Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

MOS devices for dosimetry applications

Dispositivos MOS para aplicaciones de dosimetría

L. Sambuco Salomone

, S. Carbonetto

, M. V. Cassani

, M. A. Garcia-Inza

#†

, E. Redin

, A. Faigón

Laboratorio de Física de Dispositivos - Microelectrónica, INTECIN, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Buenos Aires -

CONICET

Av. Paseo Colón 850, CABA, Argentina

†

Laboratorio de Nanoelectrónica, Unidad de Investigación y Desarrollo de las Ingenierías (UIDI), Universidad Tecnológica

Nacional (UTN-FRBA)

Medrano 951, CABA, Argentina

lsambuco@fi.uba.ar

Received: 2026-05-06 ; Accepted: 2026-06-10

Abstract—This work presents a review of metal-oxide-

semiconductor (MOS) dosimetry from its physical principles

up to the most recent developments. The limitations of MOS

dosimeters are analyzed and the usually considered solutions

are described. MOS dosimeters based on alternative

structures, such as floating gate devices, are also discussed.

Keywords: Radiation effects; MOSFET; Dosimetry.

Resumen—Este trabajo presenta una revisión de la

dosimetría MOS, desde sus principios físicos hasta los

desarrollos recientes. Las limitaciones de los dosímetros MOS

son analizadas y las soluciones comúnmente empleadas son

descriptas. Dosímetros MOS basados en estructuras

alternativas, tales como dispositivos de compuerta flotante, son

también discutidos.

Palabras clave: Efectos de radiación; MOSFET; Dosimetría.

I. INTRODUCTION

The growing interest in developing increasingly smaller

satellites at ever-decreasing costs [1] has led to continuous

changes in the methods for selecting the electronic

components to be used, due to their sensitivity to ionizing

radiation present in space [2]. This radiation is mostly due

to protons (10 MeV – 100 MeV) [3]-[4] and electrons

(100 keV – 10 MeV) [5] trapped in the interior and outer

Van Allen belts, respectively, but also high-energy galactic

cosmic-rays, such as electrons (1 GeV – 1 TeV) which

dominate for higher altitudes orbits [6]. Similarly,

estimating the radiation received by patients in medical

applications such as radiotherapy or diagnostic radiology

has resulted in increasingly stringent requirements regarding

administered dose levels, demanding uncertainties of less

than 3% for each irradiation session [7] and less than 5% for

the entire treatment [8]. Radiation sources used in medical

applications include X-ray from LINAC (4–25 MeV) [9],

γ-rays from

Co (1.17 and 1.33 MeV) [10] or

192

Ir (0.3–0.6

MeV) [11], and protons (70–250 MeV) [12].

MOS dosimetry is based on the use of a MOSFET

transistor as an ionizing radiation sensor for dose estimation

in harsh environments by means of the progressive shift in

the threshold voltage (V

) as a consequence of the absorbed

dose. Compared to other alternatives, the MOS dosimeter

offers several advantages, including its small size, which

translates into high spatial resolution if a sensor array is

employed, its easy integration with readout electronics

and/or additional systems, its long data retention time,

which allows readings to be taken both during and after

irradiation, and the possibility of performing real-time

measurements.

This work presents an overview of MOS dosimetry,

including its physical principles, main characteristics,

limitations and recent developments. This work is organized

as follows. Section II describes the physics related to

radiation effects on MOS devices. Section III presents the

MOS dosimeter based on a single MOSFET transistor,

while section IV analyzes the dosimeter based on a floating-

gate (FG) structure. Finally, section VI presents the

conclusions.

II. RADIATION EFFECTS IN MOS DEVICES

When a MOS device is exposed to ionizing radiation,

different microscopic processes lead to positive charge

accumulation within the oxide and the generation of traps at

the substrate/oxide interface, as schematically shown in the

band diagram of a MOS structure with a positive bias

applied to the gate electrode in Fig. 1. This section describes

each one of these processes.

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Fig. 1. Band diagram schematic representation of the irradiation of a MOS

structure with positive gate bias.  charge generation and initial

recombination,  electron (blue) and hole (red) transport,  hole trapping,

 trapped hole neutralization through electron trapping,  proton release

from a positively-charged hidrogenated defect,  proton transport, and 

depassivation of interface trap and release of a hydrogen molecule.

A. Generation and initial recombination

When a material is exposed to ionizing radiation, the

incident particle, whether a photon, a high-energy electron,

or a proton, deposits energy in different regions of the

structure, causing the ionization of atoms and the generation

of electron-hole pairs through various mechanisms, such as

photoelectric effect, Compton effect, pair production, and

Coulomb scattering. The occurrence of these mechanisms

depends on the type of particle, its energy, and the atomic

number of the target material. In the case of a MOS

structure, the response is dominated by what occurs within

the oxide layers, and in particular, the gate oxide. In the

typical case where the gate oxide is made of SiO

, the

energy required to produce an electron-hole pair is 17 eV,

so the resulting density of electron-hole pairs generated per

unit dose is g

= 8.1×10

-3

rad

-1

[13]-[14].

After their generation, electrons and holes can recombine

with each other, depending on numerous factors, such as the

type of incident radiation, its energy, and the electric field.

In the case of low-energy particles or heavy electrically

charged particles, such as protons, the incident particle

leaves behind a densely populated column of generated

pairs, enabling recombination between electrons and holes

from different pairs, which can be represented by the

columnar model [13], [15]-[16]. In contrast, for high-energy

particles or light particles, such as electrons, the distance

between pairs is much greater than the initial distance

between electrons and holes in the same pair, meaning that

recombination only occurs within the same pair, as

represented by the geminate model [17]-[18]. Figure 2

shows the fraction of pairs that escape initial recombination,

known as fractional yield, as a function of electric field for

different radiation sources [19]. Although the mentioned

models are reliable, it is common to use semi-empirical

analytical expressions, which allows for a simpler analysis

of the initial recombination [20].

Fig. 2. The fraction of holes that escape initial recombination (fractional

yield) as a function of electric field for different radiation sources [19].

B. Charge transport

After escaping the initial recombination, the electrons are

drifted by the electric field, leaving the oxide in times on the

order of picoseconds [21], due to their high mobility [22]-

[23].

In contrast, holes exhibit slow, dispersive transport that

can span several decades, as shown in Fig. 3. This figure

shows the flat-band voltage (V

) recovery curves at

different temperatures after a radiation pulse. The effect of

temperature modifies the timescale of the transport process,

causing the original curves to overlap when shifted in time,

a phenomenon known as universality. This type of transport

can be mathematically represented by a continuous-time

random walk (CTRW), and its physical origin may be

associated with the multiple capture in and release from

traps within the oxide [24]-[25], or with a kind of hopping

between traps, associated with tunnel transitions between

them [26]-[27].

Fig. 3. Flatband voltage recovery after pulsed electron irradiation as a

function of time for different temperatures [27].

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

C. Hole capture

During their transport through the oxide, holes can be

captured by defects in a relatively stable manner, meaning

that the probability of a hole escaping the trap is sufficiently

low for the timescales typically considered in experiments.

This characteristic distinguishes this capture process from

that associated with dispersive transport, suggesting that

these traps are sufficiently separated, allowing for a low

probability of transition between them, and are located at

deep energy levels so the probability of emission into the

valence band is negligible. Hole traps are associated with

oxygen vacancies, which exhibit a dimer structure in their

neutral state before hole capture, as shown in Fig. 4(a) (top),

while they relax asymmetrically once they have captured a

hole (bottom). Several electron paramagnetic resonance

studies have shown that the densities of these positively

charged defects correlate with the density of oxide trapped

holes, confirming the physical origin of the hole traps, as

shown in Fig. 4(b) [28]-[29].

D. Interface traps generation

In addition to the capture of holes in traps within the

oxide, radiation also causes an increase in the density of

traps at the Si/SiO

interface. Several electron spin

resonance studies have concluded that interface traps are

associated with a defect known as a P

center, in which a

silicon atom forming three bonds with oxygen atoms has the

fourth bond unformed, a phenomenon known as a dangling

bond [30]-[31]. This type of defect is due to the imperfect

oxidation of the substrate, resulting in an allowed electronic

state within the semiconductor bandgap. Because they are

located at the interface, these traps can exchange charge

with the semiconductor bands, making their charge state

dependent on the applied bias. During the fabrication

process, these traps are passivated by annealing in a

hydrogen-rich environment, leading to the formation of a

Si-H bond that eliminates the electronic state within the

bandgap.

Fig. 4. (a) Oxygen vacancy before (top) and after (bottom) hole trapping.

(Silicon atoms are in black, oxygen atoms are in gray), and (b) Densities of

trapped holes and positively charged oxygen vacancies as a function of

dose [28].

The physical origin of interface traps generation during

irradiation is due to a series of processes involving

hydrogen. First, after hole capture within the oxide, some of

the traps involved are hydrogenated, leading to the

subsequent emission of a hydrogen proton (H

) from them.

Depending on the electric field, this proton is drifted

towards the interface with the substrate, where it interacts

with a Si-H center, depassivating it and consequently

generating an interface trap [32]-[33]. Figure 5 shows the

dependence of interface traps generation on the applied

electric field. Curve A and E correspond to experiments

performed under a positive and a negative electric field

throughout the entire time, respectively. A positive electric

field favors interface traps generation until saturation is

reached, whereas a negative electric field suppresses it. For

curves B, C, and D, a positive electric field was applied

during the 0.1 s irradiation and throughout the first 0.7 s of

post-irradiation. The electric field was then reversed and

restored to a positive value after 20, 200, and 2000 s for B,

C, and D, respectively. As shown, interface traps generation

is completely halted while the electric field is negative and

resumes only after the field is switched back to positive.

Notably, interface traps generation saturates after

approximately 2000 s. Therefore, in curve D, where the

electric field is restored to a positive value only after this

time, no additional interface traps generation is observed.

E. Effects on device characteristics

The main radiation effect on MOS devices is the shift of

the transfer characteristic curve I

-V

as a consequence of

hole capture within the oxide and interface traps generation,

which is represented by the variation of threshold voltage

according to the following expression





 













󰇛





 

󰇜

 

















where q is the elementary charge, ε

is the SiO

permittivity,

is the oxide thickness, x is the distance from the Si/SiO

interface, C

is the oxide capacitance, p

is the density of

trapped holes, and N

is the density of interface traps

positively charged at threshold condition.

Fig. 5. Dependence of interface traps generation on the applied electric

field for experiments where the electric field is reversed and restored at

different times after irradiation [32].

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Since the charge density in interface traps depends on the

position of the Fermi level within the bandgap, this means

that the induced V

-shift is not constant but depends on the

applied bias. Consequently, the increase in interface traps

density generates a change in the slope of the curve in the

subthreshold region. Figure 6 shows the evolution of the

transfer curve for different absorbed doses, where both the

shift of the entire curve and the change in its subthreshold

slope can be observed. Unlike the contribution due to holes

trapped within the oxide, the charge in interface traps at

threshold is positive for p-channel transistors, while it is

negative for n-channel transistors. This means that the

-shift in the latter has two opposing contributions, making

the evolution potentially non-monotonic.

Interface traps generation also modifies the transfer curve

because it reduces the mobility of the carriers in the channel,

as a consequence of the Coulomb interaction between them

and the charge in the traps, as shown in Fig. 7, where the

evolution with dose and time after radiation of the current

factor k (proportional to the mobility μ) and the interface

traps density N

is observed [34].

Fig. 6. Transfer characteristic I

-V

of a p-channel MOSFET before and

after γ-ray (

Co) 1 Mrad irradiation.

Fig. 7. Evolution of k (proportional to mobility μ) and interface traps

density N

as a function of absorbed dose and the time after irradiation ends

[34].

Ionizing radiation also leads to an increase in flicker

noise, characterized by a power spectral density

proportional to 1/f, where f is the signal frequency. Its

physical origin is due to fluctuations in the number of

carriers in the channel as a consequence of tunneling

transitions between the channel and the traps within the

oxide. It has been observed that the noise power correlates

very well with the V

-shift due to hole capture and emission

within the oxide during irradiation and subsequent

annealing, respectively [35]-[37], as shown in Fig. 8.

For sufficiently thin oxides, radiation causes an increase

in the leakage current across the gate oxide as a

consequence of an inelastic tunneling process at

low/medium electric fields involving traps within the oxide,

as has been observed for different radiation sources,

including γ rays (

Co) [38], electrons, X-rays, and ions

[39]-[40]. Similar to what is observed for the noise, the

increase in leakage current is strongly correlated with the

density of holes trapped within the oxide during irradiation

[41].

Fig. 8. Noise power as a function of threshold voltage shift induced by

trapped holes [36].

Fig. 9. Transfer characteristic I

-V

of a 0.18 μm n-channel MOSFET

for different absorbed doses [42].

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

As the oxide thickness decreases, the effect of the V

-shift

gradually diminishes, and the hole capture within the field

oxides used to isolate adjacent devices becomes dominant

for the radiation effects on MOS devices. Since this oxide is

not grown with the same care as gate oxides, its radiation

response can be highly variable. Even if its response were

comparable to that of gate oxides, the trapped charge

density is much higher in field oxides because they are

thicker. Hole capture in these oxides leads to an increase in

standby current as a consequence of parasitic conduction

paths [42], as shown in Fig. 9.

III. MOS DOSIMETER

The MOS dosimeter was first proposed by Poch and

Holmes-Siedle in 1970 [43], and later refined by Holmes-

Siedle [44] for sensing radiation in space by tracking the

-shift, leading to the commercial MOS dosimeter known

as RADFET [45]-[49]. To estimate absorbed dose, each

dosimeter must be calibrated as dispersion of 5% was

common [50]-[51], reaching 16% for thicker oxides [52].

The standard measurement setup consists of irradiating

the device with all its terminals short-circuited and

measuring V

before and after irradiation, as shown in

Fig. 10(a), where the definition of V

is taken as the gate-to-

source voltage corresponding to a predefined reference

drain-to-source current I

REF

. In order to increase its radiation

sensitivity, it is possible to apply a bias voltage to the gate

during irradiation, as shown in Fig. 10(b). Real-time

measurements are possible if both configurations are

switched, with the device lying mostly in biasing mode and

reading V

periodically.

Over the years, various commercial MOS dosimeters

have appeared. Table I gives information about some of

them, considering those that have oxide thickness in the

range 300-500 nm to facilitate comparison. RADFET from

REM Oxford includes different dosimeters with oxide

thickness ranging from 120 nm up to 1.23 μm, which allows

to calibrate the sensitivity, with good linearity range up to

10 Gy, and low fading of less than one percent after ten

days [53].

Fig. 10. Simplified schematics of the measurement setup at (a) reading

mode, and (b) biasing mode.

In addition to a standard dosimeter [54]-[55], Best Medical

offers different types of dosimeters depending on the

application, such as the microMOSFET that fits in a 6 Fr

catheter and can be used to monitor the dose in

brachytherapy treatments [56], as well as the Linear 5ive

Array that allows monitoring the dose at different points for

in vivo dosimetry or beam quality assurance [57]. Varadis

presents dosimeters with nonlinear responses, whose

reading uses a calibration curve for the batch, and a

dynamic range between 1 cGy and 1 kGy for an oxide

thickness of 400 nm, and between 3 mGy and 10 Gy for an

oxide thickness of 1 μm [58]. MOSkin is a dosimeter

specially developed to be used in radiotherapy treatments

[59], showing very good linearity even for ultra-high dose

rate regime up to 35 Gy with 200 ns radiation pulses with

instantaneous dose rates as high as 2×10

Gy/s [60]. The

OneDose was a disposable dosimeter designed for single

use [61], widely employed during the 2000s [62]-[63],

although later discontinued.

TABLE I

COMMERCIAL DOSIMETERS

Dosimeter

[nm]

[V]

S [mV/Gy]

REM Oxford RFT300 [53]

300

0 / 9

20 / 125

Best Medical 502RD [54]-[55]

500

5 / 15

100 / 300

Varadis VT01 [58]

400

MOSkin [59]

550

250

OneDose [61]

400

35-100

A. Temperature-induced errors

Temperature variations affect the MOSFET transfer

characteristic due to two combined effects: a shift in the

threshold voltage and a decrease in carriers’ mobility [51].

If the temperature is not controlled during dosimeter

readings, the temperature-induced V

-shift can be

misinterpreted as being due to the presence of radiation,

leading to an error in the dosimeter reading. In addition to

control the temperature when the dosimeter is read [64],

there are three possibilities to mitigate this type of error.

First, if the effect of temperature on V

is characterized, it is

possible to read the temperature during the acquisition of V

and apply a correction that subtracts the V

-shift induced by

temperature variations. Secondly, the transfer curve has a

current value at which the voltage value V

is independent

of temperature, which is called the zero-temperature

coefficient current (I

ZTC

). If the reference current at which V

is read is set to I

ZTC

, temperature errors are expected to be

significantly reduced, as shown in Fig. 11(a). However, the

two previous options assume that the effects of temperature

on the device characteristics are stable, i.e., that they do not

change as the absorbed dose increases, but this has been

experimentally shown not to be the case [52], [64]-[65]. For

example, Fig. 11(b) shows how I

ZTC

changes due to

irradiation, making the value of V

sensitive to temperature

again, unless the current I

ZTC

is corrected during irradiation.

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Fig. 11. (a) V

-shift with temperature for three different currents, and (b)

Transfer curve after 20 Gy of absorbed dose and three different

temperatures [65].

A third alternative is to use two matched dosimeters, instead

of just one, and take a differential reading having been

biased differently during irradiation, causing their V

values

to evolve differently [66]-[69].

B. Saturation and reutilization

As the absorbed dose increases, the V

-shift gradually

saturates and the dosimeter loses sensitivity. This saturation

is due to three different physical mechanisms [70]. First, the

finite number of trapping sites establishes a maximum

-shift when all the traps are filled. Second, when the

density of trapped holes is high enough to distort the local

electric field, a process known as field collapse occurs, in

which the electric field decreases in the oxide region where

most of the holes are generated, leading to a lower fractional

yield, so there are fewer holes available to be trapped. Third,

when the density of trapped holes is sufficiently high, their

neutralization by an electron travelling through the oxide is

no longer negligible, resulting in a dynamic equilibrium

when hole capture is balanced by neutralization.

Different methods were proposed for erasing the charge

accumulated during irradiation and restore the dosimeter to

its initial state or, at least, to a repeatable predefined state.

One technique is based on a high temperature annealing.

The exposure to high temperatures leads to a recovery of V

towards its pre-irradiation value due to the emission of holes

from traps to the valence band of the oxide and their

subsequent transport towards either electrode [71], so

different groups propose to use thermal annealing as a way

for reusing the MOS dosimeter [72]-[76]. Figure 12 shows

the procedure for a dosimeter exposed up to 400 °C for half

an hour, achieving good repeatability [76]. Alternatively,

illuminating with UV light also anneals the charge within

the oxide due to the electron injection of electrons from the

substrate into the oxide conduction band by overcoming the

barrier energy at the interface, which leads to the proposal

of using UV exposure for dosimeter reuse [74]. It was also

reported that local reheating by electric current also anneals

the charge within the oxide [77]-[78].

Fig. 12. (a) Threshold voltage and (b) sensitivity evolutions during two

consecutive irradiations with a thermal annealing treatment between

them [76].

Another possibility is related to applying a high external

electric field making possible the injection of electrons from

the substrate into the oxide conduction band by means of

Fowler-Nordheim (FN) tunneling. These injected electrons

produce impact ionization and the capture of some of the

generated holes, while the electrons can recombine with

positively charged traps. A steady state is reached as a result

of a dynamic balance between the two processes, which

depends on the electric field applied during injection or the

current in the case of constant-current injection [79]-[82].

Interface traps are also generated during electron injection

until the process saturates at a high enough charge density

around 0.1 C/cm

is injected [79]. It was observed that this

mechanism allows to set V

to a predefined value, even

when the MOS device was previously irradiated, so it can

be used for the erasure of the radiation-induced oxide

charge. Thus, the proposed technique consists of a

preparation for setting V

to a chosen value and saturating

interface traps density. Then, the dosimeter is ready for use.

After irradiation, the injection process is employed to reset

to the same initial value, making the dosimeter reusable

again. The use of this technique allows to obtain a

dispersion smaller than 2% after many irradiation-erasure

cycles reaching a total absorbed dose around 50 kGy [83].

The technique was also tested for commercial RADFET

with good results [84], as shown in Fig. 13.

Fig. 13. I

-V

curves for a RADFET subjected to many cycles of

irradiation and electrically erasure [84].

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Fig. 14. Threshold voltage evolution with dose during two parts of a long

irradiation under BCCM, showing excellent repeatability [86].

For real-time measurements, it is also possible to extend

the measurement range taking advantage of charge

neutralization. As previously discussed, when a positive

bias is applied during irradiation, holes are trapped within

oxide, which is also known as positive charge buildup

(PCB). If after a certain absorbed dose, the bias is switched

to a negative value, the oxide electric field is reversed, so

the radiation-generated electrons move towards the interface

with the substrate, where most of the trapped holes are

located, leading to an increase in the neutralization rate and

a recovery of V

, which is known as radiation-induced

charge neutralization (RICN) [85]. If both PCB and RICN

stages are repeated alternately, it is possible to keep V

within a predefined window, maintaining a constant

sensitivity and extending the measurement range, which is

dubbed as the bias-controlled cycled measurement (BCCM)

technique [86]. After interface traps saturation, which

occurs around tens of kGy, the response is repeatable

between cycles, as shown in Fig. 14, where the response of

a dosimeter for two parts of a prolonged irradiation is

observed, which, although separated by ~200 kGy, overlap

within measurement error. This measurement technique has

additional advantages, as measurement uncertainties even

lower than the dispersion in the responses among different

devices, and a reduction by a factor of ten of the

temperature-induced dose error when temperature changes

over a range between -5 °C and 95 °C [87]. The technique

was also applied to commercial RADFET [84], validating

the results.

Fig. 15. Recovery of threshold voltage as a function of the time after

irradiation ends for different temperatures [88].

