-
核能作为一种高效优质的清洁能源,在国际上得到了广泛的应用,同时也是我国能源开发的重要发展方向之一[1]。我国对核能应用产生的乏燃料的处理方式为“闭式”核燃料循环,对可利用的核能资源进行回收再利用,而钚是该过程中被重点关注的核素之一[2]。人体摄入钚的途径有3种:吸入、食入和经由皮肤伤口吸收。钚摄入后主要滞留在骨骼、肝脏、呼吸道等部位,且难以排出。钚衰变时会释放出α粒子,其比活度高且半衰期长,是极毒放射性核素之一,长期滞留体内会引发骨肉瘤、肝癌、肺癌、肺纤维化等疾病[2-4]。放射性核素钚是后处理厂工作人员的主要职业危害之一,也是职业辐射防护关注的重点。为了评估职业人员受到危害的程度,对摄入体内的钚进行内照射剂量估算,需要明确钚在体内的转移代谢过程[5]。国际放射防护委员会(International Commission on Radiological Protection,ICRP)提出了用不同的生物动力学模型来描述钚进入人体后的转移代谢过程,包括呼吸道模型、消化道模型、皮肤伤口模型和钚系统模型。随着相关研究的不断深入,生物动力学模型也在不断更新。除此之外,为了减少钚在体内的滞留,需要进行促排治疗,从而加快其从体内排出,降低危害[6]。但药物促排治疗会改变钚在体内的转移代谢过程,进而影响内照射剂量估算结果的准确性。为此,研究人员提出了针对促排治疗后的钚生物动力学模型[7]。不同的生物动力学模型描述了钚在体内不同的转移代谢过程。本文主要对钚在体内的转移代谢过程的研究现状进行综述。
钚生物动力学模型的研究现状
Research status of plutonium biokinetic models
-
摘要: 放射性核素钚是后处理厂工作人员的主要职业危害因素之一,衰变时会释放出α粒子。对钚进入体内所导致的内照射危害及促排治疗的效果进行评估时需要估算内照射剂量,明确钚在体内的转移代谢过程是进行内照射剂量估算的基础。笔者对目前有关钚转移代谢的相关模型及其研究进行综述,为有关钚的生物动力学研究提供借鉴。Abstract: Plutonium emits α particles, which is one of the main occupational hazard factors for workers in nuclear fuel reprocessing. When evaluating the detriment of internal exposure caused by plutonium entering the body and the effect of decorporation, it is necessary to estimate the internal irradiation dose. The identification of the transfer and metabolism of plutonium in vivo is the basis for the estimation of internal exposure dose. In this paper, the current models related to plutonium transfer metabolism and their studies are reviewed, in order to provide reference for biokinetic research on plutonium.
-
Key words:
- Plutonium /
- Biokinetic models /
- Internal irradiation
-
图 1 钚呼吸道模型[8]
Figure 1. Respiratory tract model of plutonium
图 2 钚消化道模型[20]
Figure 2. Alimentary tract model of plutonium
图 3 钚皮肤伤口模型[24]
Figure 3. Skin (wound) model of plutonium
图 4 钚系统模型[30]
Figure 4. Systemic model of plutonium
-
[1] 叶国安, 郑卫芳, 何辉, 等. 我国核燃料后处理技术现状和发展[J]. 原子能科学技术, 2020, 54(S1): S75−83. DOI: 10.7538/yzk.2020.zhuankan.0555.
Ye GA, Zheng WF, He H, et al. Status and development of technology on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in China[J]. Atomic Energy Sci Tech, 2020, 54(S1): S75−83. DOI: 10.7538/yzk.2020.zhuankan.0555.[2] 原雅艺, 左雅慧. 钚损伤远期效应的流行病学研究进展[J]. 中国职业医学, 2022, 49(1): 116−120. DOI: 10.20001/j.issn.2095-2619.20222022.
Yuan YY, Zuo YH. Epidemiological research advances on long-term effects of plutonium-induced injury[J]. China Occup Med, 2022, 49(1): 116−120. DOI: 10.20001/j.issn.2095-2619.20222022.[3] 古晓娜, 王仲文, 刘占旗, 等. 钚作业人群流行病学研究进展[J]. 辐射防护, 2021, 41(4): 289−294.
Gu XN, Wang ZW, Liu ZQ, et al. Research progress of epidemiology on plutonium workers[J]. Radiat Prot, 2021, 41(4): 289−294.[4] Azizova T, Moseeva M, Grigoryeva E, et al. Registry of plutonium-induced lung fibrosis in a russian nuclear worker cohort[J]. Health Phys, 2020, 118(2): 185−192. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001131. [5] Romanov SA, Efimov АV, Aladova ЕЕ, et al. Plutonium production and particles incorporation into the human body[J]. J Environ Radioact, 2020, 211: 106073. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.106073. [6] Sokolova AB, Suslova KG, Miller SC. Urinary excretion of plutonium in Mayak workers during and after Ca-DTPA administration[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2021, 197(3/4): 154−162. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncab176. [7] Dumit S, Bertelli L, Klumpp JA, et al. Chelation modeling: the use of ad hoc models and approaches to overcome a dose assessment challenge[J]. Health Phys, 2020, 118(2): 193−205. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001134. [8] International Comnission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 130. Occupational intakes of radionuclides: part 1[R]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2015. [9] International Comnission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 66. Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection[R]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1994. [10] Šefl M, Avtandilashvili M, Tolmachev SY. Inhalation of soluble plutonium: 53-year follow-up of Manhattan Project worker[J]. Health Phys, 2021, 120(6): 661−670. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001396. [11] Tolmachev SY, Nielsen CE, Avtandilashvili M, et al. The Mayak worker dosimetry system (MWDS 2013): soluble plutonium retention in the lungs of an occupationally exposed USTUR case[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2017, 176(1/2): 45−49. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncw136. [12] Puncher M, Birchall A, Tolmachev SY. The Mayak worker dosimetry system (MWDS 2013): a re-analysis of USTUR case 0269 to determine whether plutonium binds to the lungs[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2017, 176(1/2): 50−61. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncw083. [13] Birchall A, Puncher M, Hodgson A, et al. The importance and quantification of plutonium binding in human lungs[J]. Health Phys, 2019, 117(2): 133−142. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000827. [14] Poudel D, Avtandilashvili M, Bertelli L, et al. Long-term retention of plutonium in the respiratory tracts of two acutely-exposed workers: estimation of bound fraction[J]. Health Phys, 2021, 120(3): 258−270. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001311. [15] van der Meeren A, Moureau A, Laurent D, et al. In vitro assessment of plutonium uptake and release using the human macrophage-like THP-1 cells[J]. Toxicol In Vitro, 2016, 37: 25−33. DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.07.015. [16] van der Meeren A, Drouet G, Devilliers K, et al. Evidence for a differential translocation of actinides across human lung epithelial cell monolayer in vitro according to their physicochemical properties and the presence of a chelating agent[J]. Toxicol In Vitro, 2021, 70: 105035. DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2020.105035. [17] van der Meeren A, Angulo JF, Bohand S, et al. A quick and simple in vitro assay to predict bioavailability of actinides following accidental exposure[J]. Toxicol In Vitro, 2019, 58: 142−149. DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2019.03.027. [18] Griffiths NM, Coudert S, Moureau A, et al. Forecasting the in vivo behavior of radiocontaminants of unknown physicochemical properties using a simple in vitro test[J]. Health Phys, 2016, 111(2): 93−99. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000441. [19] Griffiths NM, Van der Meeren A, Angulo JF, et al. Research on the radiotoxicology of plutonium using animals: consideration of the 3Rs-replace, reduce, refine[J]. Health Phys, 2020, 119(1): 133−140. DOI: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001258. [20] International Comnission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 100. Human alimentary tract model for radiological protection[R]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2006. [21] International Comnission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 30 (Part 1). Limits for intakes of radionuclides by workers[R]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979. [22] Izumoto Y, Fukutsu K, Takamura K, et al. Rapid detection of plutonium contamination with and without uranium contamination in wounds by x-ray fluorescence[J]. J Radiol Prot, 2020, 40(3): 692−703. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ab9509. [23] Rump A, Stricklin D, Lamkowski A, et al. The impact of time on decorporation efficacy after a "Dirty Bomb" attack studied by simulation[J]. Drug Res, 2016, 66(11): 607−613. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-112809. [24] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Development of a biokinetic model for radionuclide-contaminated wounds for their assessment, dosimetry and treatment[R]. NCRP Report No. 156, 2006. [25] Poudel D, Klumpp JA, Waters TL, et al. A brief overview of compartmental modeling for intake of plutonium via wounds[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2018, 178(1): 29−36. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncx071. [26] 王薇, 邬蒙蒙, 汪传高, 等. 伤口摄入超铀核素的内照射剂量估算[J]. 中国辐射卫生, 2018, 27(6): 523−527. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2018.06.001.
