DEVELOPMENTS IN THE USE OF THERMOLUMINESCENCE AND OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE FROM MOBILE PHONES IN EMERGENCY DOSIMETRY

Portable Helios Reader for an Unknown Dose Recovery Procedures From KCl Dietary Supplements Using the Luminescence Method

During unexpected accidents involving ionizing radiation, quick assessments of doses to public exposed to hazard conditions are crucial. For this purpose, selected household materials can be used as radiation detectors by combining them with a portable reading device. Potassium dietary supplements based on potassium chloride in combination with a portable luminescence reader can be a promising dosimetry tool in such emergency situations. In the paper, results of unknown dose reconstruction based on tablets and pills with granules using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) method are presented. Some OSL properties were examined: reproducibility of OSL as standard deviation of the OSL or sensitization of samples. Reconstructed doses were compared with dose delivered to BeO detectors. The results obtained for tablets were similar to BeO doses, while pill doses were differential, up to 37%. Overall reconstructed doses were on the same order of magnitude as BeO ones. The measurements were conducted using portable Helios reader due to its ability to measure samples of various shapes and sizes, which is not possible in other OSL reader. The development of mobile readers for emergency use is important because they enable rapid dose assessment on-site without the need for lengthy and expensive laboratory procedures.

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

Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (±0.5 Gy or ±1.0 Gy for doses <2.5 Gy or >2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (≥2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.

A comparative validation of biodosimetry and physical dosimetry techniques for possible triage applications in emergency dosimetry

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 Al₂O₃: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 toγ-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.