FIRST INTERNATIONAL INTERCOMPARISON OF
LUMINESCENCE TECHNIQUES USING SAMPLES FROM THE
TECHA RIVER VALLEY
H. Y. Go ¨ksu,* M. O. Degteva,†N. G. Bougrov,†R. Meckbach,* E. H. Haskell,‡
I. K. Bailiff,§L. Bøtter-Jensen,** H. Jungner,††and P. Jacob*
Abstract—Bricks collected from a contaminated village (Mus-
lyumovo) of the lower Techa river valley, Southern Urals,
Russia, were measured using thermoluminescence and opti-
cally stimulated luminescence by four European laboratories
and a U.S. laboratory to establish and compare the applied
dose reconstruction methodologies. The bricks, collected from
60–100-year-old buildings, had accumulated a relatively high
dose due to natural sources of radiation in the brick and from
the surrounding environment. This work represents the results
of a first international intercomparison of luminescence mea-
surements for bricks from the Southern Urals. The lumines-
cence measurements of absorbed dose in bricks collected from
the most shielded locations of the same buildings were used to
determine the background dose due to natural sources of
radiation and to validate the age of the bricks. The absorbed
dose in different bricks measured by four laboratories using
thermoluminescence and optically stimulated luminescence at
a depth of 10 ? 2.5 mm from the exposed brick surface agreed
within ?21%. After subtraction of the natural background
dose, the absorbed dose in brick due to contaminated river
sediments and banks was calculated and found to range
between 150 and 200 mGy. The cumulative doses in brick due
to man-made sources of radiation at 100 and 130 mm depths in
the bricks were also measured and found to be consistent with
depth dose profiles calculated by Monte Carlo simulations of
photon transport for possible source distributions.
Health Phys. 82(1):94–101; 2002
Key words: thermoluminescence dosimetry; contamination,
environmental; dose assessment; radiation dose
become an important field of research and development
in environmental science during the last 30 y. Applica-
tions started in areas affected by the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bombs (Higashimura et al. 1963; Roesch
1987), continued at the Nevada Test Site (Haskell et al.
1994), and the method was further developed by appli-
cations to areas affected by the Chernobyl accident (Hu ¨tt
et al. 1993; Bailiff 1999) and in regions contaminated by
the activities of the Mayak facilities along the Techa
River in Russia (Go ¨ksu et al. 1996; Bougrov et al. 1998;
Meckbach et al. 1996). The applications have been
further extended to other uncontrolled radiation incidents
like the stolen137Cs radiation source found in a house in
Estonia (IAEA 1998).
Solid-state dose reconstruction methods are proving
to be important tools for the assessment of doses to
populations as a result of radiation accidents and other
exposure situations when the source of radioactive envi-
ronmental contamination was not under proper control.
Luminescence dose reconstruction methods [thermolu-
minescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence
(OSL)] using quartz extracted from building bricks are
based on measurements of cumulative dose resulting
from exposure to ionizing radiation both from man made
and natural sources of radiation. Both techniques require
the subtraction of the cumulative radiation dose due to
natural sources of radiation.
The experimental procedures used in luminescence
dose reconstruction are based on the techniques origi-
nally developed for dating archaeological and geological
materials (Aitken 1990, 1998; McKeever 1985).
The refinements obtained in luminescence method-
ology of dose reconstruction in recent years is due to the
experience gained in application to the Chernobyl acci-
dent and also to improvement in measurement techniques
(Bailiff 1999; Bailiff et al. 2000; Bøtter-Jensen 1997).
