Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Real-time tissue-equivalent measurement of individual clinical radiotherapy pulses

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A water-filled Fabry-Perot cavity can measure individual clinical radiotherapy pulses in real time, with a nominal single-pulse resolution of 90 µGy.

desk verdict A credible proof-of-concept for cavity-enhanced water dosimetry with real single-pulse readout, but the 'absolute' dose scale is calibrated against the same film it should validate. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02889 v1 pith:5HND35ZI submitted 2026-08-03 physics.med-ph physics.app-phphysics.optics

Fernanda C. Rodrigues-Machado , Katherine Szabo , Jingyi Bian , Simon Bernard , Tanner Connell , Shirin A. Enger , Lilian Childress , Jack C. Sankey This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.app-phphysics.optics
keywords radiationdosimetryhydratedelectroncavity-enhancedabsorptionspectroscopyFabry-Perotcavitylinearacceleratorradiotherapytissue-equivalentreal-timewaterradiolysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a centimeter-scale volume of water inside an optical cavity can serve as a real-time, tissue-equivalent dosimeter for clinical radiotherapy. It shows that individual pulses from a medical linear accelerator produce a measurable transient absorption signal from hydrated electrons, and that the size of that transient tracks the absorbed dose to water. On a 3 cm prototype the authors achieve a nominal single-pulse resolution of about 90 µGy at 10 MV, below the roughly milligray doses delivered per pulse, and they demonstrate readout at 6, 10, and 15 MV. If the claim holds, dosimetry could move from pre-treatment calibration and solid-state detectors to direct, all-optical monitoring of the radiation as it is delivered, with a pathway toward fiber-tip devices for in situ use.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reflection-mode Fabry-Perot cavity: a water-filled resonator whose round-trip internal loss $L_0$ is transiently increased by $L_{\mathrm{rad}} = 2\alpha_{\mathrm{e}} L$ when hydrated electrons absorb the 652 nm probe light. The signal is the fractional reflected power $R \approx ((L_0 + L_{\mathrm{rad}}(t) - T_1)/(L_0 + L_{\mathrm{rad}}(t) + T_1))^2$, which converts a small absorption change into a measurable power change whose sign depends on whether the cavity is over- or undercoupled. A coupled rate-equation model converts the LINAC dose rate into time-dependent hydrated-electron and hydrogen-atom concentrations, and the molar absorptivity $\varepsilon = 1.76 \times 10^6\ \mathrm{L\,mol^{-1}\,m^{-1}}$ at 652 nm turns that concentration into absorption. The H + OH$^-$ $\rightarrow$ e$^-_{\mathrm{aq}}$ + H$_2$O pathway at pH 12.12 boosts the observable signal, and a long-lived ozonide background is separated by its millisecond time scale.

What would settle it

Take the same sealed water cavity and deliver a series of calibrated pulses spanning, say, 0.05 to 5 mGy per pulse at one beam energy, fitting each single-pulse transient with the published constants; if the ratio of fitted doses departs from the independently calibrated dose ratio beyond the claimed roughly 7% systematic uncertainty, the universal absolute-dosimetry claim is falsified. A simpler version: repeat the 10 MV measurement with and without argon purging and check whether the fitted dose changes as dissolved oxygen alters the hydrated-electron lifetime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that cavity-enhanced absorption sensing of radiation-induced hydrated electrons provides a real-time, dose-proportional signal from water itself. The authors enclose an argon-purged NaOH solution at pH 12.12 in a 3 cm Fabry-Perot cavity, lock a 652 nm laser to the cavity, and use the transient increase in round-trip optical loss produced by hydrated-electron absorption to read out each LINAC pulse. Fitting the observed transients to coupled rate equations for hydrated electrons and hydrogen atoms yields per-pulse doses within about 7% of radiochromic-film-calibrated nominal values, and the inferred dose remains robust to roughly 10% drifts in cavity loss and to large changes in the hydrated-electron lifetime. The nominal 90 µGy single-pulse sensitivity is limited by classical laser noise rather than by the intrinsic absorption measurement, and the authors present the result as a proof of concept.

Load-bearing premise

The dose scale rests on a single set of literature radiolysis constants — $G_\mathrm{e} = 0.28\ \mu\mathrm{mol/J}$, $G_\mathrm{H} = 0.062\ \mu\mathrm{mol/J}$, molar absorptivity $1.76 \times 10^6\ \mathrm{L\,mol^{-1}\,m^{-1}}$ at 652 nm, and the H-to-hydrated-electron conversion time constant — being valid for every beam energy and dose rate in this solution; if any of these constants varies with beam type or dose rate, the inferred dose shifts proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individual pulses from a clinical LINAC can be monitored in real time with a tissue-equivalent medium, so beam instabilities or dose errors during treatment become visible rather than inferred from pre-treatment checks.
  • Because the sensing medium is water, the same device principle could apply across beam energies and, potentially, across radiation types without material-specific correction factors.
  • The measured dose remains consistent within roughly 7% even when the hydrated-electron lifetime drifts by large factors, suggesting the scheme is robust to changing water chemistry.
  • A 40-fold compactification to a 3 cm prototype is demonstrated, and the cavity architecture is compatible with fiber Fabry-Perot designs needed for micron-scale, catheter-tip sensors.
  • Classical noise suppression or transmission-mode readout should lower the minimum detectable pulse dose by at least an order of magnitude, improving on the 90 µGy nominal sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's parameter-free dose scale would be tested cleanly by sweeping delivered dose per pulse over an order of magnitude and checking that fitted dose stays linear without re-fitting the radiolysis constants; that test is implicit but not reported here.
  • If transmission-mode operation removes the mode-matching and polarization drifts as argued, the same cavity could become a self-calibrating absolute dosimeter whose long-term stability makes it suitable for FLASH dose-rate verification.
  • Because hydrated-electron yield is largely independent of ionization density in water, the same readout may extend to proton and heavier-ion beams; that extension is speculative and not demonstrated in this work.
  • The ozonide background, treated as a slow linear term here, could itself become a probe of oxygen ingress and radiolytic chemistry in sealed clinical devices, a secondary diagnostic the paper does not pursue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a proof-of-concept, cavity-enhanced optical dosimeter in which a 3-cm water-filled Fabry–Pérot cavity is used to detect the transient absorption of radiation-induced hydrated electrons produced by individual clinical radiotherapy pulses. The authors present a coupled-rate-equation model (Eqs. 3–6), fit single-pulse and averaged transients for 10 MV FFF, 6 MV FFF, and 15 MV photon beams, and report inferred per-pulse doses within about 1–8% of film-calibrated nominal values. They also report a nominal single-pulse sensitivity of 90 µGy, discuss drifts in input power, mode matching, and cavity loss, and outline a path toward transmission-mode readout and fiber-tip miniaturization. The paper explicitly labels the demonstration as a proof-of-concept and identifies several limitations, including input-power drift, microbubble formation, and an ozonide background.