C. Post-irradiation stability

For a MOS dosimeter to be considered suitable, it must

retain information for a sufficiently long time, which is

directly related with the stability of the charge trapped

within the oxide. Once irradiation ends, the density of

trapped holes gradually decreases, a phenomenon known as

annealing, which is a consequence of the neutralization

induced by either tunnel transitions between the substrate

and the traps and the emission of holes from the traps to the

valence band [88]. Given the exponential dependence of

tunneling probability on distance and of thermal emission

probability on energy, the observed post-radiation recovery

is associated with the presence of a spatial and energetic

distribution of trapped holes within the oxide. Annealing

exhibits a dynamic approximately linear with log(t) and is

highly dependent on applied bias and temperature, due to

the dependence of tunneling probability and thermal

emission on these parameters, respectively. Figure 15 shows

the threshold voltage recovery as a function of post-

radiation time for different temperatures.

D. FOXFET

In order to increase the sensor sensitivity, MOS

dosimeters require thick gate oxides [89]-[91], which goes

in the opposite direction to the technology trend for scaling

down dimensions, so they are usually fabricated in ad-hoc

processes, increasing their cost, compromising their

reliability, and making it more difficult to integrate with the

reading circuit. To overcome this issue, it was proposed to

use the field oxide commonly used as passivation as the

gate oxide of a high sensitivity dosimeter, the FOXFET [92],

as in the cross-section shown in Fig. 16. Field oxides are

known to be sensitive to radiation and responsible for an

increase in leakage current after irradiation [93]-[95].

FOXFET dosimeters from two different processes were

fabricated and both showed a response comparable to

commercial MOS dosimeters (Fig. 17) [92], suitable for in

vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy [96].

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Fig. 16. Cross section of the FOXFET dosimeter.

Fig. 17. Total threshold voltage and the contributions due to oxide and

interface traps as a function of absorbed dose for FOXFET fabricated in

two different CMOS processes [92].

IV. FLOATING GATE DOSIMETER

The floating gate (FG) MOSFET is a transistor where an

oxide is over the gate, leaving it isolated from external

electrical connection, i.e., floating. When a second

polysilicon layer is deposited onto the top oxide, this can be

employed as control gate (CG) and the FG-MOSFET is akin

any other MOSFET. Given that the presence of the oxides

surrounding the FG makes the structure sensitive to

radiation, it was proposed to employ that as a dosimeter [97].

The basic idea involves a floating gate, initially charged

with electrons, which is irradiated with zero bias in the CG,

as shown in the band diagram of Fig. 18. The electrons in

the FG generate the necessary electric field in the oxides,

allowing the electron-hole pairs generated by the radiation

to escape from the initial recombination. The direction of

these electric fields favours the electrons to left the oxide,

while the holes are attracted to the FG, where they

recombine with the electrons already present, leading to a

measurable V

-shift. Thus, dosimeters based on FG

structures do not rely on the hole capture in traps within the

oxide, but rather on recombination with the charge present

in a polysilicon layer. However, it would still be possible to

consider that both types of devices operate under a common

principle if we view the floating gate as a kind of large sheet

of traps in the middle of the oxide.

Fig. 18. Band diagram schematic representation of the irradiation of a

floating gate structure with zero applied bias and negative charge initially

at the floating gate.  charge generation and initial recombination, 

electron (blue) and hole (red) transport,  hole trapping,  trapped hole

neutralization through electron trapping, and  charge injection into the

floating gate.

Furthermore, the initial charge on the FG allows an electric

field to exist in the oxides, increasing sensitivity without the

need for an external connection that applies a voltage to the

CG, which is advantageous for applications where a wired

connection is undesirable.

A notable improvement involved extending the floating

gate over the field oxide (Fig. 19(a)) to take advantage of its

larger ionization volume, thereby increasing the sensor

sensitivity [98]. In that initial work, the electric field in the

field oxide, necessary to maximize the fractional yield, was

generated by biasing the CG, but later it was achieved by

pre-injecting an initial charge into the FG [99]. As the CG-

to-FG capacitance reduces the sensitivity, it was proposed to

remove the CG at the cost of a smaller measurement range

[100]. A natural way to reuse the FG dosimeter consists of

recharged the FG, and the results (Fig. 19(b)) showed a

reasonable agreement between first and second irradiation

sensitivity as a function of the threshold voltage for FG

dosimeters initially charged with electrons or holes [99].

Temperature variations also affect FG dosimeters due to

changes in threshold voltage and carrier mobility [101], so a

differential technique and also a compensation method were

employed to mitigate that [100]. For FG dosimeters with a

CG, a way to extend the measurement range is to apply the

BCCM technique discussed in section III.B, which shows

that it is possible to keep a roughly constant sensitivity with

good repeatability across successive cycles [102].

The FG sensor is the core of many different proposals for

MOS dosimeters in recent years [103]-[109]. It was also

proposed to use an ultraviolet erasable programmed read-

only memory as a dosimeter, given that the number of

memory cells that flips from “0” to “1” state is a linear or

power-law function of the absorbed dose [110]-[112]. Some

groups also employed commercial FG devices as MOS

dosimeters [113]-[115].

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Fig. 19. (a) Cross-section of a floating gate dosimeter with extension over

field oxide, and (b) sensitivity as a function of the threshold voltage for FG

dosimeters initially charge with electrons (MOSFET1) or holes (MOSFET2)

during the first and second irradiations [99].

As a summary, Table II shows the main characteristics of

some of the different proposals based on FG structures. As

noted, the different proposed dosimeters do not use the

same kind of dosimetric signal, since some of them

indirectly measure the voltage at the floating gate [100],

[108], while others measure the decrease in drain current as

the floating gate discharges, either directly [104] or

converted into a proportional frequency signal [107],

making a direct comparison between sensitivities difficult.

What can be directly compared is the so-called temperature

error factor, since this is calculated as the ratio between the

temperature and radiation sensitivities, making it

independent of the type of signal being measured. The same

applies to the noise equivalent dose (NED), which

represents the sensor's resolution in terms of the noise-

induced dose reading error. Although the dosimeter

proposed in [108] appears to have the best characteristics, it

has the disadvantage of a dose range of only 2.8 Gy,

compared to the three remaining ones that all have ranges

above 10 Gy.

TABLE II

FLOATING GATE DOSIMETERS

Ref.

fox

TEF

NED

[100]

1 μm

300 mV/Gy

270 mGy/°C

5 mGy

[104]

N/A

1.14 μA/Gy

54.3 mGy/°C

19 mGy

[107]

N/A

34.7 kHz/Gy

3.9 mGy/°C

0.16 mGy

[108]

350 nm

386 mV/Gy

0.94 mGy/°C

0.5 mGy

One area where FG dosimeters could potentially

outperform conventional MOS dosimeters is in data

retention, as the data is stored in an electrically isolated

layer. However, FG dosimeters have also been reported to

exhibit fading [107]. To determine the source of this charge

loss, non-irradiated structures were charged, and it was

verified that the charge on the FG remained stable.

Consequently, it was concluded that the observed annealing

is related to the neutralization of holes captured in the

tunnel oxide.

V. CONCLUSIONS

This work provides a review of radiation effects in MOS

devices, with a focus on MOS dosimetry for space and

medical applications. We begin by describing the

microscopic processes that leads to the positive charge

formation within the gate oxide and the generation of traps

at the substrate/oxide interface, including electron-hole pair

generation and initial recombination, carrier transport, hole

capture in oxide traps, proton release, transport, and reaction

at the interface, depassivating a dangling bond. Next, we

describe how the effects of radiation on MOS devices can

be harnessed to measure absorbed dose, leading to MOS

dosimetry. We present the standard method of operation and

reading, and then discuss the main limitations of this type of

sensor, such as its temperature dependence, limited

measurement range, and information retention, outlining the

ways in which these limitations are typically addressed.