The development of new dosimetric material such as
Al2O3:C and a better understanding of the kinetics of the
210°C TL peak made it possible to resolve small ab-
sorbed doses (e.g., 10–20 mGy) in the presence of
relatively larger (100 mGy) cumulative background
RECONSTRUCTION using solid-state dosimetry has
* GSF-National Research Centre for Environment and Health,
D-85764, Germany;†Urals Research Centre for Radiation Medicine,
Chelyabinsk 454076, Russia;‡University of Utah, 729 Arapeen Drive,
Salt Lake City, UT 84108;
Durham, DH1 3LE, UK; ** RISØ National Laboratory, DK 4000,
For correspondence or reprints contact: H. Y. Go ¨ksu, GSF-
Forschungszentrum fu ¨r Umwelt und Gesundheit, Institut fu ¨r Strahlen-
schutz, Ingolsta ¨dter Landstra?e 1 D-85764, Germany, or email at
(Manuscript received 18 January 2001; revised manuscript re-
ceived 29 June 2001, accepted 20 September 2001)
Copyright © 2002 Health Physics Society
§University of Durham, South Road,
††Dating Laboratory, University of Helsinki,
doses (Akselrod et al. 1990; Go ¨ksu et al. 1999; Bailiff
and Petrov 1999). Apart from the experimental tech-
niques, computational techniques developed (Meckbach
et al. 1996) based on Monte Carlo simulation of photon
transport in the environment of the sampling position
allow researchers to relate the measured absorbed dose in
bricks to the dose in air at a reference position, on which
the estimation of doses to population may be based.
Exposure of the population in the Southern Urals
occurred as a result of radionuclide releases to the
environment from the Mayak plutonium facility in the
1950’s. Discharges of liquid waste containing fission
products into the Techa River from 1949 to 1956 were
the major source of radioactive contamination of the
river and adjacent land. The residents of the villages
along the Techa (approximately 30,000 people) were
exposed to both external irradiation (mainly from con-
taminated river sediments and flood-plain soils) and
internal irradiation due to the ingestion of radionuclides
from drinking water and local food products. A dosim-
etry system named Techa River Dosimetry System
(TRDS) was developed to reconstruct individual doses
for members of exposed cohorts (Degteva et al. 2000).
Recent evaluation of available data on external doses
resulted in significantly lower estimates than the previ-
ously published TRDS values (Degteva et al. 1994). In
this latest work, solid state dosimetry methods were
applied to obtain an independent estimate of the doses to
the population in the lower Techa river area.
Preliminary results of TL studies in the Techa river
region presented in Go ¨ksu et al. (1996) and Bougrov et
al. (1998) indicated that the cumulative dose (Dx) due to
man-made sources of radiation in bricks extracted from
the Metlino mill located 7 km from the site of radioactive
releases reached 4–5 Gy and decreased with distance
downstream from the site of release. Feasibility has been
also demonstrated for use of luminescence methods for
environmental dose reconstruction in the middle Techa
region where the external exposure was relatively low
(Bougrov et al. 1998).
In this work, luminescence dose assessment for the
Muslyumovo site (70 km from the site of release)
performed by different laboratories using their preferred
method and procedures are presented and compared. In
all cases the dose determinations were made with quartz
extracted from sections of bricks at specific depths from
the exposed surface. The dose due to man-made sources
of radiation was determined at several depths in the brick
wall and compared with depth dose profiles calculated by
Monte Carlo simulations of photon transport for different
source configurations for radionuclides distributed on
flood plains and river shores.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Dose reconstruction using luminescence
The cumulated absorbed dose in brick (Dx), due to
radiation from contaminated river sediments and river
bank, is the difference between the cumulative dose (DL)
measured using TL or OSL and the background dose,
(DBG), due to naturally occurring radionuclides. This can
be expressed as
DX? DL? DBG
DBG? A?D?? D?? D?? Dcosm?
where, A is the age of the sample in years; D?, D?, and D?
are the alpha, beta, and gamma dose-rates (mGy y?1)
within the sampled volume associated with natural
sources of radioactivity; and Dcosmis the dose rate due to
Description of the samples
During a joint Russian-German field trip in the
summer of 1997, samples were collected at 5 locations
from two existing brick buildings (mill and water tower)
along the banks of the Techa River within the area of
Muslyumovo village (Fig. 1). Both buildings were lo-
cated on the right bank of the river close to the shore.
Sample 6(1) was collected for natural background dose
evaluation from the most shielded part of the partially
destroyed south-east corner of the wall (Fig. 2). The wall
Fig. 1. The map of the Muslyumovo village indicating the
positions of water tower and mill with respect to Techa river.
95International intercomparison of luminescence techniques●H. Y. GO ¨KSU ET AL.
was about 2 m thick, and brick was collected from the
middle of this wall. Sample 12 was taken from the wall
of the water tower facing to the river (Fig. 3). Samples
13a and 13b were collected from the north wall of the
mill partially facing the river (Fig. 4), and sample 14
was taken from the west wall of the mill facing also to
the river (Fig. 5). A brief description of the sample
locations and measured contemporary dose rates are
given in Table 1.
Four laboratories were involved in the measure-
ments of the samples. They are as follows: National
Research Centre for Environment and Health, Germany
(GSF); Centre for Applied Dosimetry, University of
Utah, USA (UTAH), Luminescence Dosimetry Labora-
tory, University of Durham, UK (DUR), and National
Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark (RISØ). Laboratories
received one-fourth of the same brick cut along the
depth; they applied different sample preparation tech-
niques and also their preferred method of absorbed dose
evaluation procedure, as described below.
Sample preparation and absorbed dose
The measurements were performed using quartz
grains extracted from cut sections of the bricks with the
grain size distribution preferred by each laboratory. All
the European laboratories used an RISØ semi-automated
luminescence reader for TL measurements. A heat-
absorbing filter HA-3 was used together with Blue
(Corning glass filters) BG-12 used by GSF and Durham.
Luminescence measurements at University of Utah were
carried out on a Daybreak/Utah TL reader equipped with
a 9635QA photomultiplier tube. TL emission was filtered
with 4-69 and 7-59 filters (Corning glass filters are
available from Kopp Glass Inc., 2108 Palmer Street,
Pittsburg, PA 15218). OSL measurements were also
performed on RISØ semi-automated readers using 1) a
broad-band blue-green stimulation light filtered from a
halogen lamp (RISØ & DUR); and 2) a blue light
emitting diode (RISØ) unit (Bøtter-Jensen et al. 1999).
Fig. 3. The view of water tower: The sample 12 at a height of 5 m
from ground level on the wall facing to the Techa river.
Fig. 5. The view of west facing wall of Muslyumovo mill where
sample 14 was collected.
Fig. 2. The view of the Muslyumovo mill with sample location
6(1): The sample is taken from the inner part (2 m thick) of the
corner of south and east walls.
Fig. 4. The view of north wall of Muslyumovo mill where sample
13a and 13b were collected.
96Health Physics January 2002, Volume 82, Number 1
The incident power was approximately 30 mW cm?2and
24 W m?2for the halogen and diode sources, respec-
tively, and the luminescence was detected through two
3-mm Hoya U-340 filters. European laboratories have
inter-calibrated their beta source (90Sr-90Y) against the
Secondary Standard Dosimetry
(Go ¨ksu et al. 1995). The dose accrued since manufacture
due to natural and man-made sources of radiation, DL,
was evaluated for each sample using different proce-
dures. Recent methodological developments of TL and
OSL dose reconstruction procedures used in U.S. and
European laboratories can be found in Bougrov et al.
(1998), Bailiff et al. (2000), and Haskell et al. (1999).
60Co facility at GSF
Natural background dose assessment (DBG)
The components of natural background dose (D??
D?? D?? Dcosm) in exposed bricks were determined
using a combination of measurement and calculation
based on a determination of the natural radioisotope
content of the bricks and their surrounding environment
and the cosmic ray dose-rate obtained from tables pub-
lished by Prescott and Stephan in 1982. The annual dose
rate due to alpha decay (D?) of uranium and thorium
series is neglected because all laboratories used quartz
grains larger than 100 ?m that are etched with HF acid to
eliminate the most upper surface of the grains effected by
alpha rays. The annual beta dose in brick was assessed
using ?-Al2O3:C beta luminescent dosimetry (Akselrod
et al. 1990; Go ¨ksu et al. 1999) and gamma ray spectrom-
etry techniques (Lloyd 1976; Haskell 1983). The annual
gamma and beta and gamma dose-rate were calculated
from measured uranium, thorium, and potassium content
to dose rate using published conversion tables (Nambi
and Aitken 1986; Bell 1979). The results were further
checked using accumulated dose obtained using lumines-
cence measurements with the bricks collected from the
most shielded locations of the building.
Monte Carlo simulations
Depth-dose profiles in brick walls were calculated
by Monte Carlo simulations of photon transport using the
code SAM-CE (Lichtenstein et al. 1979). A more de-
tailed description of such calculations has been given in
Meckbach et al. (1996) and Bougrov et al. (1998).
Assuming that the main contribution to absorbed dose
was due to radiation originating from137Cs of anthropo-
genic origin, the simulations were made for source
energy of 662 keV. The bricks were taken to have a
density of 1.8 g cm?3, and the sampling position was put
at a height of 2 m above ground level. The Monte Carlo
calculations were made for three following source con-
● for radionuclides deposited on the ground facing the
brick wall, to a distance of 100 m from the wall;
● for radionuclides distributed to a depth, expressed in
mass per unit area, of 6 g cm?1in the ground facing the
wall, to a distance of 100 m; and
● for radionuclides on the riverbank, distributed in the
ground to a depth of 10 g cm?1at a distance between
16 m and 18 m from the wall.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To determine the cumulative dose in brick (Dx) due
to contaminated river sediments and banks required the
subtraction of the cumulative absorbed dose due to
natural background radiation (DBG). According to histor-
ical records, the age of the mill and the water tower are
estimated to be 105 ? 10 and 55 ? 10 y, respectively
(Bougrov et al. 1998). The age of the mill was further
checked using bricks collected from the most highly
shielded locations within the walls. The cumulative dose
due to natural background radiation is calculated using
historical data and compared with luminescence mea-
surements performed on shielded bricks by GSF and
UTAH; the results are listed in Table 2. The natural
background doses calculated by GSF and UTAH for
bricks from the outer layer of exposed bricks for mill and
water tower are given in Table 3, and the results are
discussed below in detail. The cumulative dose (DL)
determined for bricks from the outer layers of exposed
walls of different buildings using various luminescence
techniques by four participating laboratories are given in
Table 1. Description of the sample locations and contemporary gamma dose rate measurements at sample site. The
measurements are performed using dose rate-meter (Automess, Type 6150 AD 1 with Gammasonde AD-18, Automation
and Messteknik GMBH Daimlerstra?e 27, D-68526 Germany).
Sample codeBuildingDescription of sample location
rate at sample
location, ?Sv h?1
6(1)MillInner part of SE corner of thick wall not facing the river
Outer part of wall facing the river; height 5 m; covered
1.5−2 cm mortar.
Outer part of north wall facing the river; height 1.47 m.
Inner part of north wall facing the river; background
(extending) brick located behind the outer brick (about 15
cm deep from surface of the wall).
Outer part of west wall facing the river; height 2.7 m;
covered 1.5−2 cm mortar.
97International intercomparison of luminescence techniques●H. Y. GO ¨KSU ET AL.
Confirmation of the age of the building using
As discussed above, luminescence measurements
were performed with sample 6(1), collected from the
inner part of the 2-m-thick southeast wall of the mill
shown in Fig. 2, to assess the natural background dose
(DBG). The absorbed dose (DBG) determination based on
TL by GSF and Utah (Table 2) was found to be in good
agreement, but the OSL measurements were found to be
21% higher then TL values. The cumulative dose (DL) in
above mentioned brick is also calculated using the
known age of 105 ? 10 y and the annual dose-rate based
on measurement of the natural radionuclide concentra-
tion of the bricks and the natural gamma dose rate from
surrounding environment and cosmic ray dose rate. It can
be seen in Table 2 that the determinations based on TL
measurements within ?5% error limits agree with the
calculated background dose derived from an age of
105 ? 10 y old brick and the background dose rates. The
OSL determinations, however, suggest that the mill
could be older than the historically known dates; further
investigation is needed to establish whether this is correct
or whether the OSL procedure applied gives rise to an
overestimate of the cumulative dose (DL).
Sample 13b, a brick located deeper in the wall,
behind an outer brick 13a was also selected to assess the
cumulative natural background dose (DBG) (Table 2). The
value of DLat a depth of 160 mm from the exposed
surface determined by TL and OSL was found to be on
average 231 ? 16 mGy (Table 2). This is in good
agreement with the calculated average of DBG(227 ? 38
mGy) based on the recorded age and the measured
natural radionuclide content measured by GSF and
UTAH. It should be pointed out here that the natural
Table 4. Cumulative dose (DL) determined for 10 ? 2.5 mm depth from the brick surface in exposed samples using TL
and OSL techniques by the participating laboratories. Also given is the average and standard deviation of the results.
Cumulative dose (DL), mGy
Sample 12 MethodSample 13aMethod Sample 14Method
297 ? 30
363 ? 30
336 ? 37
317 ? 32
306 ? 30
337 ? 39
395 ? 30
340 ? 21
395 ? 30
345 ? 30
410 ? 38
462 ? 30
440 ? 42
461 ? 27
444 ? 33
Std. Dev. (1 ?)
Table 2. Cumulative dose for highly shielded samples from the mill, calculated on the basis of natural background dose
rates and historical age and measured values obtained using luminescence techniques (DL).
Sample code Age (y)Laboratory
D?? D?? Dcosm
DL, measured using
6(1)105 ? 10GSF
2.28 ? 0.11
2.29 ? 0.11
2.29 ? 0.11
1.88 ? 0.09
2.42 ? 0.12
2.42 ? 0.12
239 ? 26
240 ? 26
240 ? 26
198 ? 21
254 ? 27
254 ? 27
231 ? 21 (TL)
240 ? 33 (TL)
300 ? 30 (OSL)
232 ? 19 (TL)
211 ? 17 (TL)
250 ? 30 (OSL)
13b105 ? 10
Table 3. Assessment by two laboratories of the natural background dose contribution to exposed samples based on
natural background dose rates and the age of samples. Also, given are the averages of the results of the laboratories.
Sample codeAge (y)Laboratory
55 ? 10GSF
2.09 ? 0.10
2.59 ? 0.13
2.34 ? 0.35
2.03 ? 0.10
2.08 ? 0.10
2.05 ? 0.02
2.58 ? 0.13
2.36 ? 0.12
2.47 ? 0.16
115 ? 22
142 ? 27
129 ? 27
213 ? 23
218 ? 23
216 ? 23
271 ? 28
248 ? 27
260 ? 28
105 ? 10
105 ? 10
98Health PhysicsJanuary 2002, Volume 82, Number 1
background dose calculated by the two laboratories was
in agreement only within 25%. The value of DLobtained
using OSL for this sample too was 15% higher than the
Determination dose in exposed brick due to
man-made source of radiation (DX)
The three exposed bricks (Samples 12, 13a, and 14;
Figs. 3, 4, and 5) were measured by all the participating
laboratories using their preferred TL and OSL proce-
dures (Table 4). The values of DLobtained were found to
be in good agreement. The standard deviation (? 1 ?)
calculated from the five measurements of all the labora-
tories is less than 10% and smaller than individual errors
of each laboratory. The depths given in Table 4 are the
distance from brick surface. It should also be noted that
samples 12 and 14 were covered with a mortar layer
(approximately 17 mm) at the time of sample collection.
However, it is not known whether this mortar layer had
been applied before the contamination of the river or at a
The natural background dose (DBG) of the exposed
samples was determined from the measurement of natu-
ral background dose rate and the age of the building by
two laboratories (GSF and UTAH). The natural back-
ground dose rate determined by both laboratories agrees
well for sample 13a, while for sample 12 the discrepancy
exceeds the limits of experimental error (Table 3). The
value for DBGwas taken to be the average of the two
determinations for each sample; the errors quoted take
into account the unresolved differences.
The cumulative dose (DX) due to man-made sources
of radiation for each brick was calculated by subtracting
the average value of DBGobtained by GSF and UTAH
from the measured absorbed dose (DL). The results are
given in Table 4 and Table 5. It can be seen that the
standard deviations of the average values for each sample
are substantially smaller than the uncertainties associated
with the individual laboratory determinations.
Cumulative dose measurements (DL) were also mea-
sured at deeper layers in the brick samples 12, 13a, and
14. In Table 6, values of DLfor the first layer are
compared with those values obtained for a deeper layer in
the brick as measured by GSF and RISØ. The depths are
given with respect to the outer surface of the brick.
Taking into account the mortar layer, the first brick layer
corresponds to an effective depth of 27 mm. After
subtraction of the respective cumulative natural back-
ground dose, the values of Dxfor the two depths were
obtained. As can be seen from Table 6, the uncertainties
associated with the values of Dxfor the deeper layers are
relatively very large due to the presence of high natural
background dose for these old bricks. In Table 6 the
ratios of Dxof the deeper layer relative to the first layer
are also included.
Depth dose distributions were calculated using
Monte Carlo simulations for the three-source configura-
tion. Fig. 6 shows the relative depth dose distribution in
Table 5. Cumulative dose due to man-made source of radiation (DX) for 10 ? 2.5 mm depth from the brick surface in
exposed samples obtained by the participating laboratories. Also given is the average and standard deviation (1 ?) of
Cumulative dose (DX), mGy
168 ? 40
234 ? 40
207 ? 46
188 ? 42
177 ? 40
121 ? 45
179 ? 40
124 ? 40
179 ? 40
129 ? 40
150 ? 47
202 ? 40
180 ? 50
201 ? 38
184 ? 43
Std. Dev. (1 ?)
Table 6. Cumulative doses, DLand DX, are given for the first layer
in the brick at (10 ? 2 mm) and 100 ? 5 mm and 130 ? 5 mm
depth from the exposed brick surface.
Depth from the exposed surface
10 ? 2100 ? 5
Sample 12; GSF, TL
297 ? 30
129 ? 27
168 ? 40
192 ? 21
129 ? 27
63 ? 34
0.37 ? 0.22
Depth from the exposed surface
10 ? 2 130 ? 5
Sample 13a; RISØ, OSL
395 ? 30
216 ? 23
179 ? 38
264 ? 24
216 ? 23
48 ? 33
0.27 ? 0.19
Depth from the exposed surface
10 ? 2130 ? 5
Sample 14; RISØ, OSL
462 ? 30
260 ? 28
202 ? 40
294 ? 28
260 ? 28
34 ? 39
0.17 ? 0.20
99International intercomparison of luminescence techniques●H. Y. GO ¨KSU ET AL.
comparison with ratios determined by luminescence
measurements as given in Table 6. Calculated ratios of
cumulative dose due to man made sources of radiation
(Dx) for layers at several depths for the three source
configurations are shown in Table 7. For each source
configuration, the ratios are given with respect to the
layer at 10 mm and 27 mm. This allows for a direct
comparison with the ratios determined by measurement
as given in Table 6.
The depth-dose profile for radioinuclides distributed
on the ground facing the wall is less steep (i.e., the ratios
are larger) than the profile for radionuclides distributed in
the ground to a given depth. Even less steep is the profile
corresponding to radionuclides distributed on the river
banks at some distance from the wall. It should be noted
that the range of variability of the ratios is up to almost
50% for the deeper layers. It can be seen that the
measured ratio (DX?100/DX?10) of 0.37 ? 0.22 for sample
12 and (DX?130/DX?10) of 0.27 ? 0.19 for sample 13 fall
into the range of ratios calculated for the three source
configurations. The uncertainty associated with the mea-
sured ratios does not allow discrimination between which
type of source configuration contributed most to the
absorbed dose due to man-made sources of radiation but
can be used to check the internal consistency of the
results. As can be seen for sample 14, the ratio (DX?130/
DX?10) of 0.17 ? 0.20 determined by experiments falls
slightly below the calculated range, which may be due to
over estimation of the natural background dose (Fig. 6).
This conclusion remains valid even if samples 12 and 14
are assumed to be covered by 17 mm mortar.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The cumulative dose (DL) in bricks from Muslyu-
movo village has been measured independently by three
laboratories from Europe and one laboratory from the
U.S. using luminescence methods (TL and OSL). After
subtracting the cumulative natural background dose
(DBG), which is a significant part of the measured
cumulative dose for the samples tested, the absorbed
dose in brick due to radioactive releases between 1949–
1956 from MAYAK plutonium production facilities in
Russia (DX) was found to be in the range 146 mGy to 195
mGy for samples taken from the village. The standard
deviations (?1 ?) of dose determinations (DL) using
different TL and OSL procedures is less than ?10% of
the average of the TL and OSL results obtained indepen-
dently by different laboratories. It is further observed that
the average of doses (DL) of background samples (sample
6 and 13b) measured using TL are systematically approx-
imately 10% lower than doses obtained using OSL
(Table 2). Further investigations are in progress for the
clarification of this discrepancy (Go ¨ksu et al. 2001).
It should be noted that the luminescence data have to
be carefully analyzed before they are finally used to
calculate the dose to a reference point. It is also shown
that cumulative dose measured at various depths (i.e., Dx
at 100 and 130 mm) can be used to check the internal
consistency of the results.
In this work it is shown that luminescence (TL and
OSL) techniques can resolve doses as low as 100 mGy
using bricks as old as 60–100 y old, which can be then
be converted to dose in air at a reference location to
assess doses to certain groups or populations taking into
account their habits of daily life.
Acknowledgments—The work presented here is partially funded by Com-
mission of the European Communities under contract F14 P CT 95 00 11d
and INCO-COPERNICUS projects, IC 15 CT 960305 and IC 15-0315,
within the Radiation Protection Research Action and by the respective
Fig. 6. Relative depth dose profiles calculated by Monte Carlo
simulations for three source configurations and the ratio of doses
obtained from luminescence measurements for samples 12, 13 and
Table 7. Ratio of DXat several depths in the brick wall to the DXat 10 and 27 mm depth calculated by Monte Carlo
simulations for the three source geometries.
Depth from the exposed surface (mm)
10 mm 27 mm 117 mm130 mm 147 mm
Radionuclides on the ground1 0.80
Radionuclides distributed to a depth of 6 g cm?2
Radionuclides at river shore at 16 m distance1
100 Health PhysicsJanuary 2002, Volume 82, Number 1
institutions of the authors. The U.S. laboratory participating in this work is Download full-text
partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Interna-
tional Health Studies.
Aitken, M. J. Science-based dating in archaeology. London and
New York: Longman Archaeology Series; 1990.
Aitken, M. J. An introduction to optical dating. London:
Oxford Science Publications; 1998.
Akselrod, M. S.; Kortov, V. S.; Kravetsky, D. J.; Gotlib, V. I.
Highly sensitive thermoluminescent anion defect a-Al2O3:
single crystal detector. Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 32:15–20;
Bailiff, I. K. The development of retrospective luminescence
dosimetry for dose reconstruction in areas downwind of
Chernobyl. Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 84:411–419; 1999.
Bailiff, I. K.; Petrov, S. A. The use of the 210°C TL peak in
quartz for retrospective dosimetry. Radiat. Protect. Dosim.
Bailiff, I. K.; Bøtter-Jensen, L.; Correcher, A.; Delgado, A.;
Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Jungner, H.; Petrov, S. A. Absorbed dose
evaluations in retrospective dosimetry: methodological de-
velopments using quartz. Radiat. Measurements 32:609–
Bell, W. T. Thermoluminescence dating: radiation dose-rate
data. Archaeometry 21:243–245; 1979.
Bøtter-Jensen, L. Luminescence techniques: instrumentation
and methods. Radiat. Measurements 27:749–768; 1997.
Bøtter-Jensen, L.; Duller, G. A. T.; Murray, A. S.; Banerjee, D.
Blue light emitting diodes for optical stimulation of quartz
in retrospective dosimetry and dating. Radiat. Protect.
Dosim. 84:335–340; 1999.
Bøtter-Jensen, L.; McKeever, S. W. S. Optically stimulated
luminescence dosimetry using natural and synthetic mate-
rials. Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 65:273–280; 1996.
Bougrov, N. G.; Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Haskell, E.; Degteva, M. O.;
Meckbach, R.; Jacob, P. Issues in the reconstruction of
environmental doses on the basis of thermoluminescence
measurements in the Techa Riverside. Health Phys.
