Ivana Stojković , Nataša Todorović , Jovana Nikolov , Andrej Vraničar , Slobodan Gadžurić , Milan Vraneš
{"title":"Comparison of quench correction methods for 90Sr/90Y assessment in waters after nuclear incident","authors":"Ivana Stojković , Nataša Todorović , Jovana Nikolov , Andrej Vraničar , Slobodan Gadžurić , Milan Vraneš","doi":"10.1016/j.radphyschem.2024.112385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>One important matter of environmental radioactivity monitoring is the accuracy and precision of the <sup>90</sup>Sr/<sup>90</sup>Y measurement techniques. When Cherenkov counting is carried out in coloured waters, the reduction in detection efficiency can cause significant errors in the obtained results. Two colour quench correction methods were considered in this study: the conventional SCR (Sample Channels Ratio) technique and the Muonic peak method. The latter indicates the quench level via the position of the muonic peak in the cosmic background spectrum. So far, there have been no reports about the Muonic peak method's implementation in Cherenkov counting of <sup>90</sup>Sr/<sup>90</sup>Y in waters. The performance, limitations, advantages, and drawbacks of two methods have been compared based on the analysis of coloured spiked test samples. The Muonic peak method provided similar accuracy as the SCR method in test samples. The adequacy and effectiveness of both techniques have been confirmed during <sup>90</sup>Sr routine monitoring in the event of a nuclear emergency or radioactive leakage from nuclear facilities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20861,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","volume":"227 ","pages":"Article 112385"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969806X24008776","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
One important matter of environmental radioactivity monitoring is the accuracy and precision of the 90Sr/90Y measurement techniques. When Cherenkov counting is carried out in coloured waters, the reduction in detection efficiency can cause significant errors in the obtained results. Two colour quench correction methods were considered in this study: the conventional SCR (Sample Channels Ratio) technique and the Muonic peak method. The latter indicates the quench level via the position of the muonic peak in the cosmic background spectrum. So far, there have been no reports about the Muonic peak method's implementation in Cherenkov counting of 90Sr/90Y in waters. The performance, limitations, advantages, and drawbacks of two methods have been compared based on the analysis of coloured spiked test samples. The Muonic peak method provided similar accuracy as the SCR method in test samples. The adequacy and effectiveness of both techniques have been confirmed during 90Sr routine monitoring in the event of a nuclear emergency or radioactive leakage from nuclear facilities.
期刊介绍:
Radiation Physics and Chemistry is a multidisciplinary journal that provides a medium for publication of substantial and original papers, reviews, and short communications which focus on research and developments involving ionizing radiation in radiation physics, radiation chemistry and radiation processing.
The journal aims to publish papers with significance to an international audience, containing substantial novelty and scientific impact. The Editors reserve the rights to reject, with or without external review, papers that do not meet these criteria. This could include papers that are very similar to previous publications, only with changed target substrates, employed materials, analyzed sites and experimental methods, report results without presenting new insights and/or hypothesis testing, or do not focus on the radiation effects.