| 1. |
- Ainsbury, Elizabeth A., et al.
(författare)
-
UNCERTAINTY ON RADIATION DOSES ESTIMATED BY BIOLOGICAL AND RETROSPECTIVE PHYSICAL METHODS
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Radiation Protection Dosimetry. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0144-8420 .- 1742-3406. ; 178:4, s. 382-404
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Biological and physical retrospective dosimetry are recognised as key techniques to provide individual estimates of dose following unplanned exposures to ionising radiation. Whilst there has been a relatively large amount of recent development in the biological and physical procedures, development of statistical analysis techniques has failed to keep pace. The aim of this paper is to review the current state of the art in uncertainty analysis techniques across the EURADOS Working Group 10-Retrospective dosimetry members, to give concrete examples of implementation of the techniques recommended in the international standards, and to further promote the use of Monte Carlo techniques to support characterisation of uncertainties. It is concluded that sufficient techniques are available and in use by most laboratories for acute, whole body exposures to highly penetrating radiation, but further work will be required to ensure that statistical analysis is always wholly sufficient for the more complex exposure scenarios.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fattibene, Paola, et al.
(författare)
-
EPR dosimetry intercomparison using smart phone touch screen glass
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. - : Springer-Verlag New York. - 0301-634X .- 1432-2099. ; 53:2, s. 311-320
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper presents the results of an interlaboratory comparison of retrospective dosimetry using the electron paramagnetic resonance method. The test material used in this exercise was glass coming from the touch screens of smart phones that might be used as fortuitous dosimeters in a large-scale radiological incident. There were 13 participants to whom samples were dispatched, and 11 laboratories reported results. The participants received five calibration samples (0, 0.8, 2, 4, and 10 Gy) and four blindly irradiated samples (0, 0.9, 1.3, and 3.3 Gy). Participants were divided into two groups: for group A (formed by three participants), samples came from a homogeneous batch of glass and were stored in similar setting; for group B (formed by eight participants), samples came from different smart phones and stored in different settings of light and temperature. The calibration curves determined by the participants of group A had a small error and a critical level in the 0.37-0.40-Gy dose range, whereas the curves determined by the participants of group B were more scattered and led to a critical level in the 1.3-3.2-Gy dose range for six participants out of eight. Group A were able to assess the dose within 20 % for the lowest doses (< 1.5 Gy) and within 5 % for the highest doses. For group B, only the highest blind dose could be evaluated in a reliable way because of the high critical values involved. The results from group A are encouraging, whereas the results from group B suggest that the influence of environmental conditions and the intervariability of samples coming from different smart phones need to be further investigated. An alongside conclusion is that the protocol was easily transferred to participants making a network of laboratories in case of a mass casualty event potentially feasible.
|
|
