An international intercomparison on “self-calibrated” alanine EPR dosimeters

The results, obtained by six independent electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) laboratories, of the dose response coefficients ( K dr) of “self-calibrated” solid-state EPR dosimeters containing alanine as a radiation-sensitive material and Mn 2+/MgO as an internal reference material, are reported. T...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) England : 1993), 2008-03, Vol.77 (3), p.357-364
Hauptverfasser: Gancheva, V., Yordanov, N.D., Callens, F., Vanhaelewyn, G., Raffi, J., Bortolin, E., Onori, S., Malinen, E., Sagstuen, E., Fabisiak, S., Peimel-Stuglik, Z.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The results, obtained by six independent electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) laboratories, of the dose response coefficients ( K dr) of “self-calibrated” solid-state EPR dosimeters containing alanine as a radiation-sensitive material and Mn 2+/MgO as an internal reference material, are reported. The intercomparison trial was divided into three steps. It started with the distribution of dosimeters among the participating EPR laboratories with the purpose of irradiating them with known doses of γ-rays and to estimate the K dr. The percentage standard deviation (PSD) of the K dr obtained at individual labs was in the range of 1.4–4.6%. The interlaboratory PSD of the K dr was 8%, primarily pointing to variations in irradiation procedures and EPR spectrometer settings. Further investigations showed that the main source of the interlaboratory PSD is differences in the calibrations of irradiators and settings of EPR acquisition parameters. In order to provide reproducible estimates of the K dr, low microwave power and modulation amplitude using a combination of sweep time and time constant that gives a distortion-free EPR spectrum should be utilized. In the third step following such a procedure, measuring the same irradiated alanine dosimeter at the respective laboratories, spectrometers (12 instruments of 6 different models and 3 producers) and 10 operators gave an interlaboratory PSD of 3.1%. In conclusion, EPR dosimetry using “self-calibrated” alanine dosimeters may be used as a secondary standard, although a careful calibration of the EPR spectrometer must be performed in order to further reduce the uncertainty.
ISSN:0969-806X
1879-0895
DOI:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2007.06.004