Finally, we analyze the feasibility of using a floating-gate

structure as a dosimeter. By pre-injecting charge into the

floating gate, the dosimeter can achieve high sensitivity

while operating under zero-bias conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the Universidad de Buenos

under grants UBACYT 20020220400105BA and

20020220300077BA; and by the Agencia Nacional de

Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y

la Innovación under grant PICT 2020-A-01957.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

As a review article, there is no data that can be shared.

CREDIT AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

L. Sambuco Salomone: Conceptualization, Investigation,

Writing-Original Draft, Writing-Review and Editing.

S. Carbonetto: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing-

Review and Editing. M. V. Cassani: Conceptualization,

Investigation, Writing-Review and Editing.

M. A. Garcia-Inza: Conceptualization, Investigation,

Writing-Review and Editing. E. Redin: Conceptualization,

Supervision. A. Faigón: Conceptualization, Project

administration.

REFERENCES

[1] J. R. Kopacz, R. Herschitz, and J. Roney, “Small satellites an

overview and assessment,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 170, pp. 93-105,

2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.01.034.

[2] R. Velazco, D. McMorrow, and J. Estela (Eds.), “Radiation effects

on integrated circuits and systems for space applications,” Springer,

2019.

[3] J. Mazur, L. Friesen, A. Lin, D. Mabry, N. Katz, Y. Dotan, J.

George, J. B. Blake, M. Looper, M. Redding, T. P. O’Brien, J. Cha,

A. Birkitt, P. Carranza, M. Lalic, F. Fuentes, R. Galvan, and M.

McNab, “The relativistic proton spectrometer (RPS) for the radiation

belt storm probes mission,” Space Science Reviews, vol. 179, pp.

221-261, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-012-9926-9.

[4] J. E. Mazur, T. P. O’Brien, and M. D. Looper, “The relativistic

proton spectrometer: A review of sensor performance, applications,

and science,” Space Science Reviews, vol. 219, no. 3, p. 26, 2023,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-023-00962-2.

[5] H. Zhao, W. R. Johnston, D. N. Baker, X. Li, B. Ni, A. N. Jaynes, S.

G. Kanekal, J. B. Blake, S. G. Claudepierre, G. D. Reeves, and A. J.

Boyd, “Characterization and evolution of radiation belt electron

energy spectra based on the Van Allen probes measurements,”

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 124, pp.

4217-4232, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026697.

[6] A. W. Strong, E. Orlando, and T. R. Jaffe, “The interstellar cosmic-

ray electron spectrum from synchrotron radiation and direct

measurements,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 354, p. A54, 2011,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116828.

[7] “Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology,” American Association

of Physicists in Medicine, report N46, 1994.

[8] “In vivo dosimetry,” ASN Patient Safety, no. 5, 2014.

[9] L. Brualla, M. Rodriguez, J. Sempau, and P. Andreo,

“PENELOPE/PRIMO-calculated photon and electron spectra from

clinical accelerators,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 6, 2019,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1186-8.

[10] P. Papagiannis, A. Angelopoulos, E. Pantelis, L. Sakelliou, P.

Karaiskos, and Y. Shimizu, “Monte Carlo dosimetry of

Co HDR

brachytherapy sources,” Medical Physics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 712-721,

2003, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1563662.

[11] R. Nath, L. L. Anderson, G. Luxton, K. A. Weaver, J. F. Williamson,

and A. S. Meigooni, “Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy

sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy

Committee Task Group No. 43,” Medical Physics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp.

209-234, 1995, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597458.

[12] R. Mohan, “A review of proton therapy – Current status and future

prospects,” Precision Radiation Oncology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164-176,

2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pro6.1149.

[13] G. A. Ausman, and F. B. McLean, “Electron-hole pair creation in

SiO

,” Harry Diamond Laboratories Technical Report, HDL-TR-

1720, 1975.

[14] J. M. Benedetto, and H. E. Boesch, “The relationship between

and 10-keV X-ray damage in MOS devices,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1318-1323, 1986, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1986.4334599.

[15] T. R. Oldham, and J. M. McGarrity, “Ionization of SiO

by heavy

charged particles,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 28,

no. 6, pp. 3975-3980, 1981, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1981.4335658.

[16] T. R. Oldham, “Recombination along the tracks of heavy charged

particles in SiO

films,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 57, no. 8,

pp. 2695-2702, 1985, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.335409.

[17] H. E. Boesch, and J. M. McGarrity, “Charge yield and dose effects

in MOS capacitors at 80 K,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,

vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1520-1525, 1976, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1976.4328532.

[18] T. R. Oldham, and J. M. McGarrity, “Comparison of 60Co response

and 10 keV X-ray response in MOS capacitors,” IEEE Transactions

on Nuclear Science, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 4377-4381, 1983, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1983.4333141.

[19] F. B. McLean, and T. R. Oldham, “Basic mechanisms of radiation

effects in electronic materials and devices,” Harry Diamond

Laboratory, Tech. Rep., HDL-TR-2129.

[20] C. M. Dozier, D. M. Fleetwood, D. B. Brown, and P. S. Winokur,

“An evaluation of low-energy X-ray and cobalt-60 irradiations of

MOS transistors,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 34,

no. 6, pp. 1535-1539, 1987, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1987.4337511.

[21] R. J. Krantz, L. W. Aukerman, and T. C. Zietlow, “Applied field and

total dose dependence of trapped charge buildup in MOS devices,”

IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1196-

1201, 1987, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1987.4337452.

[22] R. C. Hughes, “Hot electrons in SiO

,” Physical Review Letters, vol.

35, no. 7, pp. 449-452, 1975, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.449.

[23] M. V. Fischetti, D. J. DiMaria, S. D. Brorson, T. N. Theis, and J. R.

Kirtley, “Theory of high-field electron transport in silicon dioxide,”

Physical Review B, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 8124-8142, 1985, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.31.8124.

[24] O. L. Curtis, and J. R. Srour, “The multiple-trapping model and hole

transport in SiO

,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 48, no. 9, pp.

3819-3828, 1977, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.324248.

[25] M. Schaffman, M. Silver, C. Corthell, and R. C. Hughes,

“Simulations of the transient photoconductivity in a-SiO

using a

multiple-trap model,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 51, no. 1, pp.

490-494, 1979, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.327349.

[26] F. B. McLean, H. E. Boesch, and J. M. McGarrity, “Hole transport

and recovery characteristics of SiO

gate insulators,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1506-1512,

1976, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1976.4328530.

[27] F. B. McLean, H. E. Boesch, and J. M. McGarrity, “Dispersive hole

transport in SiO

,” Harry Diamond Laboratories Report, HDL-TR-

2117, 1987.

[28] P. M. Lenahan, and P. V. Dressendorfer, “Hole traps and trivalent

silicon centers in metal/oxide/silicon devices,” Journal of Applied

Physics, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 3495-3499, 1984, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.332937.

[29] Y. Y. Kim, and P. M. Lenahan, “Electron-spin-resonance study of

radiation-induced paramagnetic defects in oxides grown on (100)

silicon substrates,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 64, no. 7, pp.

3551-3557, 1988, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.341494.

