Problems of the establishment of the dose-effect relationship for risk assessment under exposure to ionizing radiation and harmful chemical substances
- Authors: Korenkov I.P.1, Demin V.F.2, Soloviev V.Y.1
-
Affiliations:
- A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre
- National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”
- Issue: Vol 98, No 7 (2019)
- Pages: 697-700
- Section: PROBLEM-SOLVING ARTICLES
- Published: 15.07.2019
- URL: https://medjrf.com/0016-9900/article/view/639616
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2019-98-7-697-700
- ID: 639616
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The aim of the study. An analysis of the problems of the development of the dose-effect relationship (DER) in the assessment of the risk under exposure to ionizing radiation (IR) and harmful chemicals (HC) on human health and proposals for improving them.
Material and methods. Problems of the development and application of the methodology for assessing the risk of exposure to IR and HC are in the area of delivering DER based on the results of biological experiments and epidemiological studies (ES). These problems are associated with such properties of the effects of exposure to IR and HCh as nonspecificity and latency, low statistical power, fragmentation of the actual information available on the studied effects, possible dependence on the level of the associated spontaneous morbidity or mortality rate. A number of DER models have been developed by national and international organizations. However, between these models, there are significant differences in the choice both of model parameters and the ratio between the multiplicative and additive dependencies on spontaneous effects. The relevance of improving DER models suitable for reliable predictive risk assessments of exposure to IR and HC remains.
Results. In modern DER models, the ratio between the multiplicative and additive dependencies on spontaneous effects was chosen by an expert way on the basis of the available results of biological experiments and ESs without sufficient rigorous justification. This was reflected in the different choice of this ratio by different developers. For a more reasonable choice of the ratio, it is proposed to consider two possibilities: 1) implementing additional targeted biological research on the molecular-cellular and organismic levels; 2) a joint analysis of the results of two independent ESs on different cohorts affected by exposure to IR or HC. For IR there is a real opportunity to solve the problem according to the second option. A specific possible method of action in the second direction and an algorithm for its implementation are proposed.
Conclusion. Current models of DER for IR and HC require further development, in particular, in terms of the relationship between multiplicative and additive dependencies in DER. A method of justifying the choice of this ratio is proposed and an algorithm for its implementation for IR is described.
About the authors
Igor P. Korenkov
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre
Author for correspondence.
Email: korenkovip@yandex.ru
Ph.D., DSci., Prof., Head of the Department of the A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre, Moscow, 123182, Russian Federation.
e-mail: korenkovip@yandex.ru
Russian FederationV. F. Demin
National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”
Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4652-1250
Russian Federation
V. Yu. Soloviev
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Centre
Email: noemail@neicon.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4466-6616
Russian Federation
References
- Rakhmanin Yu.A., Demin V.F., Ivanov S.I. General approach to the assessment, comparison and normalization of the risk to human health from various sources of harm. Vestnik RAMN. 2006; 4: 5-8. (in Russian).
- Demin V.F. Common approach to comparison and standardisation of health risk from different sources of harm. Int. J. Low Radiation. 2006; 2 (¾): 172–8.
- Demin V.F., Zakharchenko I.E. The risk of exposure to ionizing radiation and other harmful factors on human health: assessment methods and practical application. Radiacionnaya biologiya. Radioehkologiya. 2012; 52 (1): 77-89. (in Russian).
- Antsiferova A.A., Demin V.A., Demin V.F., Soloviev V.Yu. Concept of technogenic risk’ management. Gigiena i sanitariya [Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal]. 2017; 96 (8): 780-5 (in Russian).
- Demin V.F. Complex health risk assessment and analysis from exposure to ionizing radiation, chemical contaminants and other sources of harm. In “Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas”. Ed. Linkov, I., Springer, 2007; 317–327.
- United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2006 Report. NY: United Nations. 2008; I(A): 322 p.
- Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII). National Academy Press; Washington DC. 2005.
- Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP. 2007; 37 (2-4).
- EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population. April 2011, U.S. EPA, Washington DC. 2011.
- Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 5, 2014; 63 p.
- Health effects of Exposure to Radon, BEIR VI. National Academy Press, Washington DC; 1999.
- Avaliani S.L., Bespalko L.E., Bobkova T.E., Mishina A.L. Perspective directions of development of risk analysis methodology in Russia. Gigiena i sanitariya [Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal]. 2013; 1: 33-5. (in Russian).
- Demin V.F., Zhukovsky M.V., Kiselev S.M. Method of health risk assessment from radon’ impact. Gigiena i sanitariya [Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal]. 2014; (5):64–9 (in Russian).
- Demin V.F., Zhukovsky M.V., Kiselev S.M. The risk of the impact of radon on human health: assessment methods and practical application. Atomic Energy. 2015; 118 (1): 42–6 (in Russian).
- Zhukovsky M., Demin V.and Yarmoshenko I. The modified model of radiation risk at radon exposure. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2014; April 9: 1–4.
- Grosche B., Kreuzer M., Kreisheimer M. Lung cancer risk among German male uranium miners: a cohort study, 1946–1998. British Journal of Cancer. 2006, 95: 1280 – 7.
- Tomasek, L. Lung cancer mortality among Czech uranium miners-60 years since exposure. J Radiol Prot. 2012; 32 (3): 301-14.
- EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes. US EPA, EPA 402-R-03-003; June 2003: 88.
- Demin V.F., Biryukov A.P., Zabelin M.V., Soloviev V.Yu. Problems of identifying dose - effect dependence for ionizing radiation. Med. radiol. i radiac. bezopasnost’. 2018; 63 (3): 25–33 (in Russian).
- Kotaro Ozasa, Yukiko Shimizu, Akihiko Suyama, Fumiyoshi Kasagi, Midori Soda, Eric J. Grant, Ritsu Sakata, Hiromi Sugiyama and Kazunori Kodama. Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases. Radiation research. 2012; 177: 229–43.
- Sokolnikov M, Preston D, Gilbert E, Schonfeld S, Koshurnikova N (2015) Radiation Effects on Mortality from Solid Cancers Other than Lung, Liver, and Bone Cancer in the Mayak Worker Cohort: 1948–2008. PLoS ONE. 10 (2): e0117784. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117784
Supplementary files
