Optically Stimulated Luminescence E-Book

Eduardo G. Yukihara

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 701

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Optically stimulated luminescence has developed into one of the leading optical techniques for the measurement and detection of ionizing radiation. This text covers, in a readable manner, advanced modern applications of the technique, how it can play a useful role in different areas of dosimetry and how to approach the challenges presented when working with optically stimulated luminescence.

The six chapters are as follows:

• Introduction, including a short history of OSL and details of successful applications
• Theory and Practical Aspects
• Personal Dosimetry
• Space Dosimetry
• Medical Dosimetry
• Other Applications and Concepts, including retrospective and accident dosimetry, environmental monitoring and UV dosimetry

Throughout the book, the underlying theory is discussed on an as-needed basis for a complete understanding of the phenomena, but with an emphasis of the practical applications of the technique. The authors also give background information and relevant key references on each method, inviting the reader to explore deeper into the subject independently.

Postgraduates, researchers, and those involved with radiation dosimetry will find this book particularly useful. The material is both relevant and accessible for both specialists and those new to the field, therefore is fundamental to any academic interested in modern advances of the subject.

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Dedication

Preface

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer

List of Acronyms

1: Introduction

1.1 A Short History of Optically Stimulated Luminescence

1.2 Brief Description of Successful Applications

1.3 The Future

2: Theory and Practical Aspects

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Basic Aspects of the OSL Phenomenon

2.3 OSL Readout

2.4 Instrumentation

2.5 Available OSL Readers

2.6 Complementary Techniques

2.7 Overview of OSL Materials

3: Personal Dosimetry

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Quantities of Interest

3.3 Dosimetry Considerations

3.4 Detectors

3.5 Dosimetry Systems

3.6 Neutron-Sensitive OSL Detectors

4: Space Dosimetry

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Space Radiation Environment

4.3 Quantities of Interest

4.4 Health Risk

4.5 Evaluation of Dose in Space Radiation Fields Using OSLDs (and TLDs)

4.6 Applications

4.7 Future Directions

5: Medical Dosimetry

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Radiation Fields in Medical Dosimetry

5.3 Practical OSL Aspects Applied to Medical Dosimetry

5.4 Optical-Fiber OSL Systems for Real-time Dosimetry

5.5 Properties of Al2O3:C OSL Detectors for Medical Applications

5.6 Clinical Applications

6: Other Applications and Concepts

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Retrospective and Accident Dosimetry

6.3 Environmental Monitoring

6.4 UV Dosimetry

6.5 Integrated Sensors

6.6 Passive/Active Devices

6.7 Other Potential Security Applications

References

Index

Color Plate

This edition first published 2011© 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Registered officeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. The fact that an organization or Website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or a potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or Website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that Internet Websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Yukihara, Eduardo G. Optically stimulated luminescence : fundamentals and applications / Eduardo G. Yukihara and Stephen WS. McKeever. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-69725-2 (cloth) - ISBN 978-0-470-97705-7 (ePDF) - ISBN 978-0-470-97706-4 (ebook) 1. Optically stimulated luminescence dating. 2. Radiation dosimetry. I. McKeever, S.W. S., 1950- II. Title. QE508.Y85 2011 535′.356-dc22 2010037269

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Print ISBN: 978-0-470-69725-2ePDF ISBN: 978-0-470-97705-7oBook ISBN: 978-0-470-97706-4ePub ISBN: 978-0-470-97721-7

To Stefanie, my music, my silence

To Joan and our wonderful daughters, Katie and Alison.

Preface

This book was born from our combined years exploring the use of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) in different areas of radiation dosimetry with a seemingly unending curiosity about the physics of the process and our aspirations and dreams concerning potential applications. We wished to learn about and understand the challenges presented by the many different areas of dosimetry and how OSL could play a useful role and, of course, we hoped that we would make meaningful contributions to the field. The book is an attempt to share our collective experience and organize the available information concerning the different areas of application of the OSL technique. We made a conscious effort to place the material in context and make it useful for a wide audience. In each chapter we have tried to set the stage for more meaningful discussions of the OSL technique by providing background information (though by no means exhaustive) and relevant key references. On some occasions new illustrations or graphs were created to better illustrate the ideas and explanations.

We recognize that to some readers the background information in each chapter may appear over-simplified, especially for specialists in the respective fields. This brings us to the discussion of the intended audience of this book. We tried to make the book both relevant and accessible: relevant for the specialist by providing topical information, and accessible to those without expertise in these particular areas by including important fundamental aspects. We often thought of our audience as students or postdoctoral fellows that have just joined a research laboratory, not necessarily having worked in these areas beforehand. What would we like them to know before they engage in their research activities? It is obvious that one text cannot provide all answers and details, but we hope our book gives readers a general overview of the current problems and an initial reference point before they submerge themselves in the more specialized literature.

