The Performance of LiF:Mg-Ti for Proton Dosimetry within the Framework of the MoVe IT Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• You should not use the product name in the title.
• If you include the project abbreviation in the title, you should include the description in the abstract.
• Page1, line41, the high collimation ?
• There is no explanation of what happens to the TLD detection efficiency when the proton energy (LET) changes.
• The performance of the detector required for radiobiological dosimetry is undefined.
• The structure of the phantom cannot be seen from the photograph.
• The meaning of SOBP in the treatise is unknown. It is necessary to explain how to spread it.
• Why is there a dose distribution in the deeper part of the peak? Are scattered protons passing through the gap? Is the quality of the beam energy poor? Is it highly sensitive to high LET protons?
• I do not understand the reason why the peak position changes greatly with each measurement. Does not meet the QA guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript summarizes the results of thermoluminescent dosimeters irradiated in high energy proton beam in four separate runs. The detectors were placed in water-equivalent phantom to follow depth-dose curve. The results are considered as reliable for dosimetry of planned radiobiological experiments.

General comments:

Four runs on the proton beam were performed to collect all results introduced in the manuscript. It was indeed lot of time-consuming experimental work. Besides comparison of the first and second irradiation of the first arrays, it is not clear what additive information should bring the rest of the results. Can be the depth positions checked further with relative doses of third and fourth experiment? What the second array added on the results?

I miss more information on irradiation, such as dosimetry, beam size, how many detectors were in the phantom for each run and corresponding number of background TLDs for each run. Further, it is difficult to see on the figure, how the phantoms looked like.

I would welcome more information on TLDS – particularly at least short summary on what dose ranges and energies were used for the calibration, if the TLD were read in the same time after the irradiation (fading) and so on.

I miss discussion on how the results stand when compared to previous similar work, beside the works referenced in the manuscript, also for example:

Berger T et al. (2006) Radiation Protection Dosimetry 120, 365 – 368

Bilski P (2006) Radiation Protection Dosimetry 120, 397 - 400

Olko P et al. (2004) Radiation Protection Dosimetry 110, 315 – 318

Zullo JR (2010) Medical Dosimetry 35, 63 - 66

Detailed comments:

• The manuscript describe TLD positions in the phantom as arrays – maybe better term is “rows” and “arranged in rows”?
• Line 85: …designed by… (not intentionally)
• Line 109: …has not yet become a routine.
• Volume units on line 115 and 116 are spelled incorrectly.
• Line 143: …developed for this purpose.
• Fig 1 is of poor quality, out of focus, dark, difficult to see anything, particularly 1a.
• Figure 2: The energy in BP of the Experiment 1, second row (a) does not reach 1.5 Gy as stated in the text, but it is 1.7 Gy. Why?
• Capture Fig 2 – forgotten text:… with a shifted with a planned energy shift..

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx