca 6 mm-long line source for demonstration of the measurement uncertainty, and a 2-point source formed by 2 single beads placed in a 10 mm mutual distance for testing the spatial resolution of a detector. It is important to mention the limitations of phantom materials (EVA and PMMA) simulating radiation interactions with body tissues.

In Vivo/In Vitro Bioassay to Determine Systemic Contamination

The in vivo and in vitro monitoring methods to be applied are like those used in routine monitoring.

Whole body counting (shielding the wound site) serves to obtain the radionuclide activity retained in the total body (in case of x-ray and gamma emitters) after absorption from the wound entry. Radionuclides entering the bloodstream can also be retained in certain organs and tissues according to their biokinetics and can be measured by in vivo monitoring methods, if feasible.

In vitro bioassays allow for obtaining the activity excreted in urine/feces for alpha, beta, and gamma emitters, and should start as soon as possible. A 24-hour collection of urine samples is recommended, and 24-hour or 72-hour fecal samples are common practice. In case of chelation therapy, measurements of excreta samples are recommended before and after DTPA administration (this decorporation therapy is only considered for transuranium elements), permitting evaluation of its effectiveness.

Interpretation of Monitoring Data for Dose Assessments

There have been many ad hoc approaches for the interpretation of bioassay data after wound contamination. In some cases, bioassay data collected after a wound incident have been analyzed assuming injection. This simple approach may help explain bioassay data, particularly for contaminants dominated by highly-soluble materials.

Application of the NCRP 156 Wound Models

No consensus biokinetic model for the translocation of radioactive materials via wounds existed until the publication of NCRP Report 156.7 The NCRP Report 156 describes a multi-compartmental wound model based on biochemical principles. The model consists of 5 compartments – soluble; colloidal and intermediate states (CIS); particle, aggregates and bound states (PABS); trapped particles and aggregates (TPA); and fragments – that lead to uptake into the blood or clearance into the lymph nodes (Figure 2). The compartments describe the behavior of different physicochemical forms of the radioactive materials regardless of the initial physical and chemical state. The default categories of the radioactive materials defined in the report are: soluble, colloid, particulate, and fragment. Materials introduced into the wound initially in a soluble form enter the soluble compartment, from where a fraction is absorbed into the blood and the remainder into the CIS compartment. Material in the CIS and PABS compartments solubilize and transfer back into the soluble compartments. A fraction of the activity in the CIS and PABS compartments is transferred to the lymph nodes. The “soluble” material is divided into the retention classes of weak, moderate, strong, and avid categories depending on the solubility of the contaminant. Several radionuclides are assigned to 1 of these categories as judged by the patterns of retention of the injected radioactive material retained at the wound site after an intramuscular injection. Table 1 lists the nuclides (ions) in each category.

Figure 2. General compartmental model of the biokinetics of radioactive materials in wound (with permission of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, http://NCRPonline.org).

Table 1. Radionuclides in different NCRP 156 default retention categories

Particulate radionuclides are grouped into categories of colloids, particles, and fragments. The colloids, particles, and fragments are introduced into the wound by direct injection into the CIS, PABS, and fragment compartments, respectively.

Particles and fragments include solid materials, such as mixed oxides or metal alloys. The major difference between the particles and fragments is that the latter are too large (>20 μm) to be phagocytized and, thus, have potential to cause foreign body reactions to the tissue.

The transfer among the compartments is described by first-order kinetics or multi-exponential equations to represent the average retention behavior of different categories of materials.

The NCRP 156 wound models describe the translocation of material within the wound and clearance to the blood and to the lymph nodes. The models can be combined with a systemic model and an alimentary tract model to describe the complete behavior of radioactive material after a wound intake. The latest systemic models for different radionuclides are given in a series of publications by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).811

The system of the models can be “solved” to obtain time-dependent retention and excretion of radioactive materials after wound contamination. One can also obtain a rough estimate of intake from measurements of activity in the wound site. This is particularly true for particles and fragments, which are retained more strongly in the wound. Wound counts, along with urine and/or fecal measurements, provide important inferences regarding the solubility of the material.Reference Poudel, Guilmette and Klumpp12, Reference Poudel, Klumpp and Bertelli13 While wound counts can be useful, one needs to consider many factors before using wound counts to estimate an intake. For example, for soluble and colloidal contaminants, it is important to consider the fraction of the intake that is already absorbed into the blood.

The NCRP 156 wound models were heavily based on data from animal experiments, and the authors of the models acknowledged this limitation and encouraged application of the model to human wound cases for validation and improvement.Reference Guilmette and Durbin14 Poudel et al.Reference Poudel, Klumpp and Waters15 reviewed applications of the NCRP 156 wound models to a limited number of plutonium- and americium-contaminated wounds. In many cases, some modifications to the parameters of the NCRP 156 wound models were needed to accurately describe the bioassay data.

Often, a combination of the wound models – rather than a single model – have been used to describe the bioassay data after wound contamination. For example, Poudel et al.Reference Poudel, Guilmette and Klumpp12 applied a combination of the wound models to successfully explain both the urinary excretion data and wound retention data in 3 of the 4 cases from the Rocky Flats Plant.Reference Falk, Daugherty and Aldrich16

In another case, a Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo codeReference Miller, Inkret and Martz17Reference Poudel, Miller and Klumpp19 used 7 biokinetic models: 4 NCRP 156 wound models, 2 specific wound models, and 1 injection model – to estimate intakes and doses from contaminated wounds. This method assigns equal probability to these biokinetic models (which constitute the priors) and computes the expected values of the intake and committed effective doses, as well as the posterior probability for each type of model.

It is important to note that modelling of biokinetics after contaminated wounds is particularly difficult, because contaminated wounds, by nature, have a large array of characteristics. The characteristics of the contaminant, e.g., the solubility, chemistry, particle size, and mass, greatly influence its behavior in the wound. In addition, the type of the wound and the degree of the tissue injury – i.e., whether the injury is a burn, abrasion, laceration, or a puncture – can also affect the biokinetics of the contaminant. IlyinReference Ilyin, Gusev, Guskova and Mettler20 concluded that absorption of radionuclides from stab wounds (modelled by intramuscular injection) is higher compared with cutaneous and muscle wounds and lacerated wounds. Moreover, the pathophysiological response of the tissue, such as inflammation, edema, fibrosis, or encapsulation, also complicates the behavior of the radioactive material in the wound. Regardless, experience with human data has shown that the default recommendations in the NCRP 156 wound models can be used as a starting point.

Dosimetric Models

Dose coefficients for inhalation and ingestion have been available and in use for decades; however, because of the lack of a standard wound model until the publication of the NCRP Report 156, dose coefficients for intakes via wound were unavailable. After the publication of the NCRP Report, systemic dose coefficients can be calculated by coupling the wound models with an element-specific systemic model. The NCRP Report provides systemic dose coefficients for wound intakes of uranium of different forms but does not do so for other radionuclides. Instead, the report provides only the upper limits of the dose coefficients for several radionuclides. It is important to note that these upper limits are based on an assumption that all the activity deposited in the wound site becomes systemic. While these dose coefficients may be very close to the actual dose coefficients for intakes of soluble radionuclides, they may significantly overestimate the doses due to wound intake of radionuclides in particle or fragment forms.

Recognizing the lack of dose coefficients for wound intakes, Toohey et al.Reference Toohey, Bertelli and Sugarman21, Reference Toohey, Bertelli and Sugarman22 computed the committed effective dose coefficients and equivalent dose coefficients for intakes via contaminated wounds for several radionuclides. These coefficients were obtained by coupling the older systemic models; one can do the same with the new systemic models. Bertelli et al.Reference Bertelli, Reis and Klumpp23 (2025) provided dose coefficients obtained by combining the NCRP 156 wound models with the ICRP OIR (Occupational Intake of Radionuclides) series of systemic models811 and using the new dosimetric methodology.24

Galipeau et al.Reference Galipeau, Sugarman and Waller25 calculated the local dose coefficients for different geometries of wounds contaminated with 38 commonly encountered radionuclides. The local dose coefficients were then used to create a suggested activity limit above which clinically significant effects may occur.

DTPA therapy models in case of chelation for the interpretation of chelation-affected bioassay data

Since the early 1970s, different research groups have focused on developing new chelation models and/or modelling approaches to describe the bioassay data affected by chelation therapy with DTPA. However, there is currently no recommended chelation model available.Reference Breustedt, Blanchardon and Berard26, Reference Dumit, Bertelli and Klumpp27

The importance of having a standard chelation model is primarily for assessing the radiation dose during the treatment period and the weeks that follow the last chelation administration. It can also be useful to assist the radiation protection staff and medical team in knowing when the chelation efficacy decreases, and as a tool for treatment optimization.Reference Dumit, Bertelli and Klumpp27

Currently, there are still gaps in knowledge and numerous research questions that need to be answered. It is needed to investigate further where exactly the chelation takes place in the human body and which compartments from the systemic model are accessible to the chelating agent. It is important to know if the DTPA and the actinide-DTPA systems share the same biokinetics, and what implications the protein and other ligands binding the actinide present in the systemic circulation, as well as the availability of the actinide to be chelated by DTPA. The final question is how to model the transfer of material between the extracellular and the intracellular fluids, including material bound to the cells.