Acknowledgments

Our gratitude first goes to Safa Kasap, who first mentioned the notion of the book to one of us while we were attending an international conference together. The task of writing a book is not to be taken lightly, involving as it does many unsociable and apparently endless hours of hard work. Safa’s kind persistence paid off, however, and there is no doubt that without it the book would never have been started.

We are extremely grateful for the time and attention dedicated by several people in reading the manuscript and for their critical and insightful comments. Gabriel Sawakuchi’s expertise in medical and space dosimetry, as well as his unselfish dedication, was extremely helpful and resulted in several revisions to the manuscript, improving it immeasurably. We also received very useful comments and suggestions from Gregoire Denis, Oliver Hanson, Emico Okuno and Matthew Rodriguez.

We also thank colleagues and collaborators who contributed with discussion, data, figures and pre-prints, including: Claus Andersen, Eric Benton, Enver Bulur, Ramona Gaza, Razvan Gaza, Carla da Costa Guimaraes, Regina DeWitt, H. Y. Goksu, Elizabeth Inrig, David Klein, Gladys Klemic, Matthew Rodriguez, Gabriel Sawakuchi, Kristina Thomsen and Clemens Woda.

Finally, we thank our collaborators who, throughout our careers, have provided wisdom, direction, support and encouragement. They opened opportunities for collaboration in so many different areas, on so many different problems. It has been a pleasure and a delight to work with such clever and capable people. They are too many to mention without risk of leaving someone out by mistake. They know who they are and so we hope they accept this general acknowledgment as an expression of our gratitude.

E. G. Yukihara and S. W. S. McKeever

Disclaimer

Reference to commercial products do not imply or represent endorsement of those products on the part of the authors. The authors have been funded by Landauer Inc. for different projects over the past decade or more.

List of Acronyms

AAPMAmerican Association of Physicists in MedicineALARAas low as reasonably achievableCCDcharge-coupled deviceCPEcharged particle equilibriumCTcomputed tomographyCTDIcomputed tomography dose indexCW-OSLcontinuous wave optically stimulated luminescenceDOSLdelayed optically stimulated luminescenceEPRelectron paramagnetic resonanceERBEarth’s radiation beltsESTROEuropean Society for Therapeutic Radiology and OncologyGCRgalactic cosmic raysHCPheavy charged particleHTRhigh temperature ratioHZEhigh-charge (Z)-high-energyIAEAInternational Atomic Energy AgencyICCHIBANIntercomparison of dosimetric instruments for cosmic radiation with heavy ion beams at NIRSICRPInternational Commission on Radiological ProtectionIECInternational Electrotechnical CommissionIMRTintensity modulated radiation therapyIMPTintensity modulated proton therapyIRinfraredIRSLinfrared stimulated luminescenceISOInternational Organization for StandardizationISSInternational Space StationLEDlight emitting diodeLETlinear energy transferLM-OSLlinear modulation optically stimulated luminescenceNCRPNational Council on Radiation Protection and MeasurementsOSL/PSLoptically stimulated luminescence/photostimulated luminescenceOSLD/TLDOSL/TL dosimeter1OTORone trap-one recombination center (model)PMTphotomultiplier tubePNTDplastic nuclear track detectorPOSLpulsed optically stimulated luminescenceRBErelative biological effectivenessRLradioluminescenceSOBPspread out Bragg peakSPEsolar particle eventTL/TSLthermoluminescence/thermally stimulated luminescenceUVultravioletWHOWorld Health OrganizationYAGyttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12)

1’OSLD’ has been used in the literature for ’optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter’ and ’optically stimulated luminescence detector’ indiscriminately. In this book we used OSLD for ’optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter’ and tried to be more precise in the use of the terms ’dosimeter’ and ’detector’ (see definitions in Table 3.1). However, in some cases such distinction is not necessary and OSLD can be used for both OSL ’dosimeter’ and ’detector’ without detriment to the understanding. The same discussion applies for ’TLD.’

1

Introduction

1.1 A Short History of Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Twelfthly, To satisfie my self, whether the Motion introduc’d into the Stone did generate the Light upon the account of its producing heat there, I held it near the Flame of a Candle, till it was qualify’d to shine pretty well in the Dark….

—Boyle, 1664

The readers of this book may find it unusual to start a text with the word “Twelfthly.” The above quotation is from a lively description of an experiment performed by Sir Robert Boyle, and the quoted text describes one (the 12th) of several experiments conducted by this seventeenth-century luminary on a piece of diamond loaned to him for the purpose. This prose, presented by Boyle to the Royal Society of London in October of 1663, concerns the phenomenon of thermoluminescence and Boyle’s colorful account is now widely regarded as the first written description of its observation (Boyle, 1664). Thermoluminescence. (TL) – also known (perhaps more accurately) as thermally stimulated luminescence – is one of a set of properties collectively known as “thermally stimulated phenomena. ” (Chen and McKeever, 1997). Boyle (1680), as cited by Bender and Marriman (2005), used the beautifully descriptive term “self-shining” to describe the phenomenon of luminescence. , but the modern term (and, indeed, the first use of the word “thermoluminescence”) is attributed to Eilhardt Wiedemann in his comprehensive studies of a variety of luminescence phenomena: “I have ventured to employ the term luminescence for all those phenomena of light which are more intense than corresponds to the actual temperature” (Wiedemann, 1889; quote from the Oxford English Dictionary, 1997 edition).

Thermoluminescence. (TL) refers to the process of stimulating, using thermal energy, the emission of luminescence from a substance following the absorption of energy from an external source by that substance. The usual source of external energy is ionizing radiation. and, as such, TL is closely related to phosphorescence. , which is the afterglow emitted from a substance after the absorption of external energy. (See Harvey (1957) for a comprehensive review of the early literature on this topic. A more modern discussion of TL and its relationship to phosphorescence can be found in Chen and McKeever (1997). Early studies of these phenomena were closely connected with the discovery of radioactivity and the external energy source in these early studies was invariably some form of ionizing radiation, from X-rays, an electron beam or a radioactive substance.

Optically stimulated luminescence. (OSL) is a related phenomenon in which the luminescence is stimulated by the absorption of optical energy, rather than thermal energy. It is difficult to identify when studies of OSL (or, as it is also known, photostimulated luminescence. , PSL) were first described in the literature. However, certainly the phenomenon was hinted at when initially Edmond Becquerel (1843) and then Henri Becquerel (1883) observed that the phosphorescence from zinc and calcium sulfides was quenched if these materials were exposed to infrared illumination after exposure to an ionizing radiation source. These and other similar observations around this time (Harvey, 1957) noted that the infrared illumination could either increase or decrease the intensity of the phosphorescence. Harvey (1957) reports that Henri Becquerel clearly observed an initial increase in luminescence output on application of the infrared light. The term “photophosphorescence” first appeared to describe these effects some years later (viz. 1889, as cited in The Century Dictionary, 1889 edition). Nichols and Merritt (1912) also noted that infrared stimulation can increase the luminescence output before rapidly quenching the phosphorescence and discussed the phenomenon in terms of Wiedemann and Schmidt’s “electric dissociation” theory, involving the separation of positive and negative charges induced by the absorption of radiation energy (Wiedemann and Schmidt, 1895). Already one can discern the glimmerings of the modern interpretation, which involves ionization of electrons from their parent atoms, despite the fact that these early ideas were formulated before the advent of quantum mechanics. and band structure theory..

At this point it is perhaps important to distinguish these effects from the property of “photoluminescence. .” The latter phenomenon describes prompt luminescence emission (or fluorescence) emitted during absorption of the stimulation light. No prior absorption of energy from an external ionizing source is necessary. A notable property of photoluminescence is that the emitted light is of a longer wavelength than that of the stimulation light. Furthermore, the lifetime of photoluminescence emission is such that it decays promptly upon cessation of the stimulation. Emission wavelengths in photophosphorescence, however, can be either longer or shorter than the stimulation wavelength, and the emission generally persists for seconds or minutes after the end of the stimulation period. Many examples of photophosphorescence are referred to in the early literature, but part of the difficulty in determining when reports of the phenomenon first appeared relates to the lack of understanding at that time of the physics of luminescence in general. As pointed out by Marfunin (1979), unlike other physical phenomena being studied in the early centuries, a complete understanding of luminescence requires an understanding of quantum mechanics, a field that was not born until the early decades of the twentieth century. Knowledge of quantized energy levels, band structure, and radiative and non-radiative electronic transitions was yet in the future. As a result critical experiments were perhaps not performed or the descriptions of them were vague such that easy identification of the phenomenon being studied is not always clear from the early literature.

Nevertheless, by the mid-twentieth century the understanding that free electrons in delocalized bands were involved in the phosphorescence process was beginning to emerge. As discussed by Leverenz (1950), a debate at that time concerned the connection between photoconductivity. and photophosphorescence. Work on sulfide materials (CdS, ZnS) demonstrated that the growth during stimulation and the decay after stimulation of both photoconductivity and photophophorescence were similar in many cases, although other materials seemed to show that a one-to-one connection was not always the case (e.g. Bube, 1951). Nevertheless, a picture emerged that photophosphorescence from those materials for which the luminescence decay was characterized by a t−n law (where t is time and n is usually between ∼0.5 and ∼2.0) required photostimulated conduction involving free charge carriers in conduction states.

