Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Biodosimetry in Teeth and Fingernails
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Biodosimetry in Teeth and Fingernails
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Biodosimetry in Teeth and Fingernails
Outline
Optical Imaging
Electron Resonance
1.5
0.05
3.2
0.11
9.5
0.33
30 - 1000 mg (solid)
20
0.70
10 30 mg (solid)
35
1.22
2 10 mg (solid)
95
3.30
0.25 1 mg (solid)
Tooth collections
Tooth enamel sample preparation
EPR measurements of radiation response
Calibration of EPR radiation response
EPR Biodosimetry
(Teeth)
EPR Biodosimetry
(Teeth)
Hydroxyapatite constitutes:
~95% by weight of tooth enamel
70-75% of dentin
60-70% of compact bones
EPR Biodosimetry
(Dose Calibration)
Year of
overexposure
Number of
reconstructed
doses
Values of
reconstructed
doses, Gy
Reference
1945
100
0.3-4.0 Gy
Mayak nuclear
workers, Russia
1948-1961
~100
0.2-6.0 Gy
Techa riverside
population
1948-1958
~100
0.1-10 Gy
Eye-witnesses of
Totskoye nuclear
test, Russia
1954
10
0.1-0.4 Gy
Chernobyl clean up
workers, Ukraine
1986
660
0 - 2.0 Gy
Population of areas
contaminated by
Chernobyl fallout,
Russia
1986
2500
~ 0.1 Gy
Semipalatinsk
population
1950s
32
0.3-4.0 Gy
Conclusion
EPR X-band (9 GHz) dosimetry in tooth
enamel works excellent (LLD<100 mGy,
time after exposure when dose
measurements are possible from 0.01 hr
to 106 yr.
But it requires to have extracted or
exfoliated teeth available for preparation of
tooth enamel
Alternatives to
exfoliated/extracted teeth
L-band (1.2 GHz) non-Invasive in vivo measurements
Description of Q-band
feasibility test
Tooth enamel powder samples for test: 0;
0.1 Gy; 0.5 Gy; 1 Gy; 3 Gy; 5 Gy
Each sample was recorded 3 times in X (100
mg) and Q bands (2, 4 mg)
Recent publication
Romanyukha A. et al. Q-band EPR biodosimetry in tooth enamel
microprobes: Feasibility test and comparison with X band. Health
Physics. 93, 631-635, (2007).
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.00
-0.02
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.04
-0.03
-0.06
-0.08
3490
3500
3510
3520
Magnetic field, G
3530
3540
-0.04
12060
12080
12100
12120
12140
12160
12180
12200
Magnetic field, G
1. Q-band has significantly lesser amount of the sample required for dose
measurements
2. Q-band has significantly better spectral resolution of dose response
12220
Dose dependence: X vs Q
Q-band, 4 mg sample
0.10
1.0
0.12
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Radiation dose, Gy
Radiation Dose, Gy
Dose = 8.6 Gy
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0
50
100
150
200
Angle, degree
250
300
350
Possible approaches:
1. Use average value of radiation
response at each dose;
2. Use maximum value of radiation
response at each dose;
3. Use minimum value of radiation
response at each dose;
4. Use median value of radiation
response at each dose.
4.3 Gy
8.6 Gy
12.9 Gy
17.1 Gy
0.50
0.45
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Median
0.55
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
-0.2
0.10
12100
12150
12200
Magnetic field, G
-2
10
12
14
Dose, Gy
Result of linear
back extrapolation
Average values
5.5 0.8 Gy
Preliminary conclusions
Tooth enamel biopsy spectra have slightly different shape from
powder spectra, they are more narrow and have higher signal-tonoise ratio for the same dose than powder spectra. However
existence of angle dependence for biopsy spectra makes difficult
dose reconstruction. Possible solution is to use average, maximum,
minimum or median values for each dose for dose reconstruction
Use of average and minimum EPR radiation response values gives
the best results to reconstruct 4.3 Gy, e.g. 5.5 0.8 Gy and 5.4 0.7
Gy, respectively
A possible reason for some dose offset (~1 Gy) is a slope of a base
line of the spectra for this sample
A possible solution is to apply base line correction to spectra before
measurements of peak-to-peak amplitude of radiation response
L-band in vivo
Recent publications
1.5
Slope=0.077, SEP=2.41Gy
Slope=0.073, SEP=1.19Gy
Slope=0.081, SEP=2.67Gy
C#27 #11
0.5
1.0
#22
#27
Patient V107
Patient V110
C#22
0.0
2.0
Dose-response relationship
for two head-and-neck radiation patients
10
15
Radiation dose given, Gy
20
25
30
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.0
10
15
30
Radiation given, Gy
Dose-dependence for 6 in vivo teeth, with each tooth irradiated to a different dose and
measured on 3 separate days. Linear regression analysis shows that the standard error
of dose prediction is 46 cGy.
Recent development
Romanyukha A. et al. EPR dosimetry in chemically
treated fingernails. Radiat. Meas. 42, 1110-1113,
(2007).
Trompier F. et al. Protocol for emergency EPR
dosimetry in fingernails. Radiat. Meas. 42, 10851088, (2007).
Reyes R.A. et al. Electron paramagnetic resonance in
human fingernails: the sponge model implication. To
be published in Radiat. Env. Biophys. (2008)
Radiation-induced signal
in unstressed fingernails
1 Gy
5 Gy
8 Gy
0.2
RIS, a.u.
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
3450
3500
Magnetic field, G
3550
3600
Original signal
after treatment
+2 Gy
+4 Gy
+6 Gy
+11 Gy
0.1
0.45
0.2
0.0
-0.1
Grun model
0.40
0.35
0.30
Grun model:
A = Imax(1 - exp(-(D+DE)/D0)),
where A= EPR dose response,
Imax = max EPR dose response (saturation level),
DE=the dose to be determined
D0= characteristic saturation dose
0.25
-0.2
3420
3440
3460
3480
3500
3520
3540
Magnetic field, G
3560
3580
3600
0.20
0
Added dose, Gy
10
12
Dosimetric properties of
fingernails
Optimal sample mass is 15-20 mg (nailparings from 2-3 fingers)
Measurements time 5 minutes (10 scans)
Achievable lower dose threshold ~ 1 Gy
RIS fading half-time 300 hr (~2 weeks)
Conclusions
Part of EPR
LLD,
body
band/freq Gy
in vivo/
amount
Time
stability
Tooth
enamel
0.1
50 100 mg 106 yr
Tooth
enamel
0.3-0.5 2-4 mg
106 yr
Tooth
3-5
In vivo
106 yr
Fingernails
0.5-1
20-30 mg
~2 wks
Acknowledgements
G. Burke, E. Demidenko, C. Calas, I.
Clairand, T. De, O. Grinberg, A. Iwasaki,
M. Kmiec, L. Kornak, B. LeBlanc, P.
Lesniewski, P. Misra, C. Mitchell, R.J.
Nicolalde, B. Pass, A. Ruuge, D.A.
Schauer, J. Smirniotopoulos, A. Sucheta,
T. Walczak
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the
author and do not reflect the official policy or position of
the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center, Navy
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
www.Biodose-2008.org