Recently, the development of a physiologically-based approach for modelling plutonium and americium decorporation therapy was initiated. Different studies using animal data have started accomplishing this task by first proposing new systemic models for americium,Reference Miller, Klumpp and Poudel28 and plutonium.Reference Kastl, Giussani and Blanchardon29, Reference Klumpp, Poudel and Dumit30

Software Tools for Dose Assessment

Several computer codes have been developed to assist in dose assessment after intakes of radionuclides. Examples of tools that allow users to evaluate intakes via contaminated wounds and to calculate whole-body or specific organs are discussed below.

VARSKIN

The VARSKIN code, sponsored by the US Nuclear Regulatory Program (USNRC), is widely used to calculate occupational dose to the skin. The latest version of the code, referred to as VARSKIN+,Reference Hamby, Mangini and Luitjens31 is distributed through the Radiation Protection Computer Code Analysis and Maintenance Program (RAMP). In this version, nuclide libraries from both the ICRP Publication 3832 and 10724 are available. VARSKIN+ Version 1.0 includes a module for wound dosimetry.

“WoundDose” module (Figure 3) implements the recommendations of the NCRP Report 156 to calculate (1) shallow dose, determined at a basal-layer depth of 70 μm beneath the surface of the skin, (2) local dose to tissues surrounding the injured skin, and (3) committed organ/effective dose from contaminated wounds due to industrial or medical events.Reference Klumpp, Poudel and Dumit30 For systemic dosimetry, the “WoundDose” module implements all 7 NCRP 156 solubility categories, by using dose coefficients calculated based on the NCRP wound model.Reference Ilyin, Gusev, Guskova and Mettler20, Reference Toohey, Bertelli and Sugarman22 The code also allows for entering the user-defined biological half-life for wound retention.

Figure 3. VARSKIN+ user interface for the “WoundDose” module.

IMBA

The IMBATM software was jointly developed by the National Radiological Protection Board (now incorporated into the UK Health Security Agency), British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, and the Westlakes Research Institute.Reference Birchall, Jarvis and Peace33 NRPB and ACJ & Associates, Inc. (USA) incorporated these code modules into the IMBATM Expert and Professional Plus series of customized bioassay and internal dosimetry software applications.Reference Birchall, Puncher and James34, Reference Birchall, Puncher and Marsh35

Currently, the code is available in 3 standard versions - IMBALite, IMBAPlus, and IMBAPro, distributed by the USNRC through the RAMP program or by UKHSA for Europe.

The advanced feature of both the IMBAPlus and IMBAPro versions is the ability to deal with intakes from contaminated wounds (Figure 4). Users can choose 1 of the default wound retention categories defined in the NCRP Report 156 or enter their own values for the retention function as a sum of exponentials. The default retention functions implemented in IMBATM have been calculated by solving the compartmental wound model for each wound retention category. Therefore, the IMBATM retention functions are slightly different from those published by the NCRP7, which represent the retention in the wound only.

Figure 4. Interface of the wound retention model implemented in IMBATM.

Taurus

A new internal dosimetry software application called “Taurus” is under development by UKHSA; it is the successor to IMBATM, and implements the biokinetic and dosimetric methodology that underpins the ICRP OIR series of publications. Taurus combines the prospective calculation functionality from UKHSA’s PLEIADES codeReference Fell, Phipps and Smith36, used to produce reference bioassay and dose data for ICRP publications, with an updated fitting module, based on the one in IMBATM, for retrospective calculation of intakes and doses from bioassay measurements.

A version of Taurus with wound dosimetry functionality, using the NCRP 156 wound model in conjunction with OIR methodology, is already available. Calculations can be conducted for wounds containing a mixture of 2 or more NCRP 156 material retention types; the “Linked” intake regime functionality in the software permits the fraction of each type to be fixed for data-fitting purposes, if required (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Taurus and DPlot output showing results for a simultaneous fit to wound and urine measurement data for a wound involving 2 NCRP wound model retention parameter types, Soluble “Strong” (WS) and “Fragment” (WF).

AIDE

AIDE (Activity and Internal Dose Estimates) is a software application for calculating activities in compartments and committed doses due to occupational exposures, and for performing intake and dose assessment using bioassay data.Reference Bertelli, Melo and Lipsztein37 Since 1995, AIDE has also been used in quality assurance processes of the ICRP Task Group on Dose Calculations regarding calculations of activities in model compartments and generation of dose coefficients. It has also been used to produce key dosimetric quantities using the NCRP 156 Wound Model for the US Department of Energy’s Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site.

IDode

The IDode software packageReference Dumit, Bertelli and Klumpp27, Reference Miller, Bertelli and Klare38 is a state-of-the-art code that can handle unique, complex problems, and is able to perform powerful statistical analysis, which are indispensable for chelation modelling studies and internal dosimetry (Figure 6). IDode can solve second-order kinetics and allows for the construction of a pharmacokinetic front-end for biokinetic models.

Figure 6. IDode interface showing the plot.

IDode software has been used in numerous studies and has showed to be a crucial modelling tool for building not only chelation models but also a variety of biokinetic models: wound models and systemic models, for example. The program will be freely shared with other researchers by request to .

MIODOSE

The MIODOSE software allows the estimation of internal dose from bioassay measurements.Reference Davesne, Blanchardon and Bohand39, Reference Bodin and Menetrier40 MIODOSE offers the functionality of managing intakes through different pathways (inhalation, ingestion, injection, and wound).

MIODOSE solves the ICRP biokinetic models: the OIR series are implemented as well as the former ICRP models. Effective doses and organ doses are also calculated according to ICRP methodology. MIODOSE has been extensively benchmarked against data provided by the ICRP OIR Data Viewer. The NCRP Report 156 wound model linked to the ICRP systemic models is also implemented and includes all 7 default retention categories. Moreover, because biokinetic models are solved in MIODOSE, one could define other wound models or modify transfer rates of the NCRP model if needed. Figure 7 shows bioassay data fitting and dose assessment for a wound case. This case involves plutonium and americium, and chelation therapy by DTPA injections for several days; the case is taken from example 4 of EC Report 188.41

Figure 7. Urine data fitting and dose assessment with MIODOSE for a wound case.

Lessons Learned, Gap Analysis, and Future Research

The information available in the literature about occupational radioactive wound incidents is mostly related to plutonium and americium contaminants. Most of the radionuclide-contaminated wounds occurs on fingers, hands, and arms. Wound cases involving mixed radionuclides and radionuclides used in nuclear medicine, or as a result of a deliberate event, may pose new challenges.

The measurement of the activity deposited in the wound is always a challenge, especially when involving actinides. The objective is to identify the radionuclides and isotopic composition and to quantify the activity, defining the diameter, surface area, and the depth of the contamination in the wound. In practice, a point deposition at some effective depth in tissue is usually assumed. Main sources of uncertainty are detector geometry, self-attenuation, and the depth of the contaminant.

There are no reference wound phantoms to be used for the calibration of detectors for the monitoring of wounds, but some proposals from IRSN and SÚRO have been presented. Calibration must consider the attenuation of the photons by the overlying tissues. Monte Carlo simulations may be applied for a mathematical calibration.

The information provided by the measurement of the excised tissue is also important.

Regarding systemic absorption, committed effective dose can be obtained from the interpretation of bioassay data.

Regarding wound dosimetry, the NCRP 156 wound models were mainly based on data from animal experiments and, therefore, adjustments may be needed when applying the model to humans. As general approach, some modifications to the parameters of the NCRP 156 wound models might be required to accurately describe the bioassay data. In any case, the default recommendations in the NCRP 156 wound models can be used as a starting point for the evaluation of internal exposure.

The NCRP report provides systemic dose coefficients for wound intakes of uranium in different chemical forms but does not do so for other radionuclides. Instead, the report provides only the upper limits of the dose coefficients for several radionuclides based on an assumption that all the activity deposited in the wound site becomes systemic.

Toohey et al.Reference Toohey, Bertelli and Sugarman21, Reference Toohey, Bertelli and Sugarman22 computed the committed effective dose coefficients and equivalent dose coefficients for intakes via contaminated wounds for several radionuclides using the older systemic models. Similarly, Bertelli et al.Reference Bertelli, Reis and Klumpp23 published the dose coefficients by combining the NCRP 156 wound models with the new systemic models of ICRP.

There is no reference chelation model for any element to date. A standard model that describes Am, Cm, and Pu biokinetics during chelation therapy, and time that follows, is needed. As it was mentioned above, there are gaps in knowledge and research questions that still need to be answered. Future research should address all these topics to improve reliability in the evaluation of doses associated with intakes through wounds, considering occupational and public exposures.

Acknowledgements

Authors want to acknowledge the US NRC RAMP Team and Renaissance Code Development for VARSKIN+ development and maintenance.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare none.

References

Lopez, MA, Balásházy, I, Bérard, P, et al. Eurados coordinated action on research, quality assurance and training of internal dose assessments. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2011;144(1-4):349352.10.1093/rpd/ncq435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ISO 20031:2020 (en) Radiological protection — Monitoring and dosimetry for internal exposures due to wound contamination with radionuclides. 2020.Google Scholar
NCRP. Management of Persons Contaminated with Radionuclides. NCRP Report No. 161. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2008.Google Scholar
Broggio, D, Zhang, B, de Carlan, L, et al. Analytical and Monte Carlo assessment of activity and local dose after a wound contamination by activation products. Health Phys. 2009;96(2):155–63.10.1097/01.HP.0000334065.48006.6aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadar, MY, Patni, HK, Akar, D K, et al.. Monte Carlo simulation of embedded 241Am activity in injured palm. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2013;154(2):148–56.10.1093/rpd/ncs165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SÚRO Report 9/2023: SÚRO wound counting calibration phantoms. Zpráva SÚRO 9/2023. Praha 2023. (In English). Available upon request.Google Scholar
NCRP. Development of a biokinetic model for radionuclide-contaminated wounds and procedures for their assessment, dosimetry and treatment. NCRP Report No. 156. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2006.Google Scholar
ICRP. ICRP Publication 134: Occupational intakes of radionuclides: Part 2. Ann ICRP. 2016;45(3-4):7349.10.1177/0146645316670045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICRP. ICRP Publication 137: Occupational intakes of radionuclides: Part 3. Ann ICRP. 2017;46(3-4):1486.10.1177/0146645317734963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICRP. ICRP Publication 141: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 4. Ann ICRP. 2019;48(2-3):9501.10.1177/0146645319834139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICRP. ICRP Publication 151: Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides: Part 5. Ann ICRP. 2022;51(1-2).Google Scholar
Poudel, D, Guilmette, RA, Klumpp, JA, et al. Application of NCRP 156 wound models for the analysis of bioassay data from plutonium wound cases. Health Phys. 2017;113(3):209219.10.1097/HP.0000000000000694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poudel, D, Klumpp, JA, Bertelli, L, et al. Dose assessment following a 238Pu-contaminated wound case with chelation and excision. Health Phys. 2020;119(6):690703.10.1097/HP.0000000000001202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilmette, RA, Durbin, PW. Scientific basis for the development of biokinetic models for radionuclide-contaminated wounds. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2003;105(1-4):213218.10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poudel, D, Klumpp, JA, Waters, TL, et al. A brief overview of compartmental modelling for Intake of plutonium via wounds. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2018;178(1):2936.10.1093/rpd/ncx071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, RB, Daugherty, NM, Aldrich, JM, et al. Application of multi-compartment wound models to plutonium-contaminated wounds incurred by former workers at rocky flats. Health Physics. 91(2):128143.10.1097/01.HP.0000203314.17612.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G, Inkret, WC, Martz, HF. 1999. Internal dosimetry intake estimation using Bayesian methods. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2006; 82(1):517.10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G, Inkret, WC, Little, TT, et al. Bayesian prior probability distributions for internal dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2001;94(4):347352.10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poudel, D, Miller, G, Klumpp, JA, et al. 2018. Bayesian analysis of plutonium bioassay data at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Health Phys. 2018;115(6):712726.10.1097/HP.0000000000000933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ilyin, L. Skin wounds and burns contaminated by radioactive substances (metabolism, decontamination, tactics, and techniques of medical care). In: Gusev, IA, Guskova, AK, Mettler, FA (editors). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. CRC Press; 2001;363419.Google Scholar
