4.4 Article

Bayesian spatial modelling of terrestrial radiation in Switzerland

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
Volume 233, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2021.106571

Keywords

Gaussian Markov random fields; Natural background radiation; Spatial statistics; Stochastic partial differential equation; Low-dose ionising radiation

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [320030_176218]
  2. Swiss Cancer League
  3. MRC Skills Development Fellowship [MR/T025352/1]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030_176218] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study constructed a map of terrestrial radiation for Switzerland using airborne gamma-spectrometry measurements, a Bayesian mixed-effects model, and Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation for inference. The predicted higher ambient dose rates in the alpine regions and Ticino compared to the western and northern parts of Switzerland can be used for exposure assessment in epidemiological studies and as a baseline for potential contamination assessment.
The geographic variation of terrestrial radiation can be exploited in epidemiological studies of the health effects of protracted low-dose exposure. Various methods have been applied to derive maps of this variation. We aimed to construct a map of terrestrial radiation for Switzerland. We used airborne gamma-spectrometry measurements to model the ambient dose rates from terrestrial radiation through a Bayesian mixed-effects model and conducted inference using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA). We predicted higher levels of ambient dose rates in the alpine regions and Ticino compared with the western and northern parts of Switzerland. We provide a map that can be used for exposure assessment in epidemiological studies and as a baseline map for assessing potential contamination.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available