Significance. If the absolute dose scale were independently validated, this would be a valuable proof-of-concept for a tissue-equivalent, all-optical dosimeter that can resolve individual clinical radiation pulses in real time. The model is explicit, the fits are presented for three beam energies, and the authors are unusually candid about drift and background sources. The paper also ships its data via an open Dataverse repository, which is a strength for reproducibility. However, the central claim of 'universal absolute dosimetry' is not yet supported: the optical-to-dose conversion is anchored to the same EBT3 film calibration used for comparison, and the 90 µGy figure is a fit precision, not an accuracy bound. The detection and real-time readout claims are credible, but the absolute-dosimetry claim needs either independent calibration or substantial softening.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Cavity coupling' (p. S3) and main text 'Agreement with Coupled Rate Equations'] The absolute dose scale is anchored to the same EBT3 film calibration that the paper aims to validate. In Methods, P_in is calibrated by fitting data 'using the known dose D', and η is fixed by fitting the last 10 MV FFF dataset with the calibrated film dose. The dose values and the sensitivity reported in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 therefore inherit any bias in the film dose and any error in the literature constants G_e and ε used in Eq. 6. The ratios D/D0 ≈ 0.92–0.99 are consistency checks, not independent validations. I recommend either adding an independent absolute calibration (calorimetric or via separately measured P_in and η) or explicitly restricting the claims to relative real-time dosimetry with a film-calibrated scale.
  2. [Single-Pulse Sensitivity section] The headline 90 µGy single-pulse resolution is a statistical fit precision obtained with all parameters fixed, not an accuracy bound. The manuscript appropriately calls it 'nominal' in one place, but the abstract presents it as the central quantitative result. Since P_in and η are calibrated from the film dose, this precision does not bound the absolute error of the dose reading. Please state explicitly that this is a precision under the assumption that the absolute scale is correct, and report a calibration-independent detection limit (e.g., minimum detectable change in L_rad) as well.
  3. [Fig. 3 and the surrounding text] The statement that the inferred dose is 'robust against ~10% drifts in L0 and large changes in τ_e' is only supported for the internal parameters; it says nothing about robustness to the P_in and η drifts the authors themselves document. Because P_in is left as a fit parameter in some analyses, a slow drift in P_in can be partially absorbed by D. A quantitative propagation of the measured P_in drift into the D uncertainty should be reported, and the drift-robustness claim should be limited to the demonstrated parameter ranges.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1B caption] The phrase 'an multimode fiber' should be 'a multimode fiber'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and Methods] The caption lists only D and τ_e as fit parameters, but the fits also depend on fixed or calibrated P_in, η, L0/T1, and ΔL0/T1; please spell out which parameters are fixed, which are calibrated, and which are free so the fits can be reproduced.
  3. [Data and materials availability] The data availability statement points to a Dataverse page without a persistent identifier or direct link; please provide a DOI or stable URL.
  4. [Ozonide background discussion] The long-lived background ΔL0 attributed to ozonide is modeled as a linear step with no direct spectral identification. The identification is plausible given the cited millisecond lifetime and absorption tail, but a sensitivity analysis of D to this assumption, or a direct spectral check, would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Absolute dose scale is anchored to the EBT3 film calibration via P_in and η, making the D/D0 agreement a consistency check rather than an independent prediction; the central real-time detection result remains non-circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Agreement with Coupled Rate Equations' (dose-fit paragraph)]
    "As discussed in Methods, we perform many measurements like those of Fig. 2 over 30 minutes, and can fit the data using the known dose D to provide a reliable calibration value of P_in (drifting) for each individual exposure. If we then assume the initial value P_in =0.8 mW remains roughly constant over the first 5 minutes, we can instead fit for dose D to show consistency in the relative values expected from our available beam parameters."

    The conversion from the measured optical transient to an absolute dose D is calibrated against the same film-based dose D that the paper then reports as 'measured' (Fig. 2 D values and Fig. 3 D time series). With P_in fixed from known D, the fitted D/D0 ratios 0.92–0.99 are a consistency check of the model under assumed radiolysis constants, not an independent validation of the absolute dose scale. The optical transient shape and lifetime remain independent measurements, so the real-time detection claim is not circular, but the absolute dosimetry claim is not independently established.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Materials and Methods, 'Cavity coupling']
    "We determine the cavity coupling η by fitting the last 10 MV FFF dataset (Fig. 3) with the calibrated dose D[Gy]."

    η sets the operating point on the P_out/L curve (Eq. 2) and therefore the gain relating transient absorption to power change. Fitting η with the EBT3-calibrated dose anchors that gain to the film dose scale. Any subsequent D fit for the same beam energy is partially forced to reproduce the calibration dose; comparison for other beams additionally assumes the same G_e, G_H and ε without an independent absolute check. This is a calibration step, but it means the reported absolute dose values are film-anchored rather than first-principles predictions.

