Alpha particle and proton relative thermoluminescence efficiencies in LiF:Mg,Cu,P:is track structure theory up to the task?

L Band EPR Tooth Dosimetry for Heavy Ion Irradiation

“…In case of a thermoluminescence dosemeter for gamma ray dosimetry, we expected that the energy dependency would be reflected by mass energy-absorption coefficients for photons and mass stopping powers for charged particles; our results confirmed that calculated energy absorption considering element composition and measurements were in good agreement (13)(14) . That means that the relationship between energy absorption, the number of trapped electrons due to energy transition and the glow intensity is well recognized, and it is possible to estimate glow intensity from energy absorption and to calculate a glow curve theoretically.…”

Probing the defect nanostructure of helium and proton tracks in LiF:Mg,Ti using optical absorption: Implications to track structure theory calculations of heavy charged particle relative efficiency

“…This may imply that the Mg-Ti(OH) trimer complex responsible for the TL of composite peak 5 is somehow largely destroyed or de-populated in the HCP track -perhaps by a thermal spike -perhaps by other mechanisms. It is interesting to note that the values of g m measured for OA are much smaller than the TL values of g pc % 0.3 and g Hec % 0.1 [30,32]. This indicates that the loss in TL efficiency of peak 5 following HCP excitation arises from the irradiation stage and that heating in the recombination stage somehow re-constructs and/or re-populates the defect responsible for TL peak 5.…”

“…1) in condensed phase LiF using a track segment Monte Carlo approach [9,10] were carried out using TRIPOS-E which is a coupled electron-ion transport code. Although there were approximations in this approach, especially in the cut-off energies of the secondary electron tracks [30], these calculations of D(r) in the condensed phase are the only estimates currently available. The radial dose is extremely non-uniform and decreases by over 8 orders of magnitude from MGy levels of dose near the track axis to 10 À2 Gy at $1000-1500 Å which corresponds to the maximum range of 2-3 keV electrons in LiF.…”

“…Unfortunately the option of ultra-low energy electron irradiation [33] is also problematic due to the likelihood of dead layers/skin effects in the shallow penetration depths of such low energy electrons. Because of these difficulties a later study was carried out in LiF:MCP which does not exhibit energy-dependent-supralinearity in the dose response so that matching of the electron spectra is unnecessary [30]. The results showed that the values of the TST calculated relative efficiencies for 1.43 MeV protons were between 0.056 and 0.087 (the spread in values arising from uncertainty in the measurement of f d (D)) compared to 0.15 measured experimentally.…”

“…Here also, however, problems of accuracy were encountered. Due to the opaque nature of the LiF:MCP samples self-absorption and planchet reflection corrections are necessary but are difficult to estimate accurately [30].…”