4.5 Article

Cellular dosimetry of 197Hg, 197mHg and 111In: comparison of dose deposition and identification of the cell and nuclear membrane as important targets

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2020.1849850

关键词

Hg-197; Hg-197m; In-111; Auger electrons; dosimetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reliability of modeling cellular S-values for AE emitters and their relative dose deposition in subcellular targets were examined using MCNP6. Results showed that Hg-197 and Hg-197m deposit two-fold more doses than In-111 at the subcellular scale. All AE emitters deposit a higher self-dose in cellular and nuclear membranes compared to the nucleus.
Purpose To examine the reliability to model cellular S-values for the Auger electron (AE) emitters, In-111, Hg-197 and Hg-197m with MCNP6 and their relative dose deposition in subcellular targets. Methods A model cell was defined as four concentric spheres consisting of the nucleus (N), cytoplasm (Cy), cell and nuclear membranes (CM, NM) in which radionuclides distributed homogeneously. The transport of AE, conversion electrons and photons were simulated by MCNP6 to calculate cellular S values (S-N <- CM, S-N <- Cy, S-N <- NM, S-N <- N, S-CM <- CM, S-NM <- NM). S-N <- CM, S-N <- Cy and S-N <- N were also calculated with MIRDcell. Results MIRDcell and MCNP6-calculated S-N <- N were in excellent agreement, but a slight discrepancy on S-N <- Cy and S-N <- CM was observed. The ratios of S-CM <- CM or S-NM <- NM vs. S-N <- N were 9.7-51.0 or 10.5-37.4, 7.9-41.8 or 8.4-31.8 and 7.2-36.9 or 8.0-28.1 for In-111, Hg-197, Hg-197m, respectively. The mean S(Hg-197)/S(In-111) and S(Hg-197m)/S(In-111) were 2.5 +/- 0.5 and 2.5 +/- 0.6, respectively. Conclusions Cellular S-values were reliably calculated with MCNP6. Hg-197 and Hg-197m deposit two-fold more doses than In-111 at the subcellular scale. All AE emitters deposit a higher self-dose in the CM and NM than in the N, which warrants studies on the effects of targeting the CM and NM by AE emitters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据