Electron Paramagnetic Resonance and Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization-Based Investigations of Individual Doses for Persons Living at Metlino in the Upper Reaches of the Techa River

Abstract

Waterborne releases to the Techa River from the Mayak Production Association in Russia during 1949-1956 resulted in significant doses to persons living downstream; the most contaminated village was Metlino, about 7 km from the site of release. Internal and external doses have been estimated for these residents using the Techa River Dosimetry System-2000 (TRDS-2000); the primary purpose is to support epidemiological studies of the members of the Extended Techa River Cohort. Efforts to validate the calculations of external and internal dose are considered essential. One validation study of the TRDS-2000 system has been performed by the comparison of calculated doses to quartz from bricks in old buildings at Metlino with those measured by luminescence dosimetry. Two additional methods of validation considered here are electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements of teeth and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) measurements of chromosome translocations in circulating lymphocytes. For electron paramagnetic resonance, 36 measurements on 26 teeth from 16 donors from Metlino were made at the GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health (16 measurements) and the Institute of Metal Physics (20 measurements); the correlation among measurements made at the two laboratories has been found to be 0.99. Background measurements were also made on 218 teeth (63 molars, 128 premolars, and 27 incisors). Fluorescence in situ hybridization measurements were made for 31 residents of Metlino. These measurements were handicapped by the analysis of a limited number of cells; for several individuals no stable translocations were observed. Fluorescence in situ hybridization measurements were also made for 39 individuals believed to be unexposed. The EPR- and FISH-based estimates agreed well for permanent residents of Metlino: 0.67 +/- 0.21 Gy and 0.48 +/- 0.18 Gy (mean +/- standard error of the mean), respectively. Results of the two experimental methods also agreed well with the estimates derived from the use of the TRDS-2000. For all persons investigated according to each technique, the EPR-measured dose to enamel was 0.55 +/- 0.17 Gy, and the TRDS-2000 prediction for the dose to enamel for these individuals is 0.55 +/- 0.07 Gy. The fluorescence in situ hybridization-based dose, 0.38 +/- 0.10 Gy, compared well to the TRDS-2000 prediction of external dose, 0.31 +/- 0.03 Gy, to red bone marrow for these persons. Validation of external doses at the remaining villages is an active area of investigation.

EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel: A review

“…After data on the exposure were disclosed to the scientific community, it was suggested that EPR dosimetry using tooth enamel could be suitable for reconstruction of doses in this cohort (Romanyukha et al, 1996a(Romanyukha et al, , 1996b. It is expected that validation of external doses measured in human tissues (e.g., by EPR dosimetry using tooth enamel and cytogenetic methods in blood samples) combined with results of experimental dose measurement in environmental samples (e.g., by thermoluminescence in bricks) would improve the assessment of the computed doses (Degteva et al, , 2005(Degteva et al, , 2006Jacob et al, 2003;Balonov et al, 2006). Studies are still in progress.…”

“…However, we are aware of only one group (Chumak et al, 1999) that used the additive dose method in measurements of tooth samples of large groups of population; other groups prefer to use universal calibration curves (Nakamura et al, 1998a;Ivannikov et al, 2004a;Wieser et al, 2006b;Degteva et al, 2005, to mention a few).…”

“…Donor's residence Estimate of the regional natural radiation background dose (19.4) Survivors of A-bombing of Hiroshima, Japan ~100 Cytogenetic methods Ikeya et al (1984); Ikeya and Ishii (1989); Ikeya et al (1986); Tatsumi Mayak nuclear workers, Russia ~100 Occupational dosimetry Romanyukha et al (1994Romanyukha et al ( , 1996cRomanyukha et al ( , 2000b; Wieser et al (2006b) Techa River basin population, Russia ~300 Model-calculated dose, cytogenetic methods Degteva et al (2000bDegteva et al ( , 2005; Romanyukha et al (1996aRomanyukha et al ( , 1996bRomanyukha et al ( , 2001Romanyukha et al ( , 2002b; Shishkina et al (2001Shishkina et al ( , 2003Shishkina et al ( , 2005; Tikunov et al …”

Retrospective and emergency dosimetry in response to radiological incidents and nuclear mass-casualty events: A review

“…EPR tooth dosimetry research started to grow rapidly after the Chernobyl accident in 1986 (Aldrich and Pass, 1988, Shimano et al, 1989and Ikeya and Ishii, 1989, which resulted in maturation of the EPR technique with tooth enamel. The technique has been verified through several intercomparisons (Chumak et al, 1996, Wieser et al, 2000a and was applied for dose reconstruction of A-bomb victims (Ikeya et al, 1984 andNakamura et al, 1998), Chernobyl liquidators , the population in territories contaminated due to the Chernobyl accident (Skvortzov et al, 1995, Skvortzov et al, 2000, Ivannikov et al, 1997, Ivannikov et al, 2004band Ivannikov et al, 2014, residents near the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site (SNTS, Kazakhstan) , Zhumadilov et al, 2009, Zhumadilov et al, 2011a, Zhumadilov et al, 2011b, Zhumadilov et al, 2013Ivannikov et al, 2002, Pivovarov et al, 2002and Sholom et al, 2007a, and the inhabitants of the Techa River basin affected by the operation of the Mayak Production Association , Degteva et al, 2005, Degteva et al, 2015.…”

The 4th international comparison on EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel

“…It is a method used for validating dosimetry in epidemiological studies (Degteva et al, 2005;Wieser et al, 2006a) and post-accident scenarios . A significant number of laboratories around the world have set up this method by developing specific protocols of measurement.…”