场级剂量计校正因子的比较

IF 0.9 4区 工程技术 Q3 NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2298/ntrp2202103z
M. Živanović, Amra Šabeta, N. Kržanović, Vedrana Makaric, Milos Djaletic, Milica Stupar, S. Stankovic
{"title":"场级剂量计校正因子的比较","authors":"M. Živanović, Amra Šabeta, N. Kržanović, Vedrana Makaric, Milos Djaletic, Milica Stupar, S. Stankovic","doi":"10.2298/ntrp2202103z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":49734,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of calibration factors for field-class dosimeters\",\"authors\":\"M. Živanović, Amra Šabeta, N. Kržanović, Vedrana Makaric, Milos Djaletic, Milica Stupar, S. Stankovic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/ntrp2202103z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/ntrp2202103z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/ntrp2202103z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文介绍了两个校准实验室在几种辐射质量上的比较,使用不同质量的剂量计作为传递仪器。这项工作的目的是调查使用现场级剂量计进行官方比较的可行性,并确定在规定的测量不确定度内,校准实验室之间的现场级剂量计的校准因子是否具有可比性。高质量电子个人剂量计的比较结果在所有辐射质量上都是可以接受的,这种剂量计可以作为转移仪器使用。另一方面,低质量剂量计的比较结果往往是不可接受的,要么是由于明显的能量依赖,要么是低稳定性,或者两者兼而有之。即使在定义明确的实验室条件下,这种仪器也不可靠,而且在常规测量中使用它们可能会引起对官方数据的怀疑或影响公众舆论。这个问题常常被隐藏起来,因为许多剂量计只在偏差最小的137Cs光束中进行校准或验证。最大的差异是在低能x射线辐射质量上发现的,其中许多剂量计有明显的过度反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of calibration factors for field-class dosimeters
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection
Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
41.70%
发文量
10
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nuclear Technology & Radiation Protection is an international scientific journal covering the wide range of disciplines involved in nuclear science and technology as well as in the field of radiation protection. The journal is open for scientific papers, short papers, review articles, and technical papers dealing with nuclear power, research reactors, accelerators, nuclear materials, waste management, radiation measurements, and environmental problems. However, basic reactor physics and design, particle and radiation transport theory, and development of numerical methods and codes will also be important aspects of the editorial policy.
期刊最新文献
Study on kinetic parameters of pebble bed reactor with TRISO duplex fuel Influence of electromagnetic pollution of the electron beam generator and high-energy radioactive source on the memory components Influence of ionizing radiation on the stochasticity of overvoltage protection at low, medium, and high voltage levels in gas surge arresters Assessing radiation hazards associated with natural radioactivity in building materials in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Study on occupational exposure of medical staff caused by induced radioactivity in the treatment room of medical heavy-ion facility
×
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