Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:09:17.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Backscattering factor for some personal dosimeters and impacton Hp(10)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2013

V.P. SINGH ,
N.M. BADIGER  and
R.R. BIHARI
V.P. SINGH*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Karnatak University, Dharwad, 580003, India.
N.M. BADIGER
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Karnatak University, Dharwad, 580003, India.
R.R. BIHARI
Affiliation:
Radiological Physics & Advisory Division, BARC, Mumbai, 400094, India.
*
* Permanent address: Health Physics Section, Kaiga AtomicPower Station-3&4, NPCIL, Karwar, 581400, Karnatak, India, e-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the present paper, we estimated backscattering factors for the TLD and active personaldosimeters using 662 keV gamma-ray photons on a PMMA surface, which are, for the TLD,1.12; Dosicard, 1.116; DRD, 0.99; and Saphydose, 1.073, and on a water slab phantomsurface; for the TLD, 1.115; Dosicard, 1.112; DRD, 1; and Saphydose, 1.059. Thebackscattering factor contribution for the Saphydose is nearly half that of the TLD andDosicard, whereas it is zero for the DRD. The DRD underestimates Hp(10)by 10.3–11.6%, whereas for the Saphydose it is 3.4–5% compared with the TLD or Dosicard.The response of the DRD to Hp(10) is nearly independent of the phantom,whereas the TLD, Dosicard and Saphydose require phantoms for calibration for personalmonitoring. It is observed that the PMMA phantom contributes slightly higherbackscattering compared with the water slab phantom. The backscattering factor of theselected dosimeters is comparable with ICRU tissue already reported.

Keywords

air kermabackscatteringoperational quantityambiguityphoton and Zeff
Type
Research Article
Information
Radioprotection , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 243 - 251
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akar, T.U., Ozmutlu, E.N., Gurler, O., Yalcin, S. (2012) Monte Carlo analysis for multiple back scattering of gamma rays, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Energy, 295 (2), 901-905.Google Scholar
ANSI (1993) American National Standard Institute, American National Standard for Dosimetry, Personnel Dosimetry Performance, Criteria for Testing, ANSI N13.11.
Bartlett, D.T., Dimbylow, P.J., Francis, T.M. (1980) Calculated Backscatter from Phantoms for Photon Dosemeter Calibration, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 32 (2), 123-125.Google Scholar
Chan, H.P., Doi, K. (1960) Monte Carlo simulation studies of backscatter factors in mammography, Radiat. Res. 12 (1), 20-37.Google Scholar
Gualdrini G. (1993) Field parameters and Operational Quantities for ICRU sphere and reference photon beam, ENEA Report ISSN/1120-555.
Gualdrini, G., Monteventi, F., Morelli, B. (1999) Determining the Photon Air Kerma Backscatter Factor Profiles for the ISO and ICRU Recommended Slab Phantoms: Comparison between LiF Measurements and Monte Carlo Calculations, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 85 (1-4), 71-74.Google Scholar
Grosswendt, B. (1990) Dependence of the photon backscatter factor for water on source-to-phantom distance and irradiation field size, Phys. Med. Biol. 35, 1233.Google Scholar
ICRU (1980) International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements, Radiation Quantities and Units, Oxford, ICRU Report 33.
ICRU (1985) International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements, Determination of Dose Equivalent Resulting from External Radiation Sources. Oxford, ICRU Report 39.
Kim, C.H., Reece, W.D., Poston, J.W. (1999) Development of a Two-dosimeter Algorithm for Better Estimation of Effective Dose Equivalent and Effective Dose, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 81 (2), 101-112.Google Scholar
Kramer, R., Drexler, G., Petoussi, H.N., Zankl, M., Regulla, D., Panzer, W. (2001) Backscatter factors for mammography calculated with Monte Carlo methods, Phys. Med. Biol. 46 (3), 771-781.Google Scholar
Lakshmana, A.R., Kher, R.K., Supe, S.J. (1991) Estimation of Effective Dose Equivalent Using Individual Dosimeters, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 35 (4), 247-252.Google Scholar
Mizukami, K., Matsumoto, T., Hydo, T. (1967) Backscattering of gamma rays from polyethylene, alumium and lead slabs, J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 4, 607-613.Google Scholar
Sabharwal, A.D., Sandhu, B.S., Singh, B. (2009a) Investigations of energy dependence of saturation thickness of multiply backscattered gamma photons in carbon, Asian J. Chem. 21, 237-241.Google Scholar
Sabharwal, A.D., Singh, M., Singh, B., Sandhu, B.S. (2009b) Experimental evaluation of multiple Compton backscattering of gamma rays in copper, Indian J. Phys. 83, 1141-1146.Google Scholar
Schauer, D.A., Cassata, J.R., King, J.J. (2000) A Comparison of Measured and Calculated Photon Backscatter from Dosemeter Calibration Phantoms, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 88 (4), 319-321.Google Scholar
Scott, O.S., Thomas, F.G. (2008) Variations in backscatter observed in PMMA whole-body dosimetry slab phantoms, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 128 (3), 375-381.Google Scholar
Selbach, H.J., Grosswendt, B., Hohfeld, K., Kramer, H.M. (1985) Experimental and Computational determination of the dose Equivalent Distribution in ICRU sphere, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 12: 129-133. Google Scholar
Traub, R.J., McDonal, J.C., Murphy, M.K. (1997) Detecrmination of Photon backscatter from several calibration phantoms, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 74 (1-2), 13-20.Google Scholar
Vohra, K.G., Bhatt, R.C., Bhuwan, C., Pradhan, A.S., Lakshmanan, A.R., Shastry, S.S. (1980) A Personnel Dosimetry TLD Badge based on CaSO4: Dy Teflon TLD discs, Health Phys. 38, 193-197.Google Scholar
Will, W. (1991) Measurement of conversion coefficient for calibration individual dosimeter with respect to the Operational dose quantities on the PMMA slab phantom, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 37, 79-84. Google Scholar
X-5 (2003) Monte carlo Tem, MCNP-A general monte carlo n-particle transport code, version 5. University of California for U. S. Department of Energy.