...
首页> 外文期刊>Radiation measurements >Comparison of the performance of thermoluminescence and direct ion storage dosimeters in accreditation proficiency testing
【24h】

Comparison of the performance of thermoluminescence and direct ion storage dosimeters in accreditation proficiency testing

机译:热致发光和直接离子储存剂量计的性能比较认证能力测试中的性能

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Results of proficiency performance testing of the direct ion storage dosimeter, MBD-1, and thermoluminescence dosimeter, Harshaw 8840/8841 are presented. The MBD-1 is a real-time, self-indicating dosimeter whereas Harshaw 8840/8841 requires a labor and time consuming processes involving Harshaw TLD reader. At certain situations both dosimeters can be worn simultaneously by personnel. Three different approaches were used for dosimeters' performance evaluation and bias calculations. The first approach (ANSI 13.11, 2009) is based on the calculation of the performance bias for each tested dosimeter with following bias averaging over all dosimeters tested in the given category. The second used approach was dose as prescribed by ISO 14146, 2018 which is not based on the performance bias calculations. The third approach is based on the linear regression of reported dose versus delivered dose data in the given category. As results of the proficiency testing we found that both dosimeters satisfy the American standard ANSI 13.11, 2009 requirements although Harshaw 8840/41 performance is significantly better. According to the International Standard ISO 14146, 2018 Harshaw 8840/8841 also passed all tested categories, whereas MBD-1 fully passed only two categories, e.g. category 1 A (accident photons) and category 5BC (neutron-photon mixtures) and fails the criterion for category 2 A (photon mixtures). Pros and contras of the used approaches and causes of the identified discrepancies are discussed.
机译:提出了直接离子储存剂量计,MBD-1和热致发光剂量计的能力测试结果,提出了Harshaw 8840/8841。 MBD-1是一个实时自我指示剂量计,而Harshaw 8840/8841需要劳动和耗时的过程,涉及Harshaw TLD读者。在某些情况下,两个剂量计可以由人员同时佩戴。三种不同的方法用于剂量计的绩效评估和偏见计算。第一种方法(ANSI 13.11,2009)基于计算每个测试剂量计的性能偏差,在给定类别中测试的所有剂量计上的偏差平均值。第二二手方法是由ISO 14146,2018规定的剂量,这不是基于性能偏差计算的。第三种方法基于报告的剂量与给定类别中的递送剂量数据的线性回归。随着熟练程度测试的结果,我们发现两剂量计满足美国标准ANSI 13.11,2009要求,尽管Harshaw 8840/41性能明显更好。根据国际标准ISO 14146,2018 Harshaw 8840/8841还通过了所有测试类别,而MBD-1完全通过两类,例如,类别1 A(事故光子)和5BC类别(中子 - 光子混合物),并且失败了2类A类(Photon Mixtures)的标准。讨论了所识别的差异的使用方法的优缺点和对抗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号