A comparison of ambient dose equivalent meters and dose calculations at constant flight conditions

Ambient dose-equivalent results from an in-flight comparison between different tissue-equivalent proportional counters and silicon diode spectrometers from seven European institutes are presented and compared with calculations using the EPCARD computer program. The measurements were performed on 40...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiation measurements 2007-03, Vol.42 (3), p.323-333
Hauptverfasser: Lillhök, J., Beck, P., Bottollier-Depois, J.F., Latocha, M., Lindborg, L., Roos, H., Roth, J., Schraube, H., Spurny, F., Stehno, G., Trompier, F., Wissmann, F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Ambient dose-equivalent results from an in-flight comparison between different tissue-equivalent proportional counters and silicon diode spectrometers from seven European institutes are presented and compared with calculations using the EPCARD computer program. The measurements were performed on 40 000 and 32 000 ft in narrow target areas at latitudes N 57 ∘ and N 42 ∘ . Keeping the altitude and geographic position almost constant provided unique conditions for comparisons. The different measuring systems as well as the calculations are in remarkably good agreement, with an average standard deviation in the ambient dose equivalent between 6% and 21%. The ratio between calculated and measured ambient dose-equivalent rates varies between 0.91 and 1.09, with an average of 1.00 ± 0.08 ( 1 s ) . Nevertheless some systematic differences in the experimentally determined ambient dose equivalent and its low-LET and high-LET components are noticed and discussed. It is concluded that the standard deviation between different instruments can through optimization and harmonization of the calibration procedures be reduced by up to a factor of two.
ISSN:1350-4487
1879-0925
1879-0925
DOI:10.1016/j.radmeas.2006.12.011