[30] E. H. Poindexter, P. Caplan, B. E. Deal, and R. R. Razouk,

“Interface states and electron spin resonance centers in thermally

oxidized (111) and (100) silicon wafers,” Journal of Applied Physics,

vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 879-884, 1981, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.328771.

[31] P. M. Lenahan, K. L. Brower, and P. V. Dressendorfer, “Radiation-

induced trivalent silicon defect buildup at the Si-SiO

interface in

MOS structures,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 28,

no. 6, pp. 4105-4106, 1981, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1981.4335683.

[32] F. B. McLean, “A framework for understanding radiation-induced

interface states in SiO

MOS structures,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1651-1657, 1980, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1980.4331084.

[33] M. R. Shaneyfelt, J. R. Schwank, D. M. Fleetwood, P. S. Winokur,

K. L. Hughes, and F. W. Sexton, “Field dependence of interface-trap

buildup in polysilicon and metal gate MOS devices,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1632-1640,

1990, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.101171.

[34] R. García Cozzi, E. Redín, M. Garcia-Inza, L. Sambuco Salomone,

A. Faigón, S. Carbonetto, “Influence of interface traps on MOSFETs

thermal coefficients and its effects on the ZTC current,”

Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 137, 114752, 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2022.114752.

[35] D. M. Fleetwood, and J. H. Scofield, “Evidence that similar point

defects cause 1/f noise and radiation-induced-hole trapping in metal-

oxide-semiconductor transistors,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 579-582, 1990, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.579.

[36] T. L. Meisenheimer, and D. M. Fleetwood, “Effect of radiation-

induced charge on 1/f noise in MOS devices,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1696-1702, 1990, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/23.101179.

[37] T. L. Meisenheimer, D. M. Fleetwood, M. R. Shaneyfelt, and L. C.

Riewe, “1/f noise in n- and p-channel MOS devices through

irradiation and annealing,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,

vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1297-1303, 1991, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/23.124108 .

[38] A. Scarpa, A. Paccagnella, F. Montera, G. Ghibaudo, G.

Pananakakis, G. Ghidini, and P. G. Fuochi, “Ionizing radiation

induced leakage current on ultra-thin gate oxides,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1818-1825,

1997, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.658948.

[39] M. Ceschia, A. Paccagnella, A. Cester, A. Scarpa, and G. Ghidini,

“Radiation induced leakage current and stress induced leakage

current in ultra-thin gate oxides,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 2375-2382, 1998, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/23.736457.

[40] M. Ceschia, A. Paccagnella, M. Turrini, A. Candelori, G. Ghidini,

and J. Wyss, “Heavy ion irradiation of thin gate oxides,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2648-2655,

2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.903821.

[41] P. M. Lenahan, J. P. Campbell, A. Y. Kang, S. T. Liu, and R. A.

Weimer, “Radiation-induced leakage currents: Atomic scale

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

mechanisms,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 48, no. 6,

pp. 2101-2106, 2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.983179.

[42] R. C. Lacoe, “CMOS scaling design principles and hardening by

design methodology,”NSREC Shrot Course, 2003.

[43] W. J. Poch, and A. G. Holmes-Siedle, “The mosimeter: A new

instrument for measuring radiation dose,” RCA Engineer, vol. 16, no.

3, pp. 56-59, 1970.

[44] A. Holmes-Siedle, “The space-charge dosimeter: General principles

of a new method of radiation detection,” Nuclear Instruments and

Methods, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 169-179, 1974 doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(74)90153-0.

[45] A. Holmes-Siedle, L. Adams, J. S. Leffler, and S. R. Lindgren, “The

RADFET system for real-time dosimeter in nuclear facility,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 26, 025004, 1983.

[46] A. G. Holmes-Siedle, L. Adams, B. Pauly, and S. Marsden,

“Linearity of pMOS radiation dosimeters operated at zero bias,”

Electronics Letters, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 570-571, 1985, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1049/el:19850403.

[47] A. Holmes-Siedle, and L. Adams, “RADFET: A review of the use of

metal-oxide-silicon devices as integrating dosimeters,” Radiation

Physics and Chemistry, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 235-244, 1986, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/1359-0197(86)90134-7.

[48] F. Ravotti, M. Glaser, M. Moll, C. Ilgner, B. Camanzi, and A. G.

Holmes-Siedle, “Response of RadFET dosimeters to high fluence of

fast neutrons,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 52, no. 4,

pp. 959-965, 2005, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2005.852709.

[49] A. Holmes-Siedle, F. Ravotti, and M. Glaser, “The dosimetric

performance of RADFETs in radiation test beams,” IEEE Radiation

Effects Data Workshop, pp. 42-57, 2007, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/REDW.2007.4342539.

[50] F. Vettese, C. Donichak, P. Bourgeault, and G. Sarrabayrouse,

“Assessment of a new p-MOSFET usable as a dose rate insensitive

gamma dose sensor,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol.

43, no. 3, pp. 991-996, 1996, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.510745.

[51] L. J. Asensio, M. A. Carvajal, J. A. López-Villanueva, M. Vilches,

A. M. Lallena, and A. J. Palma, “Evaluation of a low-cost

commercial MOSFET as a radiation dosimeter,” Sensors and

Actuators A, vol. 125, pp. 288-295, 2006, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2005.08.020.

[52] A. Haran, A. Jaksić, N. Refaeli, A. Eliyahu, D. David, and J. Barak,

“Temperature effects and long term fading of implanted and

unimplanted gate oxide RADFETs,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 2917-2921, 2004, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2004.835065.

[53] RFT300-CC10G1 Datasheet (RFTDAT-CC10 - Rev W), REM

Oxford Ltd., 2010.

[54] G. Pablo Cirrone, G. Cuttone, P. A. Lojacono, S. L. Nigro, I. V.

Patti, S. Pittera, L. Raffaele, M. G. Sabini, V. Salamone, and L. M.

Valastro, “Preliminary investigation on the use of the MOSFET

dosimeter in proton beams,” Phys. Med., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 29-32,

2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1120-1797(06)80008-6.

[55] R. Kohno, K. Hotta, T. Matsuura, K. Matsubara, S. Nishioka, T.

Nishio, M. Kawashima, and T. Ogino, “Proton dose distribution

measurements using a MOSFET detector with a simple dose-

weighted correction method for let effects,” J. Appl. Clin. Med.

Phys., vol. 12, no. 2, 2011, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3431.

[56] S. Ruiz-Arrebola, R. Fabregat-Borrás, E. Rodríguez, M. Fernández-

Montes, M. Pérez-Macho, M. Ferri, A. García, J. Cardenal, M. T.

Pacheco, and J. Anchuelo, “Characterization of microMOSFET

detectors for in vivo dosimetry in high-dose-rate brachytherapy with

192

Ir,” Medical Physics, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 2242-2253, 2020, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14080.

[57] A. Sadeghi, B. Prestidge, J. M. Lee, I. Jurkovic, M. Simms, W. Bice,

E. Walker, “Clinical use of a linear array MOSFET for urethral dose

verification in prostate high dose rate brachytherapy,” ABS 27

annual Meeting, poster paper, 2006.

[58] VT02 Datasheet (Rev. 2.2), Varadis, 2022.

[59] Z.-Y. Qi, X.-W. Deng, S.-M. Huang, L. Zhang, Z.-C. He, X. A. Li, I.

Kwan, M. Lerch, D. Cutajar, P. Metcalfe, and A. Rosenfeld, “In

vivo verification of superficial dose for head and neck treatments

using intensity-modulated techniques,” Medical Physics, vol. 36, no.