Toohey, R, Bertelli, L, Sugarman, S, et al. Dose coefficients for intakes of radionuclides via contaminated wounds. Health Phys. 2011;100(5):508514.10.1097/HP.0b013e3181fb2e01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toohey, RE, Bertelli, L, Sugarman, SL, et al. Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides via Contaminated Wounds. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education; 2014. https://orise.orau.gov/resources/reacts/documents/dose-coefficients-for-intakes-of-radionuclides-via-contaminated-wounds.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bertelli, L, Reis, A, Klumpp, J, et al. Dose coefficients and reference bioassay functions for intakes of radionuclides via contaminated wounds using the ICRP OIR models. Health Phys. In Press; 2025 10.1097/HP.0000000000001989CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ICRP. ICRP Publication 107: Nuclear decay data for dosimetric calculations. Ann ICRP. 2008;38(3).Google Scholar
Galipeau, N, Sugarman, SL, Waller, E. Local dose coefficients for radionuclide contamination in wounds. Health Phys. 125(3):159174; 2023. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breustedt, B, Blanchardon, E, Berard, P, et al. Modeling of DTPA decorporation therapy—still puzzling after all these years. 13th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA 13) [online]; Glasgow, UK; May 13-18, 2012. https://www.irpa.net/members/TS2b.6.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dumit, S, Bertelli, L, Klumpp, JA, et al. Chelation modeling: the use of Ad Hoc models and approaches to overcome a dose assessment challenge. Health Phys. 2020;118(2):193205.10.1097/HP.0000000000001134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G, Klumpp, JA, Poudel, D, et al. Americium systemic biokinetic model for rats. Radiat Res. 2019;192(1):7591, 17.10.1667/RR15256.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kastl, M, Giussani, A, Blanchardon, E, et al. Developing a physiologically based approach for modelling plutonium decorporation therapy with DTPA. Int J Radiat Biol. 2014;90(11):10621067.10.3109/09553002.2014.925604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klumpp, JA, Poudel, D, Dumit, S, et al. Plutonium systemic biokinetic model for rats. Radiat Res. 2022;198(5):449457.10.1667/RADE-22-00102.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamby, DM, Mangini, CD, Luitjens, JM, et al. VARSKIN: a computer code for skin contamination and dosimetry assessments. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA; 2021. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6918/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
ICRP. ICRP Publication 38: Radionuclide transformations – energy and intensity of emissions. Ann ICRP. 1983;1113.Google Scholar
Birchall, A, Jarvis, NS, Peace, MS, et al. The IMBA suite: Integrated Modules for Bioassay Analysis. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1998;79(1-4):107110.10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birchall, A, Puncher, M, James, AC, et al. IMBA Expert: internal dosimetry made simple. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2003;105(1-4):421425.10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birchall, A, Puncher, M, Marsh, JW, et al. IMBA Professional Plus: a flexible approach to internal dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2007; 125(1-4):194197.10.1093/rpd/ncl171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, TP, Phipps, AW, Smith, TJ. The internal dosimetry code PLEIADES. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2007;124(4):327338.10.1093/rpd/ncm228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertelli, L, Melo, DR, Lipsztein, J, et al. AIDE: internal dosimetry software. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008;130(3):358367.10.1093/rpd/ncn059CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G, Bertelli, L, Klare, K, et al. Software for empirical building of biokinetic models for normal and decorporation-affected data. Health Phys. 2012;103(4):484494.10.1097/HP.0b013e318265e0c3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davesne, E, Blanchardon, E, Bohand, S, et al. MIODOSE: User-Friendly Software to Assess Doses for Internal Contamination and to Optimize Individual Monitoring (IAEA-CN--279). International Atomic Energy Agency; 2021.Google Scholar
Bodin, L, Menetrier, F. Treatment of radiological contamination: a review. J Radiol Prot. 2021;41(4). doi: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac241b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission: Directorate-General for Energy. Technical Recommendations for Monitoring Individuals for Occupational Intakes of Radionuclides. Publications Office; 2018. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2833/393101Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. IRSN (left and centre) and SÚRO (right) wound calibration phantoms (dimensions in mm).

Figure 1

Figure 2. General compartmental model of the biokinetics of radioactive materials in wound (with permission of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, http://NCRPonline.org).

Figure 2

Table 1. Radionuclides in different NCRP 156 default retention categories

Figure 3

Figure 3. VARSKIN+ user interface for the “WoundDose” module.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Interface of the wound retention model implemented in IMBATM.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Taurus and DPlot output showing results for a simultaneous fit to wound and urine measurement data for a wound involving 2 NCRP wound model retention parameter types, Soluble “Strong” (WS) and “Fragment” (WF).

Figure 6

Figure 6. IDode interface showing the plot.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Urine data fitting and dose assessment with MIODOSE for a wound case.