EPR dosimetry intercomparison using smart phone touch screen glass

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.

The harmonization process to set up and maintain an operational biological and physical retrospective dosimetry network: QA QM applied to the RENEB network

“…To date, a variety of markers (dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), micronuclei (MN), gamma H2AX, Premature Condensed Chromosome (PCC), Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) methods) used for dose assessment in cases of an accidental radiation exposure have been identified as the most appropriate biological and physical retrospective indicators (Lloyd et al 2000;Ainsbury et al 2011;IAEA 2011;Beinke et al 2013;Fattibene et al 2014). These dosimetry techniques have been adapted to the special needs of various emergency scenarios.…”

“…The results of such inter-comparisons have been analysed differently according to the network (Garcıa et al 2013;Depuydt et al 2013;Bassinet et al 2014;Fattibene et al 2014;Barnard et al 2015;Wilkins et al 2015;Moquet et al 2016;Oestreicher et al 2016). It is therefore important to fix the adapted criteria for inter-comparison analysis as it can have an impact on the conclusion of the proficiency of a laboratory.…”

“…A first interlaboratory comparison was organized on retrospective physical dosimetry for the two assays (EPR and OSL) jointly with the Multibiodose project and EURADOS (Bassinet et al 2014;Fattibene et al 2014). This first inter-comparison showed differences of sample preparation (misidentification of resistors for OSL and variability of response of the different glass sheet for EPR) higher than differences of laboratory practice.…”

RENEB – Running the European Network of biological dosimetry and physical retrospective dosimetry

“…While the first of the exercises was restricted to the network partners, the second intercomparison was open also for potential new members and with regard to the dicentric assay and micronucleus assay also for networks outside Europe. Details and outcome of the intercomparisons are shown in independent articles, included in this special issue, for the dicentric assay , the FISH assay , the micronucleus assay (Depuydt et al 2016), PCC assay , the gamma H2AX assay (Barnard et al 2014;Moquet et al 2016), and for physical dosimetry methods (Trompier et al 2016b), as well as in Fattibene et al (2014) and Bassinet et al (2014).…”

ESR dosimeter material properties of phenols compound exposed to radiotherapeutic electron beams

“…The tested materials (organic and inorganic) include ammonium tartrate, ammonium formate, taurine, potassium tartrate hemihydrate, lithium formate, dithionates, strontium carbonate, sodium tartrate dehydrate and strontium sulfate, hydroxyapatite, glass and some others [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Another methods followed to increase the sensitivity to various types of ionizing radiations is the addition of dopants such as gold, gadolinium, silver in small concentrations (to avoid the loss of tissue equivalence) [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63].…”