Search

Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (±0.5 Gy or ±1.0 Gy for doses <2.5 Gy or >2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (≥2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.

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 (DCA) 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 (0-4.4 Gy; values refer to dose to blood after correction) and the absorbed radiation doses were reconstructed by biodosimetry (DCA) and physical dosimetry (optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)) methods. Additionally, LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD-100) chips and Al 2 O 3 :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., (© 2022 Society for Radiological Protection. Published on behalf of SRP by IOP Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.)

Proposed physical dosimetry methods for emergency dosimetry in radiological, mass-casualty incidents include both thermoluminescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). Potential materials that could feasibly be used for TL and OSL dosimetry include clothing, shoes and personal accessories. However, the most popular target of study has been personal electronics, especially different components from smartphones. Smartphones have been a focus because they are widely available and, in principle, may be viewed as surrogates for commercial TL or OSL dosimeters. The components of smartphones that have been studied include surface mount devices (such as resistors, capacitors and inductors) and glass materials, including front protective glass, display glass and (with more modern devices) back protective glass. This paper reviews the most recent developments in the use of TL and OSL with these materials and guides the way to future, and urgently needed, research., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) and Thermoluminescence (TL) signals have been studied in samples of Gorilla® Glass (GG) from different smartphones as well as some online stores and vendors. Background, radiation-induced and ultraviolet-induced signals were compared between the samples. Significant variability of both EPR and TL signals (in shape and intensity) was observed between samples from different screens as well as over the surface of the same screen, from the same phone. Both the EPR and TL background signals appear to be due to UV exposure during phone manufacture; some phones have higher EPR and TL signals around the edge of the screen, indicating more UV exposure at the edge than in the center. EPR and TL signals in the same GG samples appear correlated: they decayed over the same temperature region; and both hole- and electron-related EPR and TL signals were made up of stable and unstable components (at room temperature)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Olive oil is proposed as a medium for storage of nails in the time between nail harvesting and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements to minimise the decay of the radiation-induced EPR signals (RIS). The behaviours of three main EPR signals, namely, RIS, mechanically induced and the background signals (MIS and BG, respectively), were studied for storage in olive oil. The properties of the MIS and BG signals were very similar to those previously observed for the storage in a vacuum. The RIS singlet slightly increased during the first day of storage and then remained practically unchanged at least for 6 days. Dose recovery test revealed that doses at the level 2 Gy may be reconstructed with an accuracy of about ±20%., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Two different spectra deconvolution methods have been compared on samples of Gorilla® Glass (GG) irradiated in the dose range 0-20 Gy and measured with X-band EPR. The first method used a matrix deconvolution procedure using sample-specific sets of reference signals. The second method used a 'universal' set of eight reference signals (due to five electron centers, two hole centers and a background) to fit EPR spectra from any GG sample. Dose-responses curves were constructed for each individual reference signal. These were then used to test reconstruction of a laboratory-administered dose of 2 Gy. For the matrix method, the values of the reconstructed and nominal doses were within ± 20% after averaging measurements from three aliquots of each sample. For the universal method, the most promising results were obtained with E1, E4 and H1 signals. The fitting failed for one sample, due to dominance of the background signal., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Several materials were tested as possible individual emergency dosimeters using Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) as means to assess the exposure. Materials investigated included human nails, business cards and plastic buttons. The OSL properties of these materials were studied in comparison with those of teeth. Most samples revealed OSL signals only after exposure to ionizing radiation; some samples of business cards, however, displayed a strong initial "native" signal (i.e. existing in the samples prior to irradiation). The sensitivity (minimum measurable dose) of the samples was found to vary significantly from sample to sample of the same material and was in the range from several tens of mGy to a few dozens of Gy. The dose response curves were linear for doses below 10 Gy. Fading of the OSL signals was estimated for different lenghts of times and found to be ~95%, 45%, 30% and 15% for samples of teeth, business cards, buttons and nails, respectively, following storage at room temperature in the dark for a period of 3 weeks after exposure. For samples stored under routine laboratory light, fading was much faster and the radiation-induced signals almost disappeared after a few hours of such illumination. It was concluded that the tested materials could be used in triage situations to detect and estimate the possible overexposure of individuals if the measurements can be performed soon enough after exposure.