Comparative performance assessment of the most commonly used personnel radiation dosimeters in Nigeria

  • Bappah S. Yahaya Radiology Department, State Specialist Hospital Gombe, Gombe State, Nigeria
  • Umar Ibrahim Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria
  • Abdullahi A. Mundi Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria
  • Mustapha M. Idris Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria
  • Musa A. Bilya Department of Physics, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria
  • Anas Mohammed Radiology Department, State Specialist Hospital Gombe, Gombe State, Nigeria
  • Musa Ali G. Oncology Department, Federal Teaching Hospital, Gombe, Gombe State, Nigeria
Keywords: Radiation Dosimeter, Instadose, Thermolumniscence, Absorbed dose

Abstract

Radiation dosimeters exhibit several performance properties characterized by their precision and accuracy, linearity, dose and energy dependence, stability and spatial resolution. However, these characteristics may not be satisfied by all dosimeters. The dosimetric performances of Instadose and Thermolumniscence dosimeters (TLDs) which are the two most commonly used personal dosimeters in health care institutions were comparatively assessed under clinical settings in which a GE haulum XR 6000 X-ray machine with a frequency of 50/60 Hz was used to serially irradiate Mironinstadose and TLD 100H badges to a controlled exposure factors and readings of absorbed doses for instadose were obtained from a portable computer with internet access, while that of TLDs was obtained through heating using Harshaw 4500 automatic TLD reader at Center for Energy Research and Training (CERT), Zaria. The dose equivalent quantities measured were; Hp (10), Hp (3) and Hp(0.07) all in mSv, representing deep, eye lens and shallow doses respectively. Results of measured doses ranged between 0.74 mSv to 22.96 mSv for instadose and 0.71 mSv to 35.42 mSv for TLD badges in all performance tests conducted. Homogeneity results were 9% and 12%, reproducibility was 7.2% and 3.9% while percentage deviation for linearity test was below 10% for both instadose and TL dosimeters. The performance tests results of instadose and TL dosimeters were assessed based on the criteria of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 1066 standard. The assessment revealed good performance indices within the requirement of the IEC standard. However, TL dosimeters demonstrate high sensitivity in the self-irradiation test exceeding the standard mSv values.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Steven, J. C. (2016). The suitability of active personal dosimeters as the legal dosimeter for PET Radioisotope workers.An M.Sc. Dissertation submitted to school of postgraduate studies, The University of Western Australia (Unpublished) 13-19

[2] Bappah S. Yahaya, Umar Ibrahim, Samson D. Yusuf, Abdullahi A. Mundi , Mustapha M. Idris, Habib Sa’ad, Anas Mohammed & Reuben J. Soja (2019). Performance Evaluation of Thermolumniscence Dosimeters in Personnel in-Vivo Dosimetry, DUJOPAS, 5 (2): 195-203

[3] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (2006).Effects of Ionizing Radiation.United Nations, New York (1)

[4] Boyd, W. L. (2009). Using Thermoluminescence Dosimeters to Measure the Dose From High and Low Energy X-Ray Sources. Message posted to UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. Accessed on 11th November, 2018 from http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/1203

[5] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2002). Occupational radiation protection: Protecting workers against exposure to ionizing radiation.Proceedings of an International Conference, Geneva, 26-30 August 2002

[6] International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (1990).Report 60 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publ 60, Ann ICRP 21 (1-3)

[7] Aya, M. H. A. (2018). New Trend in Radiation Dosimeters.American Journal of Modern Physics, 7(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajmp.20180701.13

[8] Antonio, P., Pinto, T. N. O. & Caldas, L. V. E. (2010).TL and OSL techniques for calibration of 90Sr+90Y clinical applicators.Dosimetry Poster presentations, Helsinki, Finland, 4(03), 769-775

[9] Izewska, J. &Rajan, G. (2012).Radiation dosimeters. Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics. Message posted to IAEA. Accessed on 11th November, 2018 from: http://www.naweb.iaea.org/nahu/dmrp/pdf_files/Chapter3

[10] Singh, V.P., Managanvi, S.S., Bihari, R.R. &Bhat, H.R. (2013). Operational experience of electronic active personal dosimeter and comparison with CaSo4:Dy TL dosimeter in Indian PHWR. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 156(1), 93–102.

[11] Seco, J., Clasie, B. & Partridge, M. (2014). Review on the characteristics of radiation detectors for dosimetry and imaging. Phys. Med. Biol., 59 (20), 303–347.
https://doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/20/R303

[12] Lummis, S. (2013). Personal Radiation Monitoring System Inefficiencies: A Comparison in Service Provision. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the ACPSEM, Pan Pacific Hotel Perth, 2013, 226

[13] Garzón, W. J., Khoury, H., Ovalle, S. A. M. & Medeiros, R. B. (2018).Performance of the Instadose dosimeter for interventional radiology and cardiology application.Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1(7), 2, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncy172

[14] Miron (2018).Instadose Dosimeter, Instant, Precise, Portable. Accessed on 8th October, 2018 from http://www.miron.com

[15] Ginjaume, M. (2011).Performance and approval procedures for active personal Dosimeters.Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 144 (1-4), 144–149, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq457

[16] Covens, P., Berus, D., Buls N., Clerinx, P. &Vanhavere, F. (2007).Personal dose monitoring in hospitals: Global assessment, critical applications and future needs.Radiation Prot. Dosimetry, 124(3), 250-259

[17] Furetta, C. &Weng, P.S. (1997).Operational Thermoluminescence Dosimetry.World Scientific, Singapore, 3(1-2), 22-28

[18] Koguchi, Y., Yamamoto, T. & Maria R. (2010). Intercomparison of various dosimetry systems for routine individual monitoring.Dosimetry Oral presentations, Helsinki, Finland,4(19) 835

[19] Sabine, M., Markus, B. & Annette, F. S. (2010). Reproducibility assessment fora new neutron dose evaluation system.Dosimetry Poster presentations, Helsinki, Finland, 4(01), 755-758

[20] Daniel, M., Ailza, C. S., Elizaima, F. S. & Ernesto, M. H. (2000). Characteristics of a Thermoluminescence Dosimetry System based on LiF:Mg,Cu,P (GR-200) Detectors for Environmental Monitoring. Rad. Prot. Dosimetry, 60(2), 147-153

[21] Nguyen, P. D.,Takashi, M., Katsuhiro, O., Kazuichi, O. & Hiroyuki, M. (2001). Basic characteristics examination of Direct Ion Storage (DIS) dosimeter.Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, JP0150733 047

[22] Pugliese, M., Roca, V. & Durante, M. (2010).The use of TL dosimeters in HZE radiation fields.Dosimetry Poster presentations, Helsinki, Finland, 4(19), 832-834

[23] Campos, L. L., Rocha, F. D., & Campos, V. (2010). CaSO4:Dy TL response for photons energies between 33 keV to 15 MeV. Dosimetry Poster presentations, Helsinki, Finland, 4(09), 797-798.

[24] Teixeira, M. & Caldas, L V. E. (2010).Dosimetric properties of agate stones.Dosimetry Poster presentations, Helsinki, Finland, 4(14), 811-816.

[25] Andrew, V. & Braden, G. (2019).Loss of TLD signal due to high temperature environmental conditions. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 130 (34), 1-4, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncz130
Published
2019-12-16
How to Cite
Yahaya, B. S., Ibrahim, U., A. Mundi, A., M. Idris, M., A. Bilya, M., Mohammed, A., & Ali G., M. (2019). Comparative performance assessment of the most commonly used personnel radiation dosimeters in Nigeria. EDUCATUM Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology, 6(2), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.37134/ejsmt.vol6.2.4.2019