Response evaluation of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) against different parameters.

BJR open Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1259/bjro.20220035
Sitah Fahad Alanazi, Haya Alarifi, Abdullah Alshehri, Mansour Almurayshid
{"title":"Response evaluation of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) against different parameters.","authors":"Sitah Fahad Alanazi,&nbsp;Haya Alarifi,&nbsp;Abdullah Alshehri,&nbsp;Mansour Almurayshid","doi":"10.1259/bjro.20220035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>It is essential to study the dosimetric performance and reliability of personal dosimeters. This study examines and compares the responses of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), the TLD-100 and the MTS-N.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the two TLDs to various parameters such as energy dependence, linearity, homogeneity, reproducibility, light sensitivity (zero point), angular dependence, and temperature effects using the IEC 61066 standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results acquired showed that both TLD materials show linear behavior as indicated by the quality of the fit. In addition, the angular dependence results for both detectors show that all dose responses are within the range of acceptable values. However, the TLD-100 outperformed the MTS-N in terms of light sensitivity reproducibility for all detectors together, while the MTS-N outperforms the TLD-100 for each detector independently and that showed TLD-100 has more stability than MTS-N. The MTS-N shows better batch homogeneity (10.84%) than TLD-100 (13.65%). The effect of temperature in signal loss was clearer at higher temperature 65°C and it was however below ±30%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The overall results for dosimetric properties determined in terms of dose equivalents for all combinations of detectors are satisfactory. The MTS-N cards have better results in the energy dependence, angular dependency, batch homogeneity and less signal fading, whereas the TLD-100 cards are less sensitive to light and more reproducible.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>Although previous studies showed several types of comparisons between TLDs, they have used limited parameters and different data analysis. This study has dealt with more comprehensive characterization methods and examinations combining TLD-100 and MTS-N cards.</p>","PeriodicalId":72419,"journal":{"name":"BJR open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10301716/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJR open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: It is essential to study the dosimetric performance and reliability of personal dosimeters. This study examines and compares the responses of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), the TLD-100 and the MTS-N.

Methods: We compared the two TLDs to various parameters such as energy dependence, linearity, homogeneity, reproducibility, light sensitivity (zero point), angular dependence, and temperature effects using the IEC 61066 standard.

Results: The results acquired showed that both TLD materials show linear behavior as indicated by the quality of the fit. In addition, the angular dependence results for both detectors show that all dose responses are within the range of acceptable values. However, the TLD-100 outperformed the MTS-N in terms of light sensitivity reproducibility for all detectors together, while the MTS-N outperforms the TLD-100 for each detector independently and that showed TLD-100 has more stability than MTS-N. The MTS-N shows better batch homogeneity (10.84%) than TLD-100 (13.65%). The effect of temperature in signal loss was clearer at higher temperature 65°C and it was however below ±30%.

Conclusions: The overall results for dosimetric properties determined in terms of dose equivalents for all combinations of detectors are satisfactory. The MTS-N cards have better results in the energy dependence, angular dependency, batch homogeneity and less signal fading, whereas the TLD-100 cards are less sensitive to light and more reproducible.

Advances in knowledge: Although previous studies showed several types of comparisons between TLDs, they have used limited parameters and different data analysis. This study has dealt with more comprehensive characterization methods and examinations combining TLD-100 and MTS-N cards.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种商用热释光剂量计(tld)对不同参数的响应评价。
目的:研究个人剂量计的剂量学性能和可靠性。本研究考察并比较了两种商用热释光剂量计(TLD-100)和MTS-N的反应。方法:采用IEC 61066标准,比较了两个tld的能量依赖性、线性度、均匀性、再现性、光敏度(零点)、角度依赖性和温度效应等参数。结果:所获得的结果表明,两种TLD材料都表现出线性行为,这表明了拟合质量。此外,两个探测器的角依赖性结果表明,所有剂量响应都在可接受的范围内。然而,TLD-100在所有探测器的光敏重现性方面优于MTS-N,而MTS-N在每个探测器的光敏重现性方面优于TLD-100,这表明TLD-100比MTS-N具有更高的稳定性。MTS-N的批次均匀性(10.84%)优于TLD-100(13.65%)。温度对信号损耗的影响在较高温度65℃时更为明显,但在±30%以下。结论:用剂量当量来测定所有检测器组合的剂量学性质的总体结果是令人满意的。MTS-N卡在能量依赖性、角度依赖性、批次均匀性和信号衰落方面具有较好的效果,而TLD-100卡对光的敏感度较低,可重复性更好。知识的进步:虽然以前的研究显示了几种顶级域名之间的比较,但它们使用了有限的参数和不同的数据分析。本研究结合TLD-100和MTS-N卡进行了更全面的表征方法和检验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Three-dimensional dose prediction based on deep convolutional neural networks for brain cancer in CyberKnife: accurate beam modelling of homogeneous tissue. Advancing radiology practice and research: harnessing the potential of large language models amidst imperfections. Improvement in paediatric CT use and justification: a single-centre experience. Deuterium MR spectroscopy: potential applications in oncology research. Unlocking the potential of photon counting detector CT for paediatric imaging: a pictorial essay.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1