wg 5: exposure and effects to wildlife - gnssn.iaea.org documents/modaria ii/4th... · combined...
TRANSCRIPT
IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency
WG 5: Exposure and effects to wildlife
Biota exposures and effects modelling:
models for assessing radiation effects on
populations of wildlife
Jordi Vives i Batlle (SCK•CEN, Belgium)
Nick Beresford (CEH, UK)
IAEA
Why was the WG5 group introduced
• The revised BSS require the consideration of the
radiological impact on the environment when planning and
applying for an authorization for new nuclear facilities.
• explicit demonstration of the protection of the
environment
• The aim of radiological protection of biota is related to
higher organizational levels of populations of species and
communities of different species.
• The estimation of possible consequences to populations is
an important step in exploring the ecological relevance of
dose estimates for flora and fauna.
IAEA
Exposure - Aims and Objectives
• Demonstrate fit for purpose regulatory models
• Validate, test, improve models for different applications
• Good practice guidance
IAEA
Spatial modelling
• Animal-environment interaction
modelling started in MODARIA
Estimating soil
contamination in
home ranges of
different species
Issue 1: animal – environment exposure
modelling
IAEA
Moose scenario
• Compare seasonal GPS data of moose migration
in a heterogeneously-contaminated fallout area
(Lapland)
Comparison of predicted to observed data
(kBq m-2) for Cs in terms of geometric means
IAEA
Applying approaches from other area -
EcoSpace
Grey = no goPale blue = non-preferredOther = 3 types of preferred habitat”no go” cells = 21.6% of matrix
• Compartmentalised modelling to
look at the frequency of migration
based on environmental quality
parameters
IAEA
• Dosimetry detectors in collars of reindeer
in Norway
• Correlating doses with known activity concentration
data
• Coupling with GPS installed on different individuals
• Estimating exposure based on animal movement
Reindeer exercise
Vågå
Activity depositions of Cs-137 in soil in 1986
(data from NRPA)
IAEA
New transfer data obtained from various sites – to
be added to Wildlife Transfer Database early 2020
[and used in ICRP reports]
Alligator
Rivers
Region
IAEA
Exposure - ‘Lessons learnt’ paper
• Capabilities of openly available assessment models
• Parameter values
• Dosimetry/voxels/geometries - organisms
• Coping with heterogeneous media distributions
• Radionuclide specific issues
(decay series, Ar, Kr etc.)
• How to sample/analyse for wildlife assessment
• Extending allometric capabilities
Final draft need ‘tarting-up’
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Pre
dic
ted
activity c
on
ce
ntr
ation
u
sin
g n
ew
ap
pro
ach
(B
q/k
g f.m
.)
Predicted activity concentration using traditional CR approach (Bq/kg f.m.)
IAEA
Effects subgroup - Aims and Objectives
• Apply population models to different exposure situations.
• Learn from these applications: spatial effects (migration,
inhomogeneity of contamination), historical doses.
• Identify new experimental evidence against which to test
models: Non-targeted effects (NTEs) and historical doses
• Review of population modelling approaches in chemicals
regulation
• Provide guidance on the use of population models in
evaluating regulatory benchmarks.
• The word Guidance has to be understood as a set of general
recommendations, not as a guide aiming to replace any
international guidance, standards or benchmarks
IAEA
Questions that IAEA would like addressed
• What is the dose rate at which we can start seeing
effects at the population(s) / ecosystem level in the
presence of other stressors?
• What percentage of the population needs to be
affected in order for the effect to affect the whole
population?
• How robust are the existing benchmarks for
exposure to biota populations?
IAEA
Chernobyl vole population model
• Set up population model of Chernobyl red forest field voles in
ecological context
• Identify population phenomena that may increase sensitivity
enough to potentially affect benchmarks
• Planned output: advice on the extent to which historical doses
and other ecological factors may influence different exposure
modelling scenarios
• Some caveats:
• Models are conceptual and can’t be
fully validated - indicative guidance
• DCRLs are for planned exposures
so most guidance will be for such
• We have not enough basis for
suggesting changes to benchmarks
IAEA
Healthy[1..3]InitiaPopulValue[1..3]
Dead[1..3]
H_death[1..3]Sick[1..3]
Radiation_damage[1..3]
RepairPool[1..3]
SickRepair[1..3]
Fecundity[1..3]
S_death[1..3]
DoseRate[1..3]
TotalHealthy TotalSick
TotalAlive
CarryingCapMax[1..3]
Migration_switchMinViable[1..3]
Migration[1..3]
TotalAdapted
Adapted[1..3]
A_death[1..3]
AdaptedHealing[1..3]
SickAdapt[1..3]
HealthyAdaptation[1..3]
CarryingCap[1..3]Parameters
Monte_dose_function[1..3] Dose_step_function[1..3]
Final version of model
100𝑒−ln 2 𝑡91.25 +
0.125𝑒−ln 2 𝑡
10950
(Monte, 2019)
IAEA
Some results – historical dose effect
Historical dose effect
Dose applied for 2000 days,
two unequal patches with
migration
IAEA
Publications
• Key findings on the basis of
models done so far:
• Bigger size and longevity
higher population vulnerability
in chronic exposures
• Tipping points for population
survival at doses higher than
the benchmarks
• In isolation, the benchmarks
seem to be fit for purpose
IAEA 16
Sazykina model from mice to elephant
IAEA
Impacts of non targeted effects (NTE) and
historic dose
• Long term effects could include historic dose component
• NTE from acute historic exposure?