1, pp. 59-70, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3030951.

[60] J. Cayley, E. Engels, T. Charles, P. Bennetto, M. Cameron, J. Poder,

D. Hausermann, J. Paino, D. Butler, D. Cutajar, M. Petasecca, A.

Rosenfeld, Y.-R. E. Tan, and M. Lerch, “Establishing linearity of

the MOSkin detector for ultra-high dose-per-pulse, very-high-energy

electron radiotherapy using dose-rate-corrected EBT-XD film,”

Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 14, p. 8101, 2025, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3390/app15148101.

[61] P. H. Halvorsen, “Dosimetric evaluation of a new design MOSFET

in vivo dosimeter,” Medical Physics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 110-117,

2005, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1827771.

[62] R. A. Kinhikar, P. K. Sharma, C. M. Tambe, U. M. Mahantshetty, R.

Sarin, D. D. Deshpande, and S. K. Shrivastava, “Clinical application

of a OneDose

MOSFET for skin dose measurements during

internal mammary chain irradiation with high dose rate

brachytherapy in carcinoma of the breast,” Physics in Medicine and

Biology, vol. 51, N263-N268, 2006, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/14/N01.

[63] G. X. Ding, and C. W. Coffey, “Dosimetric evaluation of the

OneDose

MOSFET for measuring kilovoltage imaging dose from

image-guided radiotherapy procedures,” Medical Physics, vol. 37,

no. 9, pp. 4880-4885, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3483099.

[64] T. Cheung, M. J. Butson, and P. K. N. Yu, “Effects of temperature

variation on MOSFET dosimetry,” Physics in Medicine and Biology,

vol. 49, N191-N196, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-

9155/49/13/N02.

[65] S. H. Carbonetto, M. A. García Inza, J. Lipovetzky, E. G. Redin, L.

Sambuco Salomone, and A. Faigón, “Zero temperature coefficient

bias in MOS devices. Dependence on interface traps density,

application to MOS dosimetry,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3348-3353, 2011, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2011.2170430.

[66] M. Soubra, J. Cygler, and G. MacKay, “Evaluation of a dual bias

metal oxide-silicon semiconductor field effect transistor detector as

radiation dosimeter,” Medical Physics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 567-572,

1994, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597314.

[67] S. Carbonetto, M. Garcia-Inza, J. Lipovetzky, M. Carra, E. Redin, L.

Sambuco Salomone, and A. Faigon, “CMOS differential and

amplified dosimeter with field oxide n-channel MOSFETs,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 3466-3471,

2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2014.2368361.

[68] M. Garcia-Inza, S. H. Carbonetto, J. Lipovetzky, and A. Faigon,

“Radiation sensor based on MOSFETs mismatch amplification for

radiotherapy applications,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,

vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 1784-1789, 2016, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2016.2560172.

[69] S. Carbonetto, M. Echarri, J. Lipovetzky, M. Garcia-Inza, and A.

Faigón, “Temperature-compensated MOS dosimeter fully integrated

in a high-voltage 0.35 μm CMOS process,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1118-1124, 2020, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2020.2966567.

[70] H. E. Boesch, Jr., F. B. McLean, J. M. Benedetto, J. M. McGarrity,

and W. E. Bailey, “Saturation of threshold voltage shift in

MOSFET’s at high total dose,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1191-1197, 1986, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1986.4334577.

[71] E. H. Snow, A. S. Grove, and D. J. Fitzgerald, “Effects of ionizing

radiation on oxidized silicon surfaces and planar devices,”

Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1168-1185, 1967, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1967.5776.

[72] A. Kelleher, N. McDonnell, B. O’Neill, and W. Lane, “Investigation

into re-use of PMOS dosimeters,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 445-451, 1994, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/23.299782.

[73] A. Kelleher, W. Lane, and L. Adams, “Investigation of on-chip high

temperature annealing of PMOS dosimeters,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 997-1001, 1996, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/RADECS.1995.509821.

[74] G. Ristic, “Thermal and UV annealing of irradiated pMOS

dosimetric transistors,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, vol.

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

42, 135001, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-

3727/42/13/135101.

[75] E. Yilmaz, and R. Turan, “Temperature cycling of MOS-based

radiation sensors,” Sensors and Actuators, vol. 141, pp. 1-5, 2008,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2007.07.001.

[76] L. Sambuco Salomone, M. V. Cassani, M. Garcia-Inza, A. Faigón, S.

Carbonetto, and E. Redin, “Preliminary results of the thermal

annealing for MOS dosimeters reutilization,” 2025 Argentine

Conference on Electronics (CAE), IEEE, pp. 82-86, 2025, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/CAE64243.2025.10961957.

[77] D. Verellen, S. Van Vaerenbergh, K. Tournel, K. Heuninckx, L.

Joris, M. Duchareau, N. Linthout, T. Gevaert, T. Reynders, I. Van

de Vondel, L. Coppens, T. Depuydt, M. De Ridder, and G. Storme,

“An in-house developed resettable MOSFET dosimeter for

radiotherapy,” Physics and Biology, vol. 55, pp. 97-109, 2010, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/55/4/N01.

[78] G.-W. Luo, Z.-Y. Qi, X.-W. Deng, and A. Rosenfeld, “Investigation

of a pulsed current annealing method in reusing MOSFET

dosimeters for in vivo IMRT dosimetry,” Medical Physics, vol. 41,

no. 5, 051710, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4871619.

[79] Y. Nissan-Cohen, J. Shappir, and D. Frohman-Bentchkowsky,

“Dynamic model of trapping-detrapping in SiO

,” Journal of

Applied Physics, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2252-2261, 1985, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.335942.

[80] D. J. DiMaria, E. Cartier, and D. Arnold, “Impact ionization, trap

creation, degradation, and breakdown in silicon dioxide films on

silicon,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 3367-3384,

1993, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.352936.

[81] D. Arnold, E. Cartier, and D. J. DiMaria, “Theory of high-field

electron transport and impact ionization in silicon dioxide,” Physical

Review B, vol. 49, no. 15, pp. 10278-10297, 1994, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.49.10278.

[82] E. Miranda, E. Redin, and A. Faigon, “An effective field approach

for the Fowler-Nordheim tunneling current through a metal-oxide-

semiconductor charged barrier,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 82,

no. 3, pp. 1262-1265, 1997, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.366535.

[83] J. Lipovetzky, E. G. Redin, and A. Faigon, “Electrically erasable

metal-oxide-semiconductor dosimeters,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1244-1250, 2007, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2007.895122.

[84] J. Lipovetzky, A. Holmes-Siedle, M. García Inza, S. Carbonetto, E.

Redin, and A. Faigon, “New Fowler-Nordheim injection, charge

neutralization, and gamma tests on the REM RFT300 RADFET

dosimeter,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 59, no. 6,

pp. 3133-3140, 2012, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2012.2222667.

[85] D. M. Fleetwood, “Radiation induced charge neutralization and

interface trap buildup in metal oxide semiconductor devices,”

Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 580-583, 1990, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.345199.

[86] A. Faigon, J. Lipovetzky, E. Redin, and G. Krusczenski, “Extension

of the measurement range of MOS dosimeters using radiation

induced charge neutralization,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 2141-2147, 2008, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2008.2000767.

[87] J. Lipovetzky, E. G. Redin, M. A. García Inza, S. Carbonetto, and A.

Faigón, “Reducing measurement uncertainties using bias cycled

measurement in MOS dosimetry at different temperatures,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 848-853, 2010,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2010.2042178.

