Ensuring robust radiological risk assessment for wildlife - insights from the International Atomic Energy Agency EMRAS and MODARIA programmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


  • Nicholas A. Beresford
  • Karine Beaugelin-Seiller
  • Catherine L. Barnett
  • Justin E. Brown
  • C. Doering
  • E. Caffrey
  • Matthew P. Johansen
  • A. Melintescu
  • Elizabeth Ruedig
  • Hildegarde Vandenhove
  • Jordi Vives i Batlle
  • Michael D. Wood
  • Tamara L. Yankovich
  • David Copplestone

Institutes & Expert groups

  • Lancaster University
  • Australian Government - DAWE - Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist
  • Radian Scientific, LCC
  • IFIN-HH - Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering
  • BHP Mining & Metals, 201 CW Santa Fe Av., Grants, NM 87404,
  • University of Stirling
  • NERC-CEH - Natural Environment Research Council : Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
  • IRSN - Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety - Institut Radioprotection Sûreté Nucléaire
  • NPRA - Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
  • ANSTO - Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
  • University of Salford Manchester
  • IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency

Documents & links



In response to changing international recommendations and national requirements, a number of assessment approaches, and associated tools and models, have been developed over the last circa 20 years to assess radiological risk to wildlife. In this paper, we summarise international intercomparison exercises and scenario applications of available radiological assessment models for wildlife to aid future model users and those such as regulators who interpret assessments. Through our studies, we have assessed the fitness for purpose of various models and tools, identified the major sources of uncertainty and made recommendations on how the models and tools can best be applied to suit the purposes of an assessment. We conclude that the commonly used tiered or graded assessment tools are generally fit for purpose for conducting screening-level assessments of radiological impacts to wildlife. Radiological protection of the environment (or wildlife) is still a relatively new development within the overall system of radiation protection and environmental assessment approaches are continuing to develop. Given that some new/developing approaches differ considerably from the more established models/tools and there is an increasing international interest in developing approaches that support the effective regulation of multiple stressors (including radiation), we recommend the continuation of coordinated international programmes for model development, intercomparison and scenario testing.


Original languageEnglish
Article number020512
Pages (from-to)1-21
Number of pages21
Publication statusPublished - 3 May 2022


  • Non-human biota, Exposure assessment, Radionuclide transfer, Dosimetry, ERICA tool, RESRAD biota

ID: 7691725