full rationale

The central proof-of-concept—resolving individual LINAC pulses in real time via cavity-enhanced hydrated-electron absorption—is not circular: the observed transients have a dose-dependent amplitude and a measured decay shape, and the model's radiolysis constants (G_e, G_H, ε, τ_H) come from external literature, not from the present data. The main circularity is confined to the absolute dose scale. P_in is explicitly calibrated using the known film dose, and η is fitted to a dataset with the calibrated dose, so the D/D0 agreement (0.92–0.99) and the Fig. 3 dose series are consistency checks under the assumed constants, not independent verification of absolute dose. The 90 µGy figure is a least-squares fit precision with all parameters fixed, so it is a precision estimate, not an accuracy bound. I found no load-bearing self-citation: the cited prior work (radiation hardness, cavity formula, noise suppression) is supporting hardware/technique background, not the argument that the optical signal equals dose. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper's own language ('to show consistency', 'nominal', proof-of-concept) appropriately qualifies these claims. Overall, the central detection result has independent content, but the absolute-dosimetry claim is anchored to the same film calibration it compares against, giving a partial circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dose scale is anchored to literature radiolysis constants and EBT3 film calibration, while the reflected-power inversion is calibrated by fitting P_in, η, L0/T1, τ_e, and ΔL0. This is a calibrated measurement rather than a fully first-principles absolute dosimeter, but the model is stated and externally grounded. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • P_in (input power to cavity) = ≈0.8 mW initially; drifts ~10% over tens of minutes (Fig. S1)
    Calibrated per exposure using the known film dose; this is the central scale factor converting reflected power into L_rad and dose. Without it, the transient amplitude cannot be converted to D.
  • η (mode-matching efficiency) = 0.9213 ± 0.0001
    Fitted from the last 10 MV FFF dataset using the calibrated dose and then applied to all fits. It sets the non-resonant offset in Eq. 2, and η drift could bias inferred dose.
  • τ_e (hydrated electron lifetime) = 17.7, 20.4, 16 µs in Fig. 2; varies with time (Fig. 3)
    Fitted per dataset rather than predicted from first principles. The paper states D is robust to factor-of-2 changes in τ_e.
  • L0/T1 (normalized background cavity loss) = 0.867 ± 0.001 initially; drifts between runs
    Fitted parameter that sets the operating point on the reflection curve and the sign of the transient; required to invert Eq. 1.
  • ΔL0/T1 (ozonide background step per pulse) = 220 ± 20 ppm
    Fitted background used to separate the slow ozonide tail from the fast e_aq transient.
  • D (per-pulse dose, the measurand) = 1.57, 0.86, 0.65 mGy in Fig. 2; single-pulse sensitivity 70-90 µGy
    Fitted from the transients as the target output. It is not an ad hoc input, but it is obtained by least-squares fitting, so the reported resolution is fit precision rather than a blind measurement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Literature radiation-chemical yields G_e = 0.28 µmol/J and G_H = 0.062 µmol/J, and the molar absorptivity ε_e = 1.76×10^6 L mol^-1 m^-1 at 652 nm, apply to the argon-purged pH 12.12 water under clinical 6, 10, and 15 MV photon irradiation.
    Fixed parameters in Methods; these set the absolute scale converting n_e to absorption (Eq. 6) and hence to dose. Any beam-energy or dose-rate dependence in these constants would propagate linearly into D.
  • domain assumption The only fast optical transient at 652 nm is hydrated electron absorption; ozonide contributes only a slow background modeled as a linear ramp.
    Eqs. 3-6 plus the ΔL0 background in the text. Unmodeled fast radiolysis products could bias D.
  • domain assumption The pulse dose rate is approximately rectangular with duration Δt taken from the LINAC target monitor, and the coupled rate equations (Eqs. 3-5) with τ_H = 3.4 µs at pH 12.12 describe the radiolysis kinetics.
    Methods and main text. The assumed pulse shape and kinetics determine the transient shape used to separate D from τ_e.
  • domain assumption EBT3 radiochromic film under the same geometry provides a reliable nominal per-pulse dose for calibration and comparison.
    Methods; film uncertainty (3.6%) contributes to the systematic error, and P_in calibration uses the known film dose.
  • domain assumption Absorbed dose to water is an adequate proxy for tissue dose, and the 0.04% NaOH mass fraction does not alter the energy-per-mass dose.
    Introduction and Methods; this underlies the tissue-equivalent framing. It is standard in radiotherapy dosimetry, but it is load-bearing for the paradigm claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-time tissue-equivalent measurement of individual clinical radiotherapy pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HND35ZI

@misc{pith2026260802889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-time tissue-equivalent measurement of individual clinical radiotherapy pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HND35ZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02889}
}
abstract

We apply the precision tools of cavity-enhanced absorption sensing to clinical oncology, demonstrating a dosimeter paradigm in which a centimeter-scale volume of water serves as a tissue-equivalent sensing medium. Our proof-of-concept, all-optical scheme achieves real-time readout of clinical radiation pulses with a nominal single-pulse resolution of 90 $\mu$Gy. This demonstration paves the way toward fiber-integrated, micron-scale devices for $\textit{in situ}$ universal absolute dosimetry during treatment.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Zhu,et al., Global radiotherapy demands and corresponding radiotherapy-professional workforce requirements in 2022 and predicted to 2050: a population-based study.The Lancet Global Health12(12), e1945–e1953 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Mijnheer, S

