EUROMET.RI(I)-S1: personal dose equivalent comparison between the BEV and the PTB

Ankerhold, U.; ck, W Tiefenb; Witzani, J.; Ambrosi, P.

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/39/1a/16

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sec ond, can field-class do sim e ters be used as trans fer in stru ments for com par i sons be tween cal i bration lab o ra to ries, and if yes, un der which con di tions? Such com par i sons typ i cally use high-qual ity ion iza tion cham bers as trans fer in stru ments, both for com par i sons in terms of air kerma and terms of op er a tional quan ti ties [10][11][12][13]. These com par i sons are long, ex pen sive, and com pli cated, due to the use of sen si tive, bulky, and costly equip ment (ion iza tion cham bers and electrometers).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of calibration factors for field-class dosimeters

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a comparison performed between two calibration laboratories in several radiation qualities, using dosimeters of varying quality as transfer instruments. The goal of this work was to investigate the viability of using field-class dosimeters for official comparisons and to determine if the calibration factors for field-class dosimeters are comparable between calibration laboratories within the stated measurement uncertainties. The results of the comparison were acceptable for high-quality electronic personal dosimeters in all radiation qualities, and such dosimeters could be used as transfer instruments. On the other hand, comparison results for low-quality dosimeters were often not acceptable, either due to pronounced energy dependence, low stability, or both. Such instruments are unreliable even under well-defined laboratory conditions, and their use in routine measurements may cause doubt in official data or influence public opinion. This problem is often hidden because many dosimeters are calibrated or verified only in 137Cs beams, where the deviations are the smallest. The largest differences are found for low-energy X-ray radiation qualities, where many dosimeters have significant overresponse.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of calibration factors for field-class dosimeters

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intercomparison on Measurements of the Quantity Personal Dose Equivalent Hp(d) in Mixed (Neutron-Gamma) Fields--an IAEA Project

Suárez

Schuhmacher

Pochat

et al. 2006

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within its occupational radiation protection programme, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiated and funded an international intercomparison exercise of personal dosemeters to determine the quantity personal dose equivalent in mixed neutron-photon radiation. The objectives of the intercomparison are to assess the capabilities of the dosimetry services in measuring the quantity Hp(10) in mixed neutron-gamma fields; to assist IAEA member states in achieving sufficiently accurate dosimetry; and, if necessary, to provide guidelines for improvements (not simply a test of the performance of the existing dosimetry service). The intercomparison is directed to passive dosemeters to determine, in mixed neutron-gamma radiation fields, either these two components separately or the total personal dose equivalent. The intercomparison consists of two phases: Phase I--Type-test intercomparison: irradiation in selected calibration fields and results used to improve dosimetric procedures of participating laboratories, where needed. Phase II--Simulated workplace field intercomparison: irradiation in radiation fields similar to those in workplaces as a final check of performance. The exercise revealed clear deficiencies in the methodology used by several laboratories and necessitated a detailed analysis of the existing discrepancies. This papers summaries the finding and conclusions for radiation fields similar to those found in nuclear industry.

show abstract

COMPARISON OF PERSONAL DOSE EQUIVALENT Hp(10) IN 137CS RADIATION BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STANDARDS LABORATORIES OF JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA USING BeO OSL PERSONAL DOSEMETERS

Butler¹,

Kurasawa²,

Litwin³

et al. 2017

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison of personal dose equivalent Hp(10) for 137Cs radiation was conducted between the primary standards laboratories of Japan and Australia. A set of 120 commercially available passive BeO OSL dosemeters were used (Dosimetrics GmbH, Munich). The aim was to investigate the precision which could be obtained with this technique, and to confirm the personal dose equivalent delivery methods in each standards laboratory. A dose of 5 mSv was delivered to 40 dosemeters in each country, and 40 dosemeters were used as controls. The result of the comparison was a ratio of Hp(10) in Japan to Australia of 1.006 with a combined standard uncertainty of 3.2%. The statistical uncertainty was 0.32% indicating that passive dosemeters can be used for comparisons of high precision.

show abstract

EUROMET.RI(I)-S1: personal dose equivalent comparison between the BEV and the PTB

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of calibration factors for field-class dosimeters

Comparison of calibration factors for field-class dosimeters

Intercomparison on Measurements of the Quantity Personal Dose Equivalent Hp(d) in Mixed (Neutron-Gamma) Fields--an IAEA Project

COMPARISON OF PERSONAL DOSE EQUIVALENT Hp(10) IN 137CS RADIATION BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STANDARDS LABORATORIES OF JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA USING BeO OSL PERSONAL DOSEMETERS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About