Comparison of three methods of EPR retrospective dosimetry in watch glass

Abstract

In this article we present results of our follow-up studies of samples of watch glass obtained and examined within a framework of international intercomparison dosimetry project RENEB ILC 2021. We present three methods of dose reconstruction based on EPR measurements of these samples: calibration method (CM), added dose method (ADM) and added dose&heating method (ADHM). The study showed that the three methods of dose reconstruction gave reliable and similar results in 0.5–6.0 Gy dose range, with accuracy better than 10%. The ADHM is the only one applicable in a real scenario, when sample-specific background spectrum is not available; therefore, a positive verification of this method is important for future use of EPR dosimetry in glass in potential radiation accidents.

RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays

“…For all assays, only sham-irradiated samples were identified as unexposed (exactly 0 Gy) and all doses estimated as ≥3.5 Gy were from samples irradiated with the highest dose of 3.5 Gy (excluding EPR tooth enamel kerma in enamel dose estimates and GE measurements of one team), suggesting that those samples reported with doses of exactly 0 Gy or ≥3.5 Gy were truly unexposed or highly exposed (; https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-22-00207.1.S1). This could be also shown for most of the recalculated EPR tooth enamel kerma in air dose estimates (Table 5) and a recent publication associated to the RENEB ILC 2021 ( 83 ) Furthermore, reported dose estimates correctly allocated clinically relevant groups of unexposed-low individuals in 94–100% of cases, with the exception of the FISH assay (86%). For highly exposed samples the assays performed successfully (100%) with the exception of GE (89%) and gH2AX assays (67%; Table 3).…”