4.5 Article

Microdosimetry of low-energy electrons

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue 12, Pages 899-907

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2012.699136

Keywords

Low-energy electrons; Auger electrons; cross sections; condensed-phase effects; track structure; microdosimetry

Funding

  1. Stralsakerhetsmyndigheten (SSM), Swedish Radiation Safety Authority

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate differences in energy depositions and microdosimetric parameters of low-energy electrons in liquid and gaseous water using Monte Carlo track structure simulations. Materials and methods : KURBUC-liq (Kyushu University and Radiobiology Unit Code for liquid water) was used for simulating electron tracks in liquid water. The inelastic scattering cross sections of liquid water were obtained from the dielectric response model of Emfietzoglou et al. (Radiation Research 2005;164:202-211). Frequencies of energy deposited in nanometre-size cylindrical targets per unit absorbed dose and associated lineal energies were calculated for 100-5000 eV monoenergetic electrons and the electron spectrum of carbon K edge X-rays. The results for liquid water were compared with those for water vapour. Results : Regardless of electron energy, there is a limit how much energy electron tracks can deposit in a target. Phase effects on the frequencies of energy depositions are largely visible for the targets with diameters and heights smaller than 30 nm. For the target of 2.3 nm by 2.3 nm (similar to dimension of DNA segments), the calculated frequency-and dose-mean lineal energies for liquid water are up to 40% smaller than those for water vapour. The corresponding difference is less than 12% for the targets with diameters >= 30 nm. Conclusions : Condensed-phase effects are non-negligible for microdosimetry of low-energy electrons for targets with sizes smaller than a few tens of nanometres, similar to dimensions of DNA molecular structures and nucleosomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available