Camel molar tooth enamel response to gamma rays using EPR spectroscopy
Tooth enamel samples from molar teeth of camel were prepared using a combined procedure of mechanical and chemical tooth treatment. Based on electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy, the dose response of tooth enamel samples was examined and compared to that of human enamel. The EPR dose response of the tooth enamel samples was obtained through irradiation to gamma doses from 1 Gy up to 100 kGy. It was found that the radiation-induced EPR signal increased linearly with gamma dose for all studied tooth enamel samples, up to about 15 kGy. At higher doses, the dose response curve leveled off. The results revealed that the location of the native signal of camel tooth enamel was similar to that of enamel from human molars at 2.00644, but different from that of enamel from cows and goats. In addition, the peak-to-peak width (ΔH pp) for human and camel molar teeth was similar. It was also found that the response of camel enamel to gamma radiation was 36% lower than that of human enamel. In conclusion, the results indicate the suitability of camel teeth for retrospective gamma dosimetry.
KeywordsEPR dosimetry Camel Gamma ray sensitivity Retrospective dosimetry
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors did not receive any grants or financial supports to assess any stage of this article.
- Chumak V, Bailiff I, Baran N, Bugai A, Dubrovsky S, FedosovI FV, Haskell E, Hayes R, Ivannikov A, Kenner G, KirillovV K, Kolesnik S, Liidja G, LikhtarevI LE, Maksimenko V, Meijer A, Minenko V, Pasalskaya L, Past J, Puskar J, Radchuk V, Sholom S, Skvortsov V, Stepanenko V, Vaher Ü, Wieser A (1996) The first International intercomparison of EPR dosimetry with teeth: first results. Appl Radiat Isot 47:1281–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Driessens FCM, Verbeeck RMH (1990) Biominerals. CRC Press, Boca Raton. ISBN 0-8493-5280-0Google Scholar
- Fattibene P, Wieser A, Adolfsson E, Benevides LA, Brai M, Callens F, Chumak V, Ciesielski B, DellaMonaca S, Emerich K, Gustafsson H, Hirai Y, Hoshi M, Israelsson A, Ivannikov A, Ivanov D, Kaminska J, Ke W, Lund E, Marrale M, Martens L, Miyazawa C, Nakamura N, Panzer W, Pivovarov S, Reyes R, Rodzi M, Romanyukha AA, Rukhin A, Sholom S, Skvortsov V, Stepanenko V, Tarpan MA, Thierens H, Toyoda S, Trompier F, Verdi E, Zhumadilov K (2011) The 4th international comparison on EPR dosimetry with tooth enamel: part 1: report on the results. Radiat Meas 46:765–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wieser A, Mehta K, Amira S, Aragno D, Bercea S, Brik A, BugaiA CF, Chumak V, Ciesielski B, Debuyst R, Dubovsky S, Duliu OG, Fattibene P, Haskell EH, Hayes RB, Ignatiev EA, Ivannikov A, Kirillov V, Kleschenko E, Nakamura N, Nather M, Nowak J, Onori S, Pass B, Pivovarov S, Romanyukha A, ScherbinaO SA, Sholom S, Skvortsov V, Stepanenko V, TikounovDD TS (2000) The second international intercomparison on EPR tooth dosimetry. Radiat Meas 32:549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wieser A, Debuyst R, Fattibene P, Meghzifene A, Onori S, BayankinSN BB, Brik A, Bugay A, Chumak V, Ciesielski B, HoshiM IH, Ivannikov A, Ivanov D, Junczewska M, Miyazaw C, Pass B, Penkowski M, Pivovarov S, Romanyukha A, RomanyukhaL SD, Scherbina O, Schultka K, Shames A, Sholom S, Skinner A, Skvortsov V, Stepanenko V, Tielewuhan E, Toyoda S, Trompier F (2005) The 3rd international intercomparison on EPR tooth dosimetry: part 1, general analysis. Appl Radiat Isot 62:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wieser A, Debuyst R, Fattibene P, Meghzifene A, Onori S, BayankinSN BA, Bugay A, Chumak V, Ciesielski B, Hoshi M, Imata H, Ivannikov A, Ivanov D, Junczewska M, Miyazawa C, Penkowski M, Pivovarov S, Romanyukha A, Romanyukha L, Schauer D, ScherbinaO SK, Sholom S, Skvortsov V, Stepanenko V, Thomas JA, Tielewuhan E, Toyoda S, Trompier F (2006) The 3rd international intercomparison on EPR tooth dosimetry: part 2, final analysis. Radiat Prot Dosim 120:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar