3.8 Article

Reflections on the future developments of research in retrospective physical dosimetry

Journal

PHYSICS OPEN
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physo.2022.100132

Keywords

Retrospective dosimetry; Radiological accidents; Electron paramagnetic resonance; Thermoluminescence; Optically stimulated luminescence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article aims to provide an overview of the questions, challenges, and solutions regarding retrospective dosimetry in acute accidental exposures using physical methods such as electron paramagnetic resonance, thermoluminescence, and optically stimulated luminescence in biological tissues and inert materials. As research on emergency response methods faces increasing difficulties in terms of financial and human resources in many countries, it is crucial to prioritize research and focus on cost-effective paths. The paper intends to stimulate discussion in the scientific community and encourage collaboration among laboratories towards goals that address the real needs in retrospective dosimetry for acute exposures.
Electron paramagnetic resonance, thermoluminescence, and optically stimulated luminescence, with biological tissues and inert materials are well established physical methods for retrospective dosimetry in acute accidental exposures. The objective of this article is to provide a view of the questions still open, the current challenges and the needed solutions. As research on emergency response methods is encountering increasing difficulties in terms of financial and human resources in many countries, it is essential to identify the research priorities and pay attention to cost-effective research paths. The intention of the paper is to stimulate discussion in the scientific community and to encourage collaboration among laboratories toward goals that address the real needs in retrospective dosimetry for acute exposures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available