Advertisement

A Comparison between Two Monte Carlo Codes on Determination of Transient Chemical Yields

  • R. N. Hamm
  • J. E. Turner
  • A. Chatterjee
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 63)

Abstract

Monte Carlo computer codes have been independently developed at several laboratories for performing calculations of the radiolysis of water. The different codes involve a wide variety of models and related assumptions in treating the many physical and chemical processes that occur. Because few detailed aspects of such computations can be directly checked by experiment, it is important to make comparisons of various predicted microscopic distributions. In this paper we compare results obtained with the codes developed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Both codes were used to calculate the spatial distributions of various radical species in spurs along the tracks of energetic electrons. Similarities and differences in the results of this preliminary study are shown. Additional work is planned.

Keywords

Radical Pair Monte CARLO Code Hydrated Electron Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Monte Carlo Scheme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.B. Little, J.N. Whaley and H.L. Liber, Role of energy distribution in DNA on the mutagenic effects of internal emitters, in “Mechanisms of Anti-Carcinogenesis and Radiation Protection,” O.F. Nygaard and A.C. Upton, eds., p. 201, Plenum Press, New York (1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Zaider, D.J. Brenner, and W.E. Wilson, The application of track calculations to radiobiology, Radiat. Res. 95: 231–247 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.D. Jonah and J.R. Miller, Yield and decay of the OH radical from 200 ps to 3 ns, J. Phys. Chem. 81: 1974–1976 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.D. Jonah, M.S. Matheson, J.R. Miller, and E.J. Hart, Yield and decay of the hydrated electron from 100 ps to 3 ns, J. Phys. Chem. 80: 1267–1270 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.J. Brenner and M. Zaider, Stochastic and deterministic treatments of the time decay of species created by heavy-charged particle interactions, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 13: 127–132 (1985).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Chatterjee and J.L. Magee, Radiation chemistry of heavy particle tracks. 2. Fricke dosimeter system, J. Phys. Chem. 84: 3537–3543 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.E. Turner, J.L. Magee, H.A. Wright, A. Chatterjee, R.N. Hamm, and R.H. Ritchie, Physical and chemical development of electron tracks in liquid water, Radiat. Res. 96: 437 - 449 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.E. Turner, R.N. Hamm, R.H. Ritchie, and W.E. Bolch, Monte Carlo track-structure calculations for aqueous solutions containing biomolecules; paper in this volume.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.H. Ritchie, R.N. Hamm, J.E. Turner, H.A. Wright, and W.E. Bolch, Radiation interactions and energy transport in the condensed phase, in “Physical and Chemical Mechanisms in Molecular Radiation Biology,” W.A. Glass and M.N. Varma, eds., p. 99, Plenum Press, New York (1991).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Mozumder and J.L. Magee, The early events of radiation chemistry, Int. J. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 7: 83 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Chatterjee and J.L. Magee, Theoretical investigation of the production of strand breaks in DNA by water radicals, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 13: 137–140 (1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. N. Hamm
    • 1
  • J. E. Turner
    • 1
  • A. Chatterjee
    • 2
  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryHealth Sciences Research DivisionOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations