Radiological risk assessment is pivotal for safeguarding human health and ecosystems amid expanding radiation applications in technology and medicine. This review systematically evaluates the efficacy of hazard indices like the Annual Effective Dose Equivalent (AEDE) and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) across environmental (soil, water) and biological (tissues, crops) samples, addressing critical gaps in comparative methodologies, a PRISMA-guided systematic. Literature review was conducted across Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, analyzing more than 100 peer-reviewed studies (2010–2024) that met the inclusion criteria: English-language publications, multi-index comparisons, and empirical validations. Exclusion criteria removed non-peer-reviewed works and studies focusing on a single index. Key findings reveal stark disparities in index performance: AEDE excels in environmental contexts by integrating chronic exposure pathways (e.g., Cesium-137 in soil). ELCR's tissue-specific risk coefficients better capture biological carcinogenesis (e.g., Strontium-90 in bone marrow). Also, oversimplified assumptions like neglecting soil biogeochemistry or interspecies variability compromise accuracy, particularly in regions where high natural background radiation (e.g., Ramsar, Iran). The review underscores the urgency of standardizing indices to reflect radiochemical interactions and bioavailability, supported by emerging tools like AI-driven predictive models, which enhance real-time risk mapping and adaptive monitoring. Future frameworks must harmonize interdisciplinary insights (physics, chemistry, policy) to address novel challenges, including space radiation and non-human biota protection and this synthesis provides actionable guidance for researchers and policymakers to refine risk protocols, ensuring they align with evolving technological and environmental realities.
Ahmed et al. (Sun,) studied this question.