PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München

Volchkova, A.* ; Shishkina, E.A.* ; Ivanov, D.* ; Timofeev, Y.* ; Fattibene, P.* ; Della Monaca, S.* ; Wieser, A. ; Degteva, M.O.*

Harmonization of dosimetric information obtained by different EPR methods: Experience of the Techa River study.

Radiat. Meas. 46, 801-807 (2011)
DOI Verlagsversion bestellen
Open Access Green möglich sobald Postprint bei der ZB eingereicht worden ist.
Between 1949 and 1956 the Techa River (Southern Urals, Russia) was contaminated as a result of releases of radioactive waste by the Mayak Production Association. EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel has been used to estimate the external exposure of Techa riverside residents over the last 17 years. The database "Tooth" of the Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine (URCRM) has accumulated about 1000 EPR measurements of tooth enamel from the rural population of the Urals region. The teeth were investigated by laboratories of Russia, USA, Germany and Italy. Most of the enamel samples were measured several times in different laboratories. Each laboratory used different equipment and its own methods for sample preparation and EPR spectra analysis. Even measurements performed at the same laboratory over 10-15 years may not be assumed as uniform: methods change with time, and equipment is subject to aging. These two factors influenced EPR performance. The purpose of this study is, therefore, the harmonization of EPR data accumulated during long-term dosimetric investigations in the Southern Urals for further pooled analysis. The results will be used for external dose evaluation in the Techa River region.
Weitere Metriken?
Zusatzinfos bearbeiten [➜Einloggen]
Publikationstyp Artikel: Journalartikel
Dokumenttyp Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
Schlagwörter Tooth enamel; Electron paramagnetic resonance; Retrospective dosimetry; Statistical analysis; Harmonization
ISSN (print) / ISBN 1350-4487
e-ISSN 1879-0925
Quellenangaben Band: 46, Heft: 9, Seiten: 801-807 Artikelnummer: , Supplement: ,
Verlag Elsevier
Begutachtungsstatus Peer reviewed