Biomedical subjects

A Molokanov

Publications and source records attributed to A Molokanov.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Uncertainties in doses from intakes of radionuclides assessed from monitoring measurements.

The evaluation of uncertainties in doses from intakes of radionuclides is one of the most difficult problems in internal dosimetry. In this paper, the process of assessing internal doses from monitoring measurements is reviewed and the major sources of uncertainty are discussed. Methods developed independently at HPA and at IRSN for the determination of uncertainties in internal doses assessed from monitoring measurements are described. Both use a Monte Carlo simulation approach. Results are described for three illustrative examples. An alternative method developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory that uses Bayesian statistical methods is also described briefly.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Dosimetry of heavy charged particles with thermoluminescence detectors--models and applications.

Lithium fluoride thermoluminescent (TL) detectors, with Li-7 isotope and various activators (MTS-7 LiF:Mg,Ti, MTT-7 LiF:Mg,Ti with enhanced Ti concentration and MCP-7 LiF:Mg,Cu,P) were used for dosimetry of heavy charged particles, within the ICHIBAN experiment. The microdosimetric model has been applied to calculate detection efficiency, eta, relative to gamma-ray dose, of these detectors after proton and heavy charged particle (HCP) irradiation for ion charges ranging from Z = 1 to Z = 6 and in the energy range from 0.3 to 20 MeV amu(-1). The calculated ratio eta(MCP-7)/eta(MTS-7) lies in the range between 0.2 and 1.0 for protons and between 0.2 and 0.4 for HCP with Z > 1. The calculated value of eta(MTT-7)/eta(MTS-7) for protons was found range between 1.0 and 1.45 and, for Z > 1, between 1.3 and 2. These relationships can be applied to derive information about the 'effective LET' in an unknown HCP field and to correct the TLD readings for dose evaluation.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2003

Uncertainty analysis in the task of individual monitoring data.

Assessment of internal doses is an essential component of individual monitoring programmes for workers and consists of two stages: individual monitoring measurements and interpretation of the monitoring data in terms of annual intake and/or annual internal dose. The overall uncertainty in assessed dose is a combination of the uncertainties in these stages. An algorithm and a computer code were developed for estimating the uncertainty in the assessment of internal dose in the task of individual monitoring data interpretation. Two main influencing factors are analysed in this paper: the unknown time of the exposure and variability of bioassay measurements. The aim of this analysis is to show that the algorithm is applicable in designing an individual monitoring programme for workers so as to guarantee that the individual dose calculated from individual monitoring measurements does not exceed a required limit with a certain confidence probability.

Algorithms↗

PubMed1999

Proton dosimetry intercomparison based on the ICRU report 59 protocol.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A new protocol for calibration of proton beams was established by the ICRU in report 59 on proton dosimetry. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison, which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goals of the intercomparison were, first, to estimate the level of consistency in absorbed dose delivered to patients if proton beams at various clinics were calibrated with the new ICRU protocol, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in 60Co-based ionization chamber calibration factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven institutions participated in the intercomparison. Measurements were performed in a polystyrene phantom at a depth of 10.27 cm water equivalent thickness in a 6-cm modulated proton beam with an accelerator energy of 155 MeV and an incident energy of approximately 135 MeV. Most participants used ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma. Four ionization chambers had 60Co-based calibration in terms of absorbed dose-to-water. Two chambers were calibrated in a 60Co beam at the NIST both in terms of air kerma and absorbed dose-to-water to provide a comparison of ionization chambers with different calibrations. RESULTS: The intercomparison showed that use of the ICRU report 59 protocol would result in absorbed doses being delivered to patients at their participating institutions to within +/-0.9% (one standard deviation). The maximum difference between doses determined by the participants was found to be 2.9%. Differences between proton doses derived from the measurements with ionization chambers with N(K)-, or N(W) - calibration type depended on chamber type. CONCLUSIONS: Using ionization chambers with 60Co calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories and the ICRU report 59 protocol, a distribution of stated proton absorbed dose is achieved with a difference less than 3%. The ICRU protocol should be adopted for clinical proton beam calibration. A comparison of proton doses derived from measurements with different chambers indicates that the difference in results cannot be explained only by differences in 60Co calibration factors.

Algorithms↗