    B. Mijnheer, S. Beddar, J. Izewska, C. Reft, In vivo dosimetry in external beam radiotherapy. Medical Physics40(7), 070903 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    E. B. Podgor ˇsak,Radiation physics for medical physicists(Springer) (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    J. C. Chow, H. E. Ruda, In vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy: Techniques, applications, and future directions.Encyclopedia5(1), 40 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water

    IAEA, “Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water”, Technical Reports Series no. 398 (rev. 1), International Atomic Energy Agency (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    J. P. Gibbons,Khan’s the physics of radiation therapy(Lippincott Williams & Wilkins), 6th ed. (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    E. B. Podgor ˇsak,Radiation oncology physics: A handbook for teachers and students(IAEA) (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    V. Favaudon,et al., Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice.Science Translational Medicine6(245), 245ra93– 245ra93 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Siddique, H

    S. Siddique, H. E. Ruda, J. C. Chow, FLASH radiotherapy and the use of radiation dosimeters. Cancers15(15), 3883 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Publishable summary for 24NRM01 FLASH-DOSE: Traceable dosimetry for FLASH radiotherapy

    EURAMET, “Publishable summary for 24NRM01 FLASH-DOSE: Traceable dosimetry for FLASH radiotherapy”, Project Summary, European Association of National Metrology Insti- tutes (2025). 12

    2025

  3. [11]

    De Pooter,et al., Reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs: Evaluation of available protocols and data to establish a Code of Practice.Physics in Medicine & Biology66(5), 05TR02 (2021)

    J. De Pooter,et al., Reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs: Evaluation of available protocols and data to establish a Code of Practice.Physics in Medicine & Biology66(5), 05TR02 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Sarfehnia,et al., AAPM task group report 351: Protocol for clinical reference dosimetry in external beam MR-guided radiotherapy.Medical Physics52(7), e17884 (2025)

    A. Sarfehnia,et al., AAPM task group report 351: Protocol for clinical reference dosimetry in external beam MR-guided radiotherapy.Medical Physics52(7), e17884 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Alizadeh, L

    E. Alizadeh, L. Sanche, Precursors of solvated electrons in radiobiological physics and chem- istry.Chemical Reviews112(11), 5578–5602 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Jay-Gerin, Fundamentals of water radiolysis.Encyclopedia5(1), 38 (2025)

    J.-P. Jay-Gerin, Fundamentals of water radiolysis.Encyclopedia5(1), 38 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    E. J. Hart, J. W. Boag, Absorption spectrum of the hydrated electron in water and in aqueous solutions.Journal of the American Chemical Society84(21), 4090–4095 (1962)

    1962

  8. [16]

    Torche, J.-L

    F. Torche, J.-L. Marignier, Direct evaluation of the molar absorption coefficient of hydrated electron by the isosbestic point method.The Journal of Physical Chemistry B120(29), 7201– 7206 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    J. W. T. Spinks, R. J. Woods,An introduction to radiation chemistry(John Wiley & Sons, New York), 3 ed. (1990)

    1990

  10. [18]

    Fielden, E

    E. Fielden, E. J. Hart, Hydrated electron and thermoluminescent dosimetry of pulsed x-ray beams.ACS Publications(1968)

    1968

  11. [19]

    M ´egrour`eche,et al., Development of a hydrated electron dosimeter for radiotherapy appli- cations: A proof of concept.Medical Physics50(11), 7245–7251 (2023)

    J. M ´egrour`eche,et al., Development of a hydrated electron dosimeter for radiotherapy appli- cations: A proof of concept.Medical Physics50(11), 7245–7251 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Terfas,et al., Oxygen dependence on hydrated electron yields: Pulsed radiolysis studies using proton beams.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A129(22), 4861–4869 (2025)

    S. Terfas,et al., Oxygen dependence on hydrated electron yields: Pulsed radiolysis studies using proton beams.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A129(22), 4861–4869 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Cao,et al., Using hydrated electron temporal measurement as dosimetry of individual electron FLASH beam pulses.Physica Medica142, 105725 (2026)

    X. Cao,et al., Using hydrated electron temporal measurement as dosimetry of individual electron FLASH beam pulses.Physica Medica142, 105725 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    F. C. Rodrigues-Machado,et al., Radiation hardness of open Fabry-P´erot microcavities.Optics Express32(10), 17189–17196 (2024). 13

