Polymer gel dosimeters with reduced toxicity: a preliminary investigation of the NMR and optical dose–response using different monomers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, three new polymer gel dosimeter recipes were investigated that may be more suitable for widespread applications than polyacrylamide gel dosimeters, since the extremely toxic acrylamide has been replaced with the less harmful monomers N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM), diacetone acrylamide and N-vinylformamide. The new gel dosimeters studied contained gelatin (5 wt%), monomer (3 wt%), N,N'-methylene-bis-acrylamide crosslinker (3 wt%) and tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium chloride antioxidant (10 mM). The NMR response (R2) of the dosimeters was analysed for conditions of varying dose, dose rate, time post-irradiation, and temperature during irradiation and scanning. It was shown that the dose-response behaviour of the NIPAM/Bis gel dosimeter is comparable to that of normoxic polyacrylamide gel (PAGAT) in terms of high dose-sensitivity and low dependence on dose rate and irradiation temperature, within the ranges considered. The dose-response (R2) of NIPAM/Bis appears to be linear over a greater dose range than the PAGAT gel dosimeter. The effects of time post-irradiation (temporal instability) and temperature during NMR scanning on the R2 response were more significant for NIPAM/Bis dosimeters. Diacetone acrylamide and N-vinylformamide gel dosimeters possessed considerably lower dose-sensitivities. The optical dose-response, measured in terms of the attenuation coefficient for each polymer gel dosimeter, showed potential for the use of optical imaging techniques in future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".