Degteva, M. O.; Kozheurov, V. P.; Vorobiova, M. I. General
approach to dose reconstruction in the population exposed
as a result of the release of radioactive wastes into the Techa
River. Sci. Tot. Envir. 142:49–61; 1994.
Degteva, M. O.; Vorobiova, M. I.; Kozheurov, V. P.; Tolstykh,
E. I.; Anspaugh, L. R.; Napier, B. A. Dose reconstruction
system for the exposed population living along the Techa
River. Health Phys. 78:542–554; 2000.
Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Bailiff, I. K.; Bøtter-Jensen, L.; Hu ¨tt, G.;
Stoneham, D. Inter-laboratory beta source calibration using
TL and OSL with natural quartz. Radiat. Measurements
Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Heide, L. M.; Bougrov, N. G.; Dalheimer, A. R.;
Meckbach, R.; Jacob, P. Depth-dose distribution in bricks
determined by thermoluminescence and by Monte-Carlo
calculation for external ?-dose reconstruction. Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 47:433–440; 1996.
Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Bulur, E.; Wahl, W. Beta dosimetry using thin
layer ?-Al2O3:C TL detectors. Radiat. Protect. Dosim.
Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Schwenk, P.; Semiochkina, N. Investigation of
the thermal stability of 210°C TL peak of quartz and dating
the components of terrazzo from the monastery church of
Tegernsee. Radiat. Measurements 33:785–792; 2001.
Haskell, E. Beta dose-rate determination: preliminary results
from interlaboratory comparison techniques. PACT 9:77–
Haskell, E. H.; Bailiff, I. K.; Kenner, G. H.; Kaipa, P. L.;
Wrenn, M. E. Thermoluminescence measurements of
gamma-ray doses attributable to fallout from the Nevada
Test Site using building bricks as natural dosemeters. Health
Phys. 66:380–391; 1994.
Haskell, E.; Difley, R.; Kenner, G.; Hayes, R.; Snyder, K.;
Gustafson, D. A comparison of optically stimulated lumi-
nescence dating methods applied to eolian sands from the
Mojave Desert in southern Nevada. Quaternary Sci. Re-
views 18:235–242; 1999.
Higashimura, T.; Ichikawa, Y.; Sidei, T. Dosimetry of atomic
bomb radiation in Hiroshima by thermoluminescence of
roof tiles. Science 139:1284–1285; 1963.
Hu ¨tt, G.; Brodski, L.; Bailiff, I. K.; Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Haskell, E.;
Jungner, H.; Stoneham, D. Accident dosimetry using envi-
ronmental materials collected from regions downwind of
Chernobyl: A preliminary evaluation. Radiat. Protect. Do-
sim. 47:307–311; 1993.
International Atomic Energy Agency. The radiological acci-
dent in Estonia (November 1995). Vienna: IAEA; IAEA
Accident Report Series; 1998.
Lichtenstein, H.; Cohen, M.; Steinberg, H.; Troubetzkoy, E.;
Beer, M. The SAM-CE Monte Carlo system for radiation
transport and criticality calculations in complex configura-
tions (revision 7.0). In: A computer code manual. Elmsfort,
NY: Mathematical Application Group Inc.; 1979.
Lloyd, R. Gamma ray emitters in concrete. Health Phys.
McKeever, S. W. S. Thermoluminescence of solids. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985.
Meckbach, R.; Bailiff, I. K.; Go ¨ksu, H. Y.; Jacob, P.; Stone-
ham, D. Calculation and measurement of dose-depth distri-
bution in bricks. Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 66:183–186; 1996.
Nambi, K. S. V.; Aitken, M. J. Annual dose conversion factors
for TL and ESR dating. Archaeometry 28:202; 1986.
Prescott, J.; Stephan, L. The contribution of cosmic radiation to
the environmental dose for thermoluminescent dating.
PACT 6:17–25; 1982.
Roesch, W. C. US–Japan joint reassessment of atomic bomb
radiation dosimetry in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, final report.
DS86 Dosimetry System 1986. In: Roesch, W. C., ed.
Radiation measurements Vols. 1 and 2. Hiroshima, Japan:
The Radiation Effects Research Foundation; 1987.
101International intercomparison of luminescence techniques●H. Y. GO ¨KSU ET AL.