• Effect of chronic accumulated dose?
• Impact of current ambient dose?
• Are these separate components?
• Can the help explain laboratory/field effects discrepancies?
• Are they relevant to “harm”?
• How do we quantify them?
• Ongoing literature and data
search during the project to
produce guidance.
https://present5.com/bystander-effect-n-the-bystander-effect-refers/
IAEA
Historical dose concept
• Stimulation of the system by low dose/dose rate exposure which becomes harmful as the dose increases
• Important because it provides 2 “no effect levels” in the dose response curve but the dose(rate) at which stimulation occurs is highly variable
• Also important because hormetic doses are often in the range of environmental concern!
IAEA
Student project
• To source data sets from Chernobyl and Fukushima as well
as lab studies on lethal
mutations, genomic
and chromosomal
instability, and other
evidence of trans-
generational
instability to determine
how widespread these
are after different
acute historic doses
IAEA
Comparing radiological modelling approach
with chemicals• How has population modelling influenced benchmarks for chemicals?
• Two pieces of work produced: review of chemicals and ecotox models
• Check consistency of approach in population modelling for regulation
• Opening an exchange with the ecotox modelling community
• Visit to Prof. Karel de Schamphelaere at the U of Gent -
• Expert on ecotoxicology and of the ecological impact of chemicals
• Feedback received:
• Joint interest in not complicating the system
• Need to ensure that models maintain the
right level of conservatism
• General finding: Ecotox community
trying to extrapolate from individual
to population level as well, for mostly
the same reasons.
• Link between radio- and chemotoxicity - Radiation itself is a source for
chemical pollution (radiolysis products in air, soil and water)
IAEA
How has population modelling influenced
benchmarks with regards to chemicals?
• Overall: limited requirements and benchmarks are generally not set
based on populations
• In general, the goals (ecosystem) of Directives do not align with the data
requirements and data requirements do not align between Directives
• Benchmarks are set by looking at data from individuals, or by looking at
limited SSD for critical group or main non-target species
• Usually relies on standard tests (e.g. OECD)
• Very little guidance on use (and need) of higher-tier assessment
(population or ecosystem modelling). However, in practice often
performed anyway by assessors.
• Has population modelling influenced benchmarks? Not yet
• Radiation protection is actually ahead in the game (on some aspects)
IAEA
Existing models (Galic et al. 2010 – SETAC)
• 149 publications > 90 models in DB, most models for aquatic environment
• 63 exposure models + 27 exclusively deal with ecological processes
• Majority are structured population-level models in aquatic environment
• 81 out of 90 deal with extrapolation to population level
• Analysis of models regarding applicability in protection aims & data needs
IAEA
Projected output
• We will produce concise
guidance accompanied with
examples of ecological
phenomena influencing effects
• Starting with ICRP DCRLs, vary
modelled dose rates until
population impacts occur
• Identify population phenomena
that may increase sensitivity
enough to potentially affect benchmarks
• Link TO doses in real situations where there is a need to
regulate, testing for effects at agreed benchmark levels.
• Enable discussions with stakeholders about the relevance of
benchmarks for populations
IAEA
Caveats
• The models are conceptual and cannot be fully validated so the guidance is
indicative
• The ICRP DCRLs are for planned exposures so most of the guidance will
be for such
• For existing and emergency exposures we can still evaluate current
thinking and come up with some expert advice
• Considering validity of benchmarks - not making an assessment!
Exposure
situation
Phenomena to consider Outcome or goal Experimental
evidence
Planned
and existing
situations
Struggle for limited resources,
Interaction between organism
and environmental factors,
species competition,
migration issues, spatial
issues
Benchmark
testing/validation
What kind of effects
may be expected
Give here an
overview of the
experimental
evidence for the
phenomena
Emergency (acute phase)
In emergency situations we can only evaluate current thinking and explain
to the IAEA the relevant developments, because DCRLs do not apply to
emergency situations.
IAEA
Latest developments and conclusions
• Exposures latest developments
• Lessons learned progressing to publication.
• Further, a comparison of model applications for U-facilities from EMRAS II (Beaverlodge
paper) has started to make progress.
• Started to collate data to improve tissue to whole-body activity concentration corrections
• Inputs from exposures subgroup to update the Wildlife Transfer Database by early 2020
• Effects latest developments
• Synthesis of all the work (vole modelling, historical and NTE effects, population models for
chemicals) is well advanced (tasks assigned, substantial drafting during this week).
• Vole modelling study progressing to scientific publication by early 2020
• Working on the production of the guidance report Plans for reporting – for exposures,
produce short summary report covering EMRAS II to MODARIA II – can be
combined with ‘effects’ report or kept separate (discussion within group).
• Conclusion: We have worked to meet our objectives set in MODARIA II to produce
improved fit for purpose methodology and data on biota exposures and effects,
ready to translate into good practice guidance for IAEA.
IAEA
Reporting plans for WG5 biota group
• Almost all work finished and working on reports is advancing
• For exposures, short summary report covering EMRAS II to MODARIA II
• For effects, short summary of MODARIA I combined with MODARIA II
• Probably aiming at two reports (exposures and effects), but clearly
stating they are joint reports of the biota working group
• For exposures, we will have a final videoconference in late March
2020 to ensure last modelling results feed correctly into the guidance
part of the report
• For exposures report, need to discuss plans with Nick Beresford
• First full draft exposures report for review around August 2020
IAEA
Dr Abu Bakr Ramadan – in memoriam