Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Performance Comparison of Bed-type and Stand-type Commercial Whole Body Counter Made by Canberra for Internal Exposure Monitoring

Bed-type과 Stand-type 상용 전신계수기(Whole Body Counter)의 성능 비교

  • Kim, Bong-Gi (Nuclear and Radiation Safety Engineering, University of Science and technology) ;
  • Ha, Wi-ho (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences) ;
  • Kwon, Tae-Eun (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences) ;
  • Park, Min-Seok (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences) ;
  • Lee, Jun-Ho (Nuclear and Radiation Safety Engineering, University of Science and technology) ;
  • Kim, Jong-Min (College of Health Science, Koera University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Gyung (College of Health Science, Koera University) ;
  • Jung, Kyu-Hwan (Nuclear and Radiation Safety Engineering, University of Science and technology)
  • Received : 2018.08.16
  • Accepted : 2018.10.21
  • Published : 2018.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Whole-Body counters have been used to evaluate the internal contamination of gamma emitting radionuclides. Among the whole-body counters used in domestic nuclear facilities, Fastscan made by CANBERRA contains 2 NaI(Tl) detectors and is generally used to monitor the primary internal exposure. It has the advantage of achieving MDA even with short time measurements. Accuscan is a bed type, and has good energy resolution because it is composed of HPGe detector. Since the Accuscan with better energy resolution than Fastscan has better able to identify radionuclides, it is used to monitor secondary internal exposure. Some nuclear facilities have only Fastscan. We analyzed statistically whether Fastscan is enough to ensure accuracy and precision comparing with Accuscan. To do this, we prepared a CRM created by the Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science. We also obtained the data of 6 Fastscans and 5 Accuscans in domestic nuclear facilities. As a result of the study, although Fastscan compared with Accuscan is not as accurate as the Accuscan, the precision is statistically same. However, accuracy of Fastscan is in compliance with international standards except low energy range. In terms of accuracy and precision except radionuclides emitting low energy, it is possible to measure radioactivity inside workers even in nuclear facilities where only Fastscan is used.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee JK. Korean Association for Radiation Application. Principles of Radiation Protection. 2016. 502pp.
  2. Park M, Yoo J, Ha WH, Jin YW. An Intercomparison of Counting Efficiency and the Performance of Two Whole-Body Counters According to the Type of Phantom. J. Radiat. Prot. Res. 2016; 41(3);274-81. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrpr.2016.41.3.274
  3. Bento J, Barros S, Teles P, Vaz P, Zankl M. Efficiency Correction Factors of An Accuscan Whole-Body Counter due to The Biodistibution of Cs-134, Cs-137 and Co-60. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2013;155(1);16-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncs308
  4. An GS, Jo HS. Developement of a Monte Carlo Simulation Code(CALEFF) for Calibrating Thyroid Internal Dose Measurement and Detection Efficiency Calculation. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2005;28(2);117-122.
  5. Bronson FL. Canberra Industries. The Accuscan II Vertical Scanning Germanium Whole Body Counter. Health. Phys. 1987;21(2);233-44. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-197108000-00010
  6. Oh JY, Gang CG, Kim JY, Park HH, Oh kB, Kim JS. The Study of Error for Analysis in Dynamic Image from the Error of Count Rates in NaI (Tl) Scintillation Camera. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2013;36(4):291-297.
  7. Bronson FL, Booth LF, Richards DC. A computerized, an anthropometrically designed, high throughput, whole body counter for the nuclear industry. 1998;6-8.
  8. Kramer GH, Capello K, Phan Q. Effect of Mass, at a Fixed Height, on the counting Efficiency of a Bomab Phantom in Three Types of Whole Body Counter Modeled By MCNP5. Health. