1997International Journal of Radiation BiologyRequires access

Recent EULEP dosimetry intercomparisons for whole body irradiation of mice

J. Zoetelief

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To foster quality assurance of dosimetry among the institutes involved in joint studies on late effects of ionizing radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participants in the dosimetry intercomparison received for each facility two mouse phantoms loaded with LiF thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLD) and a control badge. The participants were requested to irradiate the test phantoms in the actual arrangement used for whole body irradiation of mice, such that the dose in the centre of the test phantoms was 2 Gy and the dose distribution was uniform. The readout of the TLD and the dose evaluation were made at the organizing institute. RESULTS: Ten institutes operating 14 exposure facilities in four countries took part in the intercomparison. For one facility a dose deviation between 5 and 10% was found, whereas for two others the deviation exceeded 10%. The requirement for uniform dose distribution in a mouse phantom was not fulfilled by six exposure facilities. The causes for the dose discrepancies were found for two participants whereas for one participant the problems were only partly resolved. Non-uniform dose distributions are mainly related to unilateral irradiations. CONCLUSION: The seven EULEP dosimetry intercomparisons clearly show the need for quality assurance of dosimetry in radiobiology.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To foster quality assurance of dosimetry among the institutes involved in joint studies on late effects of ionizing radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participants in the dosimetry intercomparison received for each facility two mouse phantoms loaded with LiF thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLD) and a control badge. The participants were requested to irradiate the test phantoms in the actual arrangement used for whole body irradiation of mice, such that the dose in the centre of the test phantoms was 2 Gy and the dose distribution was uniform. The readout of the TLD and the dose evaluation were made at the organizing institute. RESULTS: Ten institutes operating 14 exposure facilities in four countries took part in the intercomparison. For one facility a dose deviation between 5 and 10% was found, whereas for two others the deviation exceeded 10%. The requirement for uniform dose distribution in a mouse phantom was not fulfilled by six exposure facilities. The causes for the dose discrepancies were found for two participants whereas for one participant the problems were only partly resolved. Non-uniform dose distributions are mainly related to unilateral irradiations. CONCLUSION: The seven EULEP dosimetry intercomparisons clearly show the need for quality assurance of dosimetry in radiobiology.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To foster quality assurance of dosimetry among the institutes involved in joint studies on late effects of ionizing radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participants in the dosimetry intercomparison received for each facility two mouse phantoms loaded with LiF thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLD) and a control badge. The participants were requested to irradiate the test phantoms in the actual arrangement used for whole body irradiation of mice, such that the dose in the centre of the test phantoms was 2 Gy and the dose distribution was uniform. The readout of the TLD and the dose evaluation were made at the organizing institute. RESULTS: Ten institutes operating 14 exposure facilities in four countries took part in the intercomparison. For one facility a dose deviation between 5 and 10% was found, whereas for two others the deviation exceeded 10%. The requirement for uniform dose distribution in a mouse phantom was not fulfilled by six exposure facilities. The causes for the dose discrepancies were found for two participants whereas for one participant the problems were only partly resolved. Non-uniform dose distributions are mainly related to unilateral irradiations. CONCLUSION: The seven EULEP dosimetry intercomparisons clearly show the need for quality assurance of dosimetry in radiobiology.

Key concepts: Dosimetry, Thermoluminescent dosimeter, Quality assurance, Thermoluminescent Dosimetry, Nuclear medicine, Medical physics, Radiobiology, Absorbed dose

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Recent EULEP dosimetry intercomparisons for whole body irradiation of mice — Research Paper | ScholarLens