Search

This work presents a comparison of three autoradiography techniques for imaging biological samples contaminated with actinides: emulsion-based, plastic-based autoradiography and a quantitative digital technique, the iQID camera, based on the numerical analysis of light from a scintillator screen. In radiation toxicology it has been important to develop means of imaging actinide distribution in tissues as these radionuclides may be heterogeneously distributed within and between tissues after internal contamination. Actinide distribution determines which cells are exposed to alpha radiation and is thus potentially critical for assessing absorbed dose. The comparison was carried out by generating autoradiographs of the same biological samples contaminated with actinides with the three autoradiography techniques. These samples were cell preparations or tissue sections collected from animals contaminated with different physico-chemical forms of actinides. The autoradiograph characteristics and the performances of the techniques were evaluated and discussed mainly in terms of acquisition process, activity distribution patterns, spatial resolution and feasibility of activity quantification. The obtained autoradiographs presented similar actinide distribution at low magnification. Out of the three techniques, emulsion autoradiography is the only one to provide a highly-resolved image of the actinide distribution inherently superimposed on the biological sample. Emulsion autoradiography is hence best interpreted at higher magnifications. However, this technique is destructive for the biological sample. Both emulsion- and plastic-based autoradiography record alpha tracks and thus enabled the differentiation between ionized forms of actinides and oxide particles. This feature can help in the evaluation of decorporation therapy efficacy. The most recent technique, the iQID camera, presents several additional features: real-time imaging, separate imaging of alpha particles and gamma rays, and alpha activity quantification. The comparison of these three autoradiography techniques showed that they are complementary and the choice of the technique depends on the purpose of the imaging experiment.