[88] P. J. McWhorter, S. L. Miller, and W. M. Miller, “Modeling the

anneal of radiation-induced trapped holes in a varying thermal

environment,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 37, no. 6,

pp. 1682-1689, 1990, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.101177.

[89] G. F. Derbenwick, and B. L. Gregory, “Process optimization of

radiation-hardened CMOS integrated circuits,” IEEE Transactions

on Nuclear Science, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 2151-2156, 1975, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1975.4328096.

[90] C. R. Viswanathan, and J. Maserjian, “Model for thickness

dependence of radiation charging in MOS structures,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1540-1545,

1976, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1976.4328535.

[91] N. S. Saks, M. G. Ancona, and J. A. Modolo, “Radiation effects in

MOS capacitors with very thin oxides at 80 K,” IEEE Transactions

on Nuclear Science, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1249-1255, 1984, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1984.4333491.

[92] J. Lipovetzky, M. Garcia-Inza, S. Carbonetto, M. J. Carra, E. G.

Redin, L. Sambuco Salomone, and A. Faigon, “Field oxide n-

channel MOS dosimeters fabricated in CMOS processes,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 4683-4691,

2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2013.2287256.

[93] T. R. Oldham, A. J. Lelis, H. E. Boesch, J. M. Benedetto, F. B.

McLean, and J. M. McGarrity, “Post-irradiation effects in field-

oxide isolation structures,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science,

vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1184-1189, 1987, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1987.4337450.

[94] J. M. Terrell, T. R. Oldham, A, J. Lelis, and J. M. Benedetto, “Time

dependent annealing of radiation-induced leakage currents in MOS

devices,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 36, no. 6, pp.

2205-2211, 1989, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.45426.

[95] I. Sanchez Esqueda, H. J. Barnaby, K. E. Holbert, and Y.

Boulghassoul, “Modeling inter-device leakage in 90 nm bulk CMOS

devices,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 58, no. 3, pp.

793-799, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2010.2101616.

[96] M. Garcia-Inza, M. Cassani, S. Carbonetto, M. Casal, E. Redin, and

A. Faigon, “6 MV LINAC characterization of a MOSFET dosimeter

fabricated in a CMOS process,” Radiation Measurements, vol. 117,

pp. 63-69, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2018.07.009.

[97] J. Kassabov, N. Nedev, and N. Smirnov, “Radiation dosimeter based

on floating gate MOS transistor,” Radiation Effects and Defects in

Solids, vol. 116, no. 1-2, pp. 155-158, 1991, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1080/10420159108221354.

[98] C. J. Peters, N. G. Tarr, K. Shortt, I. Thomson, and G. F. MacKay,

“A floating-gate MOSFET gamma dosimeter,” Canadian Journal of

Physics, vol. 74, no. 12, pp. 135-138, 1996, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1139/p96-846.

[99] N. G. Tarr, G. F. MacKay, K. Shortt, and I. Thomson, “A floating

gate MOSFET dosimeter requiring no external bias supply,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1470-1474,

1998, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RADECS.1997.698909.

[100] N. G. Tarr, K. Shortt, Y. Wang, and I. Thomson, “A sensitive,

temperature-compensated, zero-bias floating gate MOSFET

dosimeter,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 51, no. 3,

pp. 1277-1282, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2004.829372.

[101] M. Martin, D. Roth, A. Garrison-Darrin, P. McNulty, and A.

Andreou, “FGMOS dosimetry: Design and implementation,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 2050-2055,

2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.983171.

[102] M. García Inza, J. Lipovetzky, E. G. Redin, S. Carbonetto, and A.

Faigón, “Floating gate pMOS dosimeters under bias controlled

cycled measurement,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol.

58, no. 3, pp. 808-812, 2011, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2010.2099668.

[103] E. Garcia-Moreno, E. Isern, M. Roca, R. Picos, J. Font, J. Cesari,

and A. Pineda, “Floating gate CMOS dosimeter with frequency

output,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 59, no. 2, pp.

373-378, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2012.2184301.

[104] E. Garcia-Moreno, E. Isern, M. Roca, R. Picos, J. Font, J. Cesari,

and A. Pineda, “Temperature compensated floating gate MOS

radiation sensor with current output,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 4026-4030, 2013, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2013.2277605.

[105] E. G. Villani, A. Gabrielli, A. Khan, E. Pikhay, Y. Roizin, and Z.

Zhang, “Monolithic 180 nm CMOS dosimeter for in vivo medical

applications,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 60, no. 2,

pp. 843-849, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2013.2251472.

[106] E. G. Villani, M. Crepaldi, D. DeMarchi, A. Gabrielli, A. Khan, E.

Pikhay, Y. Roizin, A. Rosenfeld, and Z. Zhang, “A monolithic 180

nm CMOS dosimeter for wireless in vivo dosimetry,” Radiation

Measurements, vol. 84, pp. 55-64, 2016, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2015.11.004.

Revista Elektron, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (2026)

https://doi.org/10.37537/rev.elektron.10.1.237.2026

Review Article

ISSN 2525-0159

https://elektron.fi.uba.ar

Creative Commons License

[107] M. Brucoli, S. Danzeca, M. Brugger, A. Masi, A. Pineda, J. Cesari,

L. Dusseau, and F. Wrobel, “Floating gate dosimeter suitability for

accelerator-like environments,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear

Science, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2054-2060, 2017, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2017.2681651.

[108] C. Zhang, and S. M. Rezaul Hasan, “A new floating-gate radiation

sensor and readout circuit in standard single-poly 130-nm CMOS

technology,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 66, no. 7,

pp. 1906-1915, 2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2019.2922714.

[109] T. Darós, N. C. Cábia, J. Piteira, and M. C. Schneider, “Design,

modeling, and characterization of a floating gate dosimeter in

standard CMOS technology for sensor reuse,” IEEE Transactions on

Nuclear Science, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 3069-3076, 2025, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2025.3594306.

[110] L. Z. Scheick, P. J. McNulty, and D. R. Roth, “Dosimetry based on

the erasure of floating gates in the natural radiation environments in

space,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 45, no. 6, pp.

2681-2688, 1998, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/23.736515.

[111] P. J. McNulty, M. Rajaman, K. F. Poole, K. R. Freeman, J. P. Dyar,

L. Z. Scheick, M. Alkhafazi, and M. G. Randall, “Simplified readout

of UVPROM dosimeters for spacecraft applications,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1859-1862,

2006, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.877564.

[112] P. J. McNulty, and K. F. Poole, “Increasing the sensitivity of

FGMOS dosimeters by reading at higher temperature,” IEEE

Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1113-1116,

2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2012.2192288.

[113] R. Edgecock, J. Matheson, M. Weber, E. G. Villani, R. Bose, A:

Khan, D. R. Smith, I. Adil-Smith, and A. Gabrielli, “Evaluation of

commercial programmable floating gate devices as radiation

dosimeters,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-10,

2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/4/02/P02002.

[114] S. Ilić, A. Jevtić, S. Stanković, and G. Ristić, “Floating-gate MOS

transistor with dynamic biasing as a radiation sensor,” Sensors, vol.

20, no. 11, p. 3329, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113329.

[115] S. Ilić, M. S. Andjelković, R. Duane, A. J. Palma, M. Sarajlić, S.

Stanković, and G. R. Ristić, “Recharging process of commercial

floating-gate MOS transistor in dosimetry application,”

Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 126, p. 114322, 2022, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2021.114322 .