    2024

  15. [23]

    Hunger,et al., A fiber Fabry–Perot cavity with high finesse.New Journal of Physics12(6), 065038 (2010)

    D. Hunger,et al., A fiber Fabry–Perot cavity with high finesse.New Journal of Physics12(6), 065038 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    D. J. Segelstein,The complex refractive index of water, Ph.D. thesis, University of Missouri– Kansas City (1981)

    1981

  17. [25]

    These sensitivity values essentially reflect the excess classical laser noise present in𝑃out (which can be improved as discussed below) but are already significantly lower than the∼mGy per-pulse doses delivered by the LINAC. Mitigating Noise and Drift This work establishes a n...

    2000

  18. [26]

    G. V. Buxton, C. L. Greenstock, W. P. Helman, A. B. Ross, Critical review of rate constants for reactions of hydrated electrons, hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals in aqueous solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data17(2), 513–886 (1988)

    1988

  19. [27]

    J. P. Keene, Absorption spectra in irradiated water and some solutions. Part II. Optical absorp- tions in irradiated water.Nature197(1962)

    1962

  20. [28]

    I. B. Butler, M. A. Schoonen, D. T. Rickard, Removal of dissolved oxygen from water: A comparison of four common techniques.Talanta41(2), 211–215 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    E. D. Black, An introduction to Pound–Drever–Hall laser frequency stabilization.American Journal of Physics69(1), 79–87 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Pizzochero, F

    M. Pizzochero, F. Ambrosio, A. Pasquarello, Picture of the wet electron: A localized transient state in liquid water.Chemical Science10(31), 7442–7448 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Rodrigues Machado,Cavity-enhanced absorption sensing based on Pound-Drever-Hall sideband locking, Master’s thesis, McGill University (2022)

    F. Rodrigues Machado,Cavity-enhanced absorption sensing based on Pound-Drever-Hall sideband locking, Master’s thesis, McGill University (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    V. S. Langford, A. J. McKinley, T. I. Quickenden, Temperature dependence of the visible-near- infrared absorption spectrum of liquid water.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A105(39), 8916–8921 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Czapski, Pulse radiolysis studies in oxygenated alkaline solutions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry71(6), 1683–1688 (1967)

    G. Czapski, Pulse radiolysis studies in oxygenated alkaline solutions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry71(6), 1683–1688 (1967)

    1967

  26. [34]

    Optical spectra of nonmetallic inorganic transient species in aqueous solution

    G. L. Hug, “Optical spectra of nonmetallic inorganic transient species in aqueous solution”, National Bureau of Standards, National Institute of Standards and Technology (1981)

    1981

  27. [35]

    Fielden, E

    E. Fielden, E. J. Hart, Primary radical yields in pulse-irradiated alkaline aqueous solution. Radiation Researchpp. 564–580 (1967). 14

    1967

  28. [36]

    Dumont, J

    V. Dumont, J. Ma, E. Egan, J. C. Sankey, High-power quantum-limited 35 MHz photodiode and classical laser noise suppression.Review of Scientific Instruments94(12) (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    McGill Dataverse: Quantum Optics and Sensing Lab

    “McGill Dataverse: Quantum Optics and Sensing Lab” (2026),https://borealisdata. ca/dataverse/quantum_optics_and_sensing, [Online; accessed 2. Jun. 2026]

    2026

  30. [38]

    NIST chemistry webbook, NIST standard reference database 69

    P. J. Linstrom, W. G. Mallard, “NIST chemistry webbook, NIST standard reference database 69”, retrieved July 28, 2026

    2026

  31. [39]

    Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement

    ICRU, “Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement”, Tech. Rep. 44, Interna- tional Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    Wen,et al., Precise film dosimetry for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy quality assurance using Gafchromic™EBT3 films.Radiation Oncology11, 132 (2016)

    N. Wen,et al., Precise film dosimetry for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy quality assurance using Gafchromic™EBT3 films.Radiation Oncology11, 132 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    E. Y. Marroquin, J. A. Herrera Gonz ´alez, M. A. Camacho Lopez, J. E. Barajas, O. A. Garcia- Gardu˜no, Evaluation of the uncertainty in an EBT3 film dosimetry system utilizing net optical density.Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics17(5), 466–481 (2016). Acknowledgments...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.