Biodosimetry versus physical dosimetry for emergency dose assessment following large-scale radiological exposures

McKeever, S.W.S.; Sholom, S.

doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2016.06.003

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, physical dosimetry is likely to be an effective triage tool when hundreds or thousands of samples need to be analyzed for dose estimation in the case of radiological/nuclear mass casualty incidents. Available data suggest that the sensitivities for radiation dose detection may vary considerably between physical and biodosimetry techniques but no attempt has been made to compare their dose prediction efficacies on the same samples exposed to the same delivered doses (McKeever and Sholom 2016). Despite the apparent simplicity of carrying out such a comparison, the few articles available in the literature all deal with unknown 'true' doses obtained in actual accidents (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative validation of biodosimetry and physical dosimetry techniques for possible triage applications in emergency dosimetry

Sholom¹,

McKeever²,

Escalona³

et al. 2022

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale radiological accidents or nuclear terrorist incidents involving radiological or nuclear materials can potentially expose thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people to unknown radiation doses, requiring prompt dose reconstruction for appropriate triage. Two types of dosimetry methods namely, biodosimetry and physical dosimetry are currently utilized for estimating absorbed radiation dose in humans. Both methods have been tested separately in several inter-laboratory comparison exercises, but a direct comparison of physical dosimetry with biological dosimetry has not been performed to evaluate their dose prediction accuracies. The current work describes the results of the direct comparison of absorbed doses estimated by physical (smartphone components) and biodosimetry (dicentric chromosome assay performed in human peripheral blood lymphocytes) methods. For comparison, human peripheral blood samples (biodosimetry) and different components of smartphones, namely surface mount resistors (SMRs), inductors and protective glasses (physical dosimetry) were exposed to different doses of photons (0 to 4.4 Gy; values refer to dose to blood after correction) and the absorbed radiation doses were reconstructed by biodosimetry (dicentric chromosome assay, DCA) and physical dosimetry (optically stimulated luminescence, OSL) methods. Additionally, LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD-100) chips and Al2O3:C (Luxel) films were used as reference TL and OSL dosimeters, respectively. The best coincidence between biodosimetry and physical dosimetry was observed for samples of blood and SMRs exposed to γ-rays. Significant differences were observed in the reconstructed doses by the two dosimetry methods for samples exposed to X-ray photons with energy below 100 keV. The discrepancy is probably due to the energy dependence of mass energy-absorption coefficients of the samples extracted from the phones. Our results of comparative validation of the radiation doses reconstructed by luminescence dosimetry from smartphone components with biodosimetry using DCA from human blood suggest the potential use of smartphone components as an effective emergency triage tool for high photon energies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative validation of biodosimetry and physical dosimetry techniques for possible triage applications in emergency dosimetry

Sholom¹,

McKeever²,

Escalona³

et al. 2022

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternate approach to dosimetry uses methods that are physically based, i.e., they are based on assaying the dose-dependent chemical/physical responses in calcified or hardened tissues such as in bone, teeth or nails (finger- and toenails) or in solid materials (cell phone components, salts, glass, etc.) (Ainsbury et al 2016, Bailiff et al 2016, McKeever and Sholom 2016, Romanyukha et al 2014a, Swartz et al 2014). Physically-based biodosimetry methods rely on measuring dose dependent chemical changes that occur in biological materials (typically hardened or calciferous biomaterial such as teeth or nails) as a means of estimating radiation dose to an individual (Swartz et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developments in Biodosimetry Methods for Triage With a Focus on X-band Electron Paramagnetic Resonance In Vivo Fingernail Dosimetry

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Instrumentation and application methodologies for rapidly and accurately estimating individual ionizing radiation dose are needed for on-site triage in a radiological/nuclear event. One such methodology is an in vivo X-band, electron paramagnetic resonance, physically based dosimetry method to directly measure the radiation-induced signal in fingernails. The primary components under development are key instrument features, such as resonators with unique geometries that allow for large sampling volumes but limit radiation-induced signal measurements to the nail plate, and methodological approaches for addressing interfering signals in the nail and for calibrating dose from radiation-induced signal measurements. One resonator development highlighted here is a surface resonator array designed to reduce signal detection losses due to the soft tissues underlying the nail plate. Several surface resonator array geometries, along with ergonomic features to stabilize fingernail placement, have been tested in tissue-equivalent nail models and in vivo nail measurements of healthy volunteers using simulated radiation-induced signals in their fingernails. These studies demonstrated radiation-induced signal detection sensitivities and quantitation limits approaching the clinically relevant range of ≤ 10 Gy. Studies of the capabilities of the current instrument suggest that a reduction in the variability in radiation-induced signal measurements can be obtained with refinements to the surface resonator array and ergonomic features of the human interface to the instrument. Additional studies are required before the quantitative limits of the assay can be determined for triage decisions in a field application of dosimetry. These include expanded in vivo nail studies and associated ex vivo nail studies to provide informed approaches to accommodate for a potential interfering native signal in the nails when calculating the radiation-induced signal from the nail plate spectral measurements and to provide a method for calibrating dose estimates from the radiation-induced signal measurements based on quantifying experiments in patients undergoing total-body irradiation or total-skin electron therapy.

show abstract

“…There are numerous different techniques available for emergency dosimetry based on both biological and physical methods of assessment (Ainsbury et al 2011 ). However, many of them still require additional research in order to be operable as emergency dose assessment methods following a large-scale emergency (McKeever and Sholom 2016 ). The optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) of electronic components [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimetry in irradiated alumina substrates from mobile phone resistors

Geber-Bergstrand

Bernhardsson

Christiansson

et al. 2017

Radiat Environ Biophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study the dosimetric properties of alumina (Al2O3) substrates found in resistors retrieved from mobile phones were investigated. Measurements of the decline of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) generated following exposure of these substrates to ionising radiation showed that 16% of the signal could still be detected after 2 years (735 days). Further, the magnitude of the regenerative dose (calibration dose; D i) had no impact on the accuracy of dose estimates. Therefore, it is recommended that the D i be set as low as is practicable, so as to accelerate data retrieval. The critical dose, D CL, and dose limit of detection, D DL, taking into account the uncertainty in the dose–response relation as well as the uncertainty in the background signal, was estimated to be 7 and 13 mGy, respectively, 1 h after exposure. It is concluded that given the significant long-term component of fading, an absorbed dose of 0.5 Gy might still be detectable up to 6 years after the exposure. Thus, OSL from alumina substrates can be used for dosimetry for time periods far in excess of those previously thought.

show abstract

Biodosimetry versus physical dosimetry for emergency dose assessment following large-scale radiological exposures

Cited by 9 publications

References 38 publications

A comparative validation of biodosimetry and physical dosimetry techniques for possible triage applications in emergency dosimetry

A comparative validation of biodosimetry and physical dosimetry techniques for possible triage applications in emergency dosimetry

Developments in Biodosimetry Methods for Triage With a Focus on X-band Electron Paramagnetic Resonance In Vivo Fingernail Dosimetry

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimetry in irradiated alumina substrates from mobile phone resistors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About