Leverenz (1949) also discusses how infrared light can both quench the phosphorescence or stimulate it. Figure 1.1 illustrates a sequence of possible luminescence events in a complex phosphor made from Sr(S,Se):SrSO4:CaF2:Sm:Eu, as described by Leverenz (1949). Yellow luminescence is emitted during initial excitation with blue light, followed by a rapid decay (fluorescence, or photoluminescence) along with a component with a longer, slower decay (phosphorescence). However, if the material is then subsequently stimulated with infrared light, there is enhanced luminescence (growth and decay), the decay time for which can be rapidly reduced and the luminescence quenched by changing to shorter wavelength illumination (orange).

Figure 1.1 The sequence of luminescence emission from Sr(S,Se):SrSO4:CaF2:Sm:Eu. The luminescence during periods (c) and (d) are what we now term optically stimulated luminescence (Schematic redrawing of Figure 3 from Leverenz (1949).)

Even though the same emitting center is being activated in the sequence of luminescence emissions illustrated in Figure 1.1, the observed decay times can vary considerably, depending upon whether or not the sample is being optically stimulated and, if so, the intensity and wavelength(s) chosen. Leverenz (1949) notes: “The emitting center loses control over τ” (the luminescence decay time) “when the energy storage of phosphors consists of trapped excited electrons or metastable states, for then additional activation energy must be supplied to release the trapped electrons.” He goes on to state: “This activation energy may be supplied by heat … or it may be supplied by additional photons …” In these early descriptions of photophosphorescence can be found the essential elements of the phenomenon that we now term optically stimulated luminescence. Namely, after irradiation with the primary ionizing source, energy may be stored in the material in the form of trapped charge carriers (electrons and holes). Release of the trapped charge can then be stimulated by the absorption of optical photons of appropriate wavelength, resulting in luminescence emission. The emission decays with a time constant dictated by the wavelength and intensity of the stimulation light, and the characteristics of the trapping states in the material. This understanding of the processes involved was used by Schulman et al. (1951) and Mandeville and Albrecht (1953) to describe the luminescence emitted from alkali halides during optical stimulation following initial gamma irradiation, although OSL was not the term used by these authors. Indeed, nomenclature was still being developed, with Mandeville and Albrecht calling the effect “photostimulation phosphorescence. ,” or alternately “co-stimulation phosphorescence. ,” while Schulman et al. preferred the more descriptive (and more accurate) term “radiophotostimulation. .” Albrecht and Mandeville (1956) used the term “photostimulated emission” when describing what we now know as OSL from X-irradiated BeO. Harvey (1957) discusses the original 1843 observation of E. Becquerel and notes how this effect “could be called photo-stimulation, analogous to thermostimulation, that is thermoluminescence.” (See Table 1.1.)

Table 1.1 Some early nomenclature, along with the date of first introduction and author(s), for what is now known as optically stimulated luminescence.

Description of the PhenomenonName of the PhenomenonAuthor, and Date of First IntroductionLight stimulated transfer of electrons from deep traps to shallow traps followed by phosphorescencePhotophosphorescence Delayed optically stimulated luminescenceUnidentifieda (1889) Yoder and Salasky (1997)Light stimulated release of electrons from deep traps followed by radiative recombination and subsequent luminescenceRadiophotostimulation Photostimulation phosphorescence Co-stimulation phosphorescence Photostimulated emission Optically stimulated luminescenceSchulman et al. (1951) Mandeville and Albrecht (1953) Mandeville and Albrecht (1953) Albrecht and Mandeville (1956) Fowler (1963)a The term is first cited in The Century Dictionary, 1889 edition.

Considering these similar terms used to describe the effect it is perhaps not surprising to discover that the first use of the modern term, optically stimulated luminescence OSL, appeared in the published literature a few years later. Fowler (1963) uses the term when describing a paper that is generally taken to be the first reported use of (what Fowler refers to as) OSL in radiation dosimetry. Antonov-Romanovsky et al. (1955) monitored the intensity of infrared-stimulated luminescence from various sulfides, after irradiation, and the intensity of the emitted light was used as a monitor of the dose of initial radiation. Although this is certainly one of the earliest examples of the use of OSL in radiation dosimetry, this now-famous 1956 paper refers to work by the same authors (published in Russian) from a few years earlier, in the 1949–1951 era. Nevertheless, despite these early applications, there was a hiatus of more than a decade before this pioneering work was followed by similar studies, notably by Braünlich, Schaffer and Scharmann (1967) and Sanborn and Beard (1967), working with irradiated sulfides. The work of this period even led to a US patent by Wallack (1959) in which was claimed the invention of an OSL gamma radiation dosimeter and system for reading the OSL signal using sulfide materials. Even then, however, OSL still did not catch on as a dosimetry tool; the cause lay in the materials being studied.

The fact that the sulfide materials used by these early pioneers could be stimulated with infrared (IR) light pointed to the fact that the trapped charge was localized in energy levels that were relatively shallow with respect to the delocalized bands, requiring a small de-trapping (activation) energy. This in turn meant that the trapped electrons were unstable at room temperature and decayed through the process of thermal stimulation (and subsequent phosphorescence emission). Thus, the dosimetric signal (i.e. the infrared stimulated luminescence signal) was found to decay with time between the initial absorption of radiation and the time of IR stimulation – a process now commonly referred to as “fading. .” As a result, OSL dosimetry was slow to be adopted, primarily for lack of suitable materials.

Slowly, however, the published literature began to accumulate descriptions of studies on optically stimulated luminescence effects in a variety of other material types. Most of the studies in this period (the 1970s, 1980s and even into the 1990s) reverted back to the use of photophosphorescence, as practitioners experimented with the optical stimulated transfer of electrons from deep, stable traps, into shallow, unstable traps. The goal was to monitor the subsequent phosphorescence as the charge leaked away from the shallow traps before recombining at the emission sites and to use this as a measure of absorbed dose. The materials used in this period, however, were wide-band-gap insulator. s, such as BeO (Rhyner and Miller, 1970; Tochilin, Goldstein and Miller, 1969), CaF2 (Bernhardt and Herforth, 1974), CaSO4 (Pradhan and Ayyanger, 1977; Pradhan and Bhatt, 1981) and Al2O3 (Yoder and Salasky, 1997). (The last work led to coining a new term for photophosphorescence, namely “delayed OSL. .”) Although photoconducting, narrow-band-gap material. s were still studied intensely, focus for dosimetry began to shift away from these materials to wide-band-gap insulating materials with deep, stable traps.

The major breakthrough for use of OSL in dosimetry emerged in a related but quite different area of science – in the world of archeological and geological dating. During the 1980s an effort to establish OSL as a dosimetric tool was taking place in the archaeometric. community. Huntley and colleagues (Huntley, Godfrey-Smith and Thewalt, 1985) used OSL from natural quartz to estimate the dose absorbed by this mineral in nature. Through an estimation of the natural dose rate (from natural quantities of uranium, thorium and potassium, as well as cosmic radiation), an estimate of the age of the mineral deposit could be made. This development created a new chronometric tool and at the same time opened an entirely new research field. OSL dating. (or “optical dating. ”; Aitken, 1998) is now an established chronometric method (Bøtter-Jensen, McKeever and Wintle, 2003), but the importance from the point of view of radiation dosimetry is that it demonstrated that OSL could be used with stable, wide-band-gap insulators to determine radiation doses accumulated over millennia. Photophosphorescence was not employed; rather the preferred process being exploited was the direct stimulation of electrons from deep traps, through the conduction band, to recombine with trapped holes at activator sites leading to OSL. As a result, fading was not an issue.

The second major development in establishing OSL as a mainstream dosimetry tool was driven by a further advance in material technology. Anion-deficient Al2O3, doped with carbon, was developed at the Urals Polytechnical Institute in Russia for use as a sensitive thermoluminescence dosimetry material (Akselrod and Kortov, 1990). However, although Al2O3:C proved to be an exceptionally sensitive TL detector it also proved to be sensitive to light such that exposure to sunlight or room light caused light-induced fading of the main TL signal. This led to a study by the group at Oklahoma State University of the effects of light stimulation, rather than thermal stimulation, on the luminescence properties of irradiated Al2O3:C (Markey, Colyott and McKeever, 1995). An added bonus was the fact that performing the optical stimulation at or near room temperature meant that the sample did not have to be heated (as in TL) and thus thermal quenching effects, which limited the TL sensitivity of the material, could be entirely avoided. In parallel, work on OSL from Al2O3:C was underway at Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories in the USA and several US patents emerged at this time (Miller, 1996, 1998). It was perhaps inevitable that Al2O3:C should then emerge as the most popular OSL radiation dosimetry material and the only one to date to be successfully commercialized (see www.landauerinc.com).

While OSL dosimetry is unlikely to displace TL dosimetry as the primary luminescence dosimetry method, and while discussions of the pros and cons of each method can be found in the literature (McKeever and Moscovitch, 2003), one major difference between TL and OSL is the fact that a number of different optical stimulation schemes can be adopted for the latter method. The original work of Huntley, Godfrey-Smith and Thewalt (1985) used continuous stimulation of the sample with a constant light intensity – a stimulation scheme now known as continous-wave OSL. (CW-OSL). Akselrod, McKeever and colleagues, however, adopted a new scheme using pulsed stimulation, giving rise to pulsed OSL. , or POSL (Akselrod and McKeever, 1999; McKeever et al., 1996a). The critical feature of POSL is the need to stimulate the sample with optical pulse widths that are shorter than the luminescence lifetime of the emission center being activated in the luminescence process. The lifetime of luminescence emission from Al2O3:C is (a long) 35 ms and thus this material lends itself easily to this stimulation scheme. Since the luminescence decays over a period significantly longer than the pulse width (typically 100 ns duration) the luminescence can be monitored between stimulation pulses, not during them. This in turn enables easier separation of the stimulation light from the emission light. Other stimulation schemes include a linear ramp of the stimulation intensity, giving rise to LM-OSL, or linear-modulation OSL. (Bulur, 1996). Additional stimulation schemes can easily be envisioned (exponential, sinusoidal, etc.; Bos and Wallinga, 2009).

The twin development of OSL as a tool for radiation dosimetry, primarily based on Al2O3:C, and OSL dating, primarily (at least initially) based on crystalline natural quartz, has led to enormous growth in the number of OSL publications emerging over the past decade. A simple search on Google Scholar for articles containing the words “optically stimulated luminescence” between 2000 and 2009 reveals 22 270 articles. A search without date restriction shows 25 200 articles. Perhaps of even more interest is the growth in the number of such articles over the past two decades, as shown in Figure 1.2. Finally we may note that a word search on Google finds about 2 850 000 entries containing the phrase “optically stimulated luminescence” (as of the date of this writing). The world of stimulated luminescence has come a long way since Boyle’s notation of the “self-shining” and “glimmering light” from natural diamond.

Figure 1.2 The number of references to optically stimulated luminescence found in a web search on Google Scholar, by year.

1.2 Brief Description of Successful Applications

As noted above, one of the key developments in the acceptance of OSL as a tool in radiation dosimetry was the first use of the technique in geological dating of sediments (Huntley, Godfrey-Smith and Thewalt, 1985). Nevertheless, this book does not contain a discussion of applications of OSL in either geological or archeological dating. Our choice to omit this important application of OSL was conditioned by the fact that dating applications cover an enormously large body of literature and represent a topic worthy of a book by itself – quite apart from the fact that neither of the authors considers himself an expert in this field. Indeed, in addition to the wonderfully informative book by Martin Aitken (1998), a recent book by Bøtter-Jensen, McKeever and Wintle (2003) contains a comprehensive description of the modern details of the technique, especially as applied to dating natural quartz and feldspar minerals. Instead, we restrict our attention to other, and newer, applications in the fields of personal, space and medical dosimetry, with additional discourse on the emergence of OSL as a potential technique in security and related fields. For the time being, we give here brief overviews of a few areas on which we will be focusing in the book.

1.2.1 Personal

Since the initial dosimetry application described by Antonov-Romanovsky et al. (1955) and the development of Al2O3:C as an OSL material, the application of OSL in personal dosimetry has flourished. Primarily this has been because of the adoption by one of the world’s largest radiation dosimetry service providers of the POSL technique, along with the development of a powder-in-plastic form of Al2O3:C. Landauer Inc., USA (www.landauerinc.com) designed a personal dosimetry badge known as Luxel1 as the main dosimeter type in their service-provider network. The measurement technique used by Landauer to read the badges is POSL. Other OSL-based dosimeters now commercialized by the same company include InLight,1 designed for those users who wish to perform their own dosimetry measurements, and microStar,1 a field-based version of the InLight system. More recently, a new OSL-based computed tomography quality assurance dosimeter has also become available.

Al2O3:C currently dominates the commercial OSL-based personal dosimetry market. As we discuss in later pages of this book, however, research on several promising new materials is underway in various laboratories around the world and new applications are beginning to emerge, perhaps leading ultimately to new commercial opportunities.

1.2.2 Space

One of the more exciting recent applications of OSL dosimetry is literally “beyond this world.” Since the beginning of the human space programs of the USA and the former Soviet Union, thermoluminescence dosimeters have featured strongly in the determination of the dose absorbed by individual astronauts.2 The complex radiation environment in which the crews operate requires individual dose monitoring for each member of the flight crew. This same complex field, however, also presents the main challenge for dosimetrists. The space radiation field to which the astronauts are exposed originates from three primary sources: galactic cosmic rays. (GCR), solar particle events. (SPEs) and charged particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field (Earth’s Radiation Belts, ERB). To these sources we can add those secondary particles created via nuclear interactions of the energetic primaries with the surroundings of the astronaut (spacecraft, clothing) and the astronaut’s own body. The result is a complex “soup” of energetic particles ranging from electrons and protons to heavy particles (from He to U). Energies vary from tens of MeV/nucleon to relativistic values. The evaluation of total absorbed dose (in Grays, Gy) to each astronaut is a significant challenge, yet it is only half the problem. The ultimate purpose of the dosimetry is to estimate the health burden to each individual caused by the radiation exposure and thus one has to weight the absorbed dose by the relative biological effectiveness. (RBE) or quality factor. (Q) to estimate the weighted dose in Gray-equivalent. (Gy-Eq) or Sievert. s (Sv), respectively. This, in turn, requires an estimate of the dose carried by each particle type, where the particle types are defined by their energy, charge and mass. For radiation from SPEs, deterministic effects are the primary concern, while for GCR stochastic, cancer-inducing effects are the primary worry.

Because of the complex nature of this challenge the use of a single dosimeter type is not sufficient. This is especially so since thermoluminescence dosimeter. s (TLDs) are known to have a decreasing efficiency for particles with linear energy transfer. (LET, L) values greater than approximately 10 keV/µm. Thus, the first requirement is that the luminescence dosimeters be used in conjunction with devices that can monitor doses from heavier particles, with L values up to ∼103 keV/ µm. The only personal dosimeters so far capable of achieving this goal are plastic nuclear track detector. s (PNTDs). However, this alone is not sufficient, since the two dosimeter types (TLDs and PNTDs) have overlapping responses, with TLDs having some sensitivity up to very high L values, and PNTDs having some response down to approximately 5 keV/ µm. Thus, detailed calibration of the dosimeters is necessary. Since precise calibration of luminescence dosimeters is non-trivial, the use of additional luminescence dosimeter types is beneficial so that uncertainties in the calibration of each may be offset. Thus, OSL dosimeters (OSLDs) are now being adopted for use in conjunction with TLDs in these applications.

Over and above this general consideration, however, future long-duration missions (to the Moon and Mars, up to perhaps 1000 days in space) may require on-board dosimetry, since the astronauts may not be able to wait until they have returned to Earth before their individual exposures are determined. This in turn will require low-weight, low-energy-consumption, on-board dosimeter readers, and here OSL is again being suggested as the potential dosimeter of choice for this application.

In this book we discuss the physics and challenges associated with the use of OSL dosimeters in these complex radiation fields and highlight future research directions and potential developments, along with several case studies where OSL has been used effectively in space radiation experiments.

1.2.3 Medical

The use of OSL in medical dosimetry is embryonic, but growing. The high sensitivity and the all-optical nature of the process are the two properties exploited most in medical dosimetry applications. The high sensitivity means that the dosimeters can be made small, which in turn gives them the property of high spatial resolution, meaning that they have the potential for measurement of dose in regions of severe dose gradients. The all-optical nature of the process means that they can be used with optical fibers to measure doses in difficult-to-access locations, including, potentially, inside the human body. Furthermore, the combination of these two properties allows the use of OSLDs to record dose in near-real-time during exposure, thereby lending an additional capability to the dosimetry system.

Modern advances in radiation medicine – in radiodiagnosis, radiotherapy and interventional radiography – each present dosimetry challenges for the medical physicist that did not exist previously. In radiotherapy the modern movement towards the use of charged particles (protons, and even carbon ions) presents new tests for the dosimetrists when compared with the application of high-energy photons. Even with photons, however, sophisticated intensity modulation techniques create new difficulties over and above the simple goal of “measuring dose.” In all of these areas a constant balance has to be made between the treatment necessary to destroy the tumor and the unnecessary exposure of healthy tissue. Innovative applications of OSL dosimetry are now appearing in each of these areas to help the medical physicist and oncologist design the most effective, and least deleterious, treatment for their patients.

In radiodiagnosis. OSL has been used with great success in imaging systems – where it has long been known by its alternate name of photostimulated luminescence. (PSL). The sensitivity and speed of readout of the stimulated luminescence signal has given radiologists the ability to reduce radiation doses to patients and yet provide high-resolution images to aid diagnosis. However, the use of OSL in this way is not dosimetry. The actual dose to the patient is still determined by conventional OSL (or TL) methods.

In interventional radiography the real-time dose to patients (and surgeons) during surgical procedures can be significant and the ability to provide real-time dose readings while at the same time not producing artifacts in the X-ray image is an attractive goal. Some recent developments in OSL dosimetry may yet lead to the use of fiber-optic-based OSL dosimetry in these applications with significant advantages for both the patient and the doctor.

The advances in, and limitations of, OSL dosimetry in each of these areas will be discussed at length in the book, along with directions for future work.

1.2.4 Security

Regrettably, societies around the world find themselves having to consider more and better ways in which they can protect themselves from terrorist attacks, both from inside and outside their communities. The fear of weapons of mass destruction or other high-consequence weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and being used inside our communities is one that is uppermost in the minds of governing officials and security and defense organizations and many state agencies exist around the world for whom their raison d’être is the control of the spread of weapons of mass destruction among nations and terrorist groups. Among such weapons are those involving nuclear or radiological devices. The detection of such devices before they can be used is of paramount importance and, as throughout history, defense and security agencies around the world are turning to science and technology to enhance their detection capabilities. The world of science is also being asked to assist in mitigating the possible effects of such weapons, should they be used, so that societies and communities can recover quickly. Science is also being asked to contribute to the realm of investigative forensics in order to assist in the identification of the perpetrators.

In this regard, OSL is being suggested in a number of potential applications – both in the detection of nuclear or radiological devices, in forensics and, more particularly, in the after-the-event triage that must occur if authorities are to cope with the potentially large numbers of injured people in large population areas. Publications on the use of OSL from human teeth, from watch components or jewelry, and from building structures have described how the technique may be able to assist in determining the ranges of radiation doses to which populations may have been exposed during the attack. Other publications have suggested the use of OSL from building and other common materials from our surroundings to identify those rooms in which illicit radioactive materials may have been stored or temporarily held, as part of the normal investigative response to a crime involving such materials – hopefully before their use as a weapon.

Thankfully, such uses have never been tested in practice and, therefore, the effectiveness of OSL in these applications remains to be proved; consequently, discussions of these applications must necessarily be somewhat speculative. It is in this sense that we hope that readers of this text will be interested in the descriptions of these potential applications that we have included in this book. We hope further that they will be inspired to work in these important areas, for the benefit of all of us.

1.3 The Future

What of the future? The edging of OSL into so many different and challenging areas presents future scientists with a plethora of opportunities for innovation and invention. We challenge readers to not just satisfy themselves with “dotting ‘i’s and crossing ‘t’s in tracking down the answer to some minor question, but rather to create novel and interesting ways in which the OSL technique can be applied to important and difficult areas and make incisive in-roads into new fields. The areas we have chosen to highlight in this book (personal dosimetry and the search for new materials, space and medical dosimetry, and security) represent just a few of the areas in which the challenges are difficult and in which new innovations could yield immense rewards. What of other areas? What about optical data storage, information technology, environmental sciences, aerospace, genomics and proteomics, plant sciences and so on? How can OSL be integrated into the world of nanotechnology and biotechnology? A glimpse of what may be possible can perhaps be obtained by perusing the US patent list for all inventions concerning OSL or related phenomena. A search of the US Patent and Trade Mark Office web site using the key words optically stimulated luminescence, photostimulated luminescence, or related terms reveals 195 entries in the almost-25-year period from November 1984 and July 2008. The September 1959 US patent referenced above (Wallack, 1959) is the earliest OSL patent of which the authors are aware and undoubtedly the previous 25-year period, from September 1959 to November 1984, will feature additional invention claims. Of course, a significant number of non-US inventions will also be registered with other international patent offices. Most of the US patented OSL innovations relate to OSL/PSL materials, methods for radiation dose estimation in a variety of applications, or methods for radiation imaging. Thus, although the answers to the above rhetorical questions, and others of similar nature, are unknown at present it is certain that the future holds a rich store of possibilities. Indeed, one might suggest that the possibilities are limitless and that the barriers are only in our imagination.

1. “Luxel”, “InLight” and “microStar” are all Trade Marks of Landauer Inc., USA.

2. Although different nations use different terms to describe their space-flight crews, for simplicity the word ‘astronaut’ will be used throughout this book for all flight crewmembers, irrespective of their national origin.

2

Theory and Practical Aspects

2.1 Introduction

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) is the transient luminescence observed during illumination of crystalline insulators or semiconductors that were previously excited, typically by exposure to ionizing radiation. The excitation puts the crystal in a metastable state. , characterized by electrons and holes. (virtual positive charges consisting of empty states in an otherwise full energy band) separately trapped at defects in the crystal lattice. During the OSL process, light stimulates the release of these electrons and holes from these trapping centers, resulting in electron/hole recombination and excitation of luminescence centers in the crystal. OSL consists of the photons emitted when these excited luminescence centers decay to the ground state. (Although OSL processes can, in principle, be observed from any insulating or semiconducting materials, most practical OSL materials are crystals. Therefore we adopt the word crystal for the OSL material, while at the same time not implying that only crystals give rise to the phenomenon.)

Figure 2.1 illustrates the process described above, which lays out the basis for a practical use of OSL in ionizing radiation detection and measurement. In the first stage (Figure 2.1a), the OSL detector is exposed to ionizing radiation. The energy deposited by ionizing radiation results in excitations and ionizations: electrons are promoted to the conduction band, where they can move freely throughout the crystal, leaving behind a hole, which can also move freely in the valence band. The electron/hole creation process is represented in Figure 2.1a by the upward arrow with the radiation symbol connecting the valence and conduction bands. There is a probability that these free electrons and holes may become trapped at defects in the crystal lattice, the energy levels for which are represented by the short horizontal lines in the band gap, in between the valence and conduction bands.