Wang W, Wu MM, Wang CG, et al. The internal dose evaluation for transuranic nuclide-contaminated wounds[J]. Chin J Radiol Health, 2018, 27(6): 523−527. DOI: 10.13491/j.issn.1004-714x.2018.06.001.[27] Poudel D, Guilmette RA, Klumpp JA, et al. Application of NCRP 156 wound models for the analysis of bioassay data from plutonium wound cases[J]. Health Phys, 2017, 113(3): 209−219. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000694. [28] International Comnission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 67. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides-part 2 ingestion dose coefficients[R]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993. [29] Schadilov AE, Belosokhov MV, Levina ES. A case of wound intake of plutonium isotopes and 241Am in a human: application and improvement of the NCRP wound model[J]. Health Phys, 2010, 99(4): 560−567. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181c34989. [30] Leggett RW, Eckerman KF, Khokhryakov VF, et al. Mayak worker study: an improved biokinetic model for reconstructing doses from internally deposited plutonium[J]. Radiat Res, 2005, 164(2): 111−122. DOI: 10.1667/rr3371. [31] International Comnission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 141. Occupational intakes of radionuclides: part 4[R]. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2019. [32] Langham WH. Physiology and toxicology of plutonium-239 and its industrial medical control[J]. Health Phys, 1959, 2(2): 172−185. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-195904000-00006. [33] Leggett RW. Reliability of the ICRP's dose coefficients for members of the public: US Government Ⅲ. Plutonium as a case study of uncertainties in the systemic biokinetics of radionuclides[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 2003, 106(2): 103−120. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006340. [34] Mcinroy JF, Kathren RL, Swint MJ. Distribution of plutonium and americium in whole bodies donated to the United States Transuranium Registry[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 1989, 26(1/4): 151−158. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a080396. [35] Durbin PW. Plutonium in man: a new look at the old data[M]. California: JW Press, 1972: 470−522. [36] Suslova KG, Efimov AV, Sokolova AB, et al. The effects of chronic diseases on plutonium urinary excretion in former workers of the Mayak Production Association[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2020, 15(11): e0242151[2022-7-27]. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242151. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242151. [37] Warner AJ, Talbot RJ, Newton D. Deposition of plutonium in human testes[J]. Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 1994, 55(1): 61−63. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a082376. [38] Mehri R, Tang WQ, Matida EA, et al. Aerosolization of Zn-DTPA decorporation agent using jet and ultrasonic nebulizers[J]. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv, 2018, 31(5): 311−320. DOI: 10.1089/jamp.2017.1419. [39] Griffiths NM, Van der Meeren A, Grémy O. Comparison of local and systemic DTPA treatment efficacy according to actinide physicochemical properties following lung or wound contamination in the rat[J/OL]. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 635792[2022-7-27]. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.635792/full. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.635792. [40] Dumit S, Avtandilashvili M, Tolmachev SY. Evaluating plutonium intake and radiation dose following extensive chelation treatment[J]. Health Phys, 2019, 117(2): 156−167. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000882. [41] Grémy O, Blanchin N, Miccoli L. Interpretation of enhanced fecal and urinary plutonium excretion data under a 2-y regular DTPA treatment started months after intake[J]. Health Phys, 2021, 121(5): 494−505. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001458. [42] Avtandilashvili M, Tolmachev SY. Four-decade follow-up of a plutonium-contaminated puncture wound treated with Ca-DTPA[J]. J Radiol Prot, 2021, 41(4): 1122. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac04b8. [43] Dumit S, Avtandilashvili M, Strom DJ, et al. Improved modeling of Plutonium-DTPA decorporation[J]. Radiat Res, 2018, 191(2): 201−210. DOI: 10.1667/RR15188.1. [44] Dumit S, Avtandilashvili M, McComish SL, et al. Validation of a system of models for plutonium decorporation therapy[J]. Radiat Environ Biophys, 2019, 58(2): 227−235. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-018-00773-y. [45] Konzen K, Brey R. Development of the Plutonium-DTPA biokinetic model[J]. Health Phys, 2015, 108(6): 565−573. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000283.