4.6 Article

A refined Monte Carlo code for low-energy electron emission from gold material irradiated with sub-keV electrons

Journal

NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNIQUES
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s41365-023-01204-4

Keywords

Monte Carlo code; Secondary electron emission; Low-energy electrons

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Considering the importance of low-energy electrons (LEEs; 0-20 eV) in radiobiology, this study investigates the potential of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) as high-flux LEE emitters under sub-keV electron irradiation. A track-structure Monte Carlo simulation code based on the dielectric theory is developed to accurately simulate the electron transport in gold. The code is validated using secondary electron yield and backscattering coefficient, and also verified for energy deposition calculations using the Geant4 toolkit. This code development lays the foundation for future studies on the role of AuNPs in targeted radionuclide radiotherapy.
Considering the significance of low-energy electrons (LEEs; 0-20 eV) in radiobiology, the sensitization potential of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) as high-flux LEE emitters when irradiated with sub-keV electrons has been suggested. In this study, a track-structure Monte Carlo simulation code using the dielectric theory was developed to simulate the transport of electrons below 50 keV in gold. In this code, modifications, particularly for elastic scattering, are implemented for a more precise description of the LEE emission in secondary electron emission. This code was validated using the secondary electron yield and backscattering coefficient. To ensure dosimetry accuracy, we further verified the code for energy deposition calculations using the Monte Carlo toolkit, Geant4. The development of this code provides a basis for future studies regarding the role of AuNPs in targeted radionuclide radiotherapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available