A comparative validation of biodosimetry and physical dosimetry techniques for possible triage applications in emergency dosimetry. (1st June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sholom, Sergey; McKeever, Stephen W S; Escalona, Maria B; Ryan, Terri L; Balajee, Adayabalam S
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiological protection. Volume 42:Number 2(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06-01
• Subjects: physical dosimetry -- biological dosimetry -- optically stimulated luminescence -- electron paramagnetic resonance -- dicentric chromosome assay and radiological/nuclear mass casualty incidents and triage application; Radiation -- Safety measures -- Periodicals; Health Physics -- Periodicals; Radiation Monitoring -- Periodicals; Radiation Protection -- Periodicals; Rayonnement -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Fulltext; Internet Resource; Periodical; 363.179905
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/ac5815
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0952-4746

Abstract

Abstract: Large-scale radiological accidents or nuclear terrorist incidents involving radiological or nuclear materials can potentially expose thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people to unknown radiation doses, requiring prompt dose reconstruction for appropriate triage. Two types of dosimetry methods namely, biodosimetry and physical dosimetry are currently utilized for estimating absorbed radiation dose in humans. Both methods have been tested separately in several inter-laboratory comparison exercises, but a direct comparison of physical dosimetry with biological dosimetry has not been performed to evaluate their dose prediction accuracies. The current work describes the results of the direct comparison of absorbed doses estimated by physical (smartphone components) and biodosimetry (dicentric chromosome assay (DCA) performed in human peripheral blood lymphocytes) methods. For comparison, human peripheral blood samples (biodosimetry) and different components of smartphones, namely surface mount resistors (SMRs), inductors and protective glasses (physical dosimetry) were exposed to different doses of photons (0–4.4 Gy; values refer to dose to blood after correction) and the absorbed radiation doses were reconstructed by biodosimetry (DCA) and physical dosimetry (optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)) methods. Additionally, LiF:Mg, Ti (TLD-100) chips and Al2 O3 :C (Luxel) films were used as reference TL and OSL dosimeters, respectively. The best coincidence between biodosimetry and physical dosimetry was observed for samples of blood and SMRs exposed to γ -rays. Significant differences were observed in the reconstructed doses by the two dosimetry methods for samples exposed to x-ray photons with energy below 100 keV. The discrepancy is probably due to the energy dependence of mass energy-absorption coefficients of the samples extracted from the phones. Our results of comparative validation of the radiation doses reconstructed by luminescence dosimetry from smartphone components with biodosimetry using DCA from human blood suggest the potential use of smartphone components as an effective emergency triage tool for high photon energies.