RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
An interlaboratory comparison of dosimetry for a multi-institutional radiobiological research project
Observations, problems, solutions and lessons learned
Seed, T. M., Xiao, S., Manley, N., Nikolich-Zugich, J., Pugh, J., Van den Brink, M., Hirabayashi, Y., Yasutomo, K., Iwama, A., Koyasu, S., Shterev, I., Sempowski, G., Macchiarini, F., Nakachi, K., Kunugi, K. C., Hammer, C. G., & Dewerd, L. A. (2016). An interlaboratory comparison of dosimetry for a multi-institutional radiobiological research project: Observations, problems, solutions and lessons learned. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 92(2), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2015.1106024
PURPOSE: An interlaboratory comparison of radiation dosimetry was conducted to determine the accuracy of doses being used experimentally for animal exposures within a large multi-institutional research project. The background and approach to this effort are described and discussed in terms of basic findings, problems and solutions.
METHODS: Dosimetry tests were carried out utilizing optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters embedded midline into mouse carcasses and thermal luminescence dosimeters (TLD) embedded midline into acrylic phantoms.
RESULTS: The effort demonstrated that the majority (4/7) of the laboratories was able to deliver sufficiently accurate exposures having maximum dosing errors of ≤5%. Comparable rates of 'dosimetric compliance' were noted between OSL- and TLD-based tests. Data analysis showed a highly linear relationship between 'measured' and 'target' doses, with errors falling largely between 0 and 20%. Outliers were most notable for OSL-based tests, while multiple tests by 'non-compliant' laboratories using orthovoltage X-rays contributed heavily to the wide variation in dosing errors.
CONCLUSIONS: For the dosimetrically non-compliant laboratories, the relatively high rates of dosing errors were problematic, potentially compromising the quality of ongoing radiobiological research. This dosimetry effort proved to be instructive in establishing rigorous reviews of basic dosimetry protocols ensuring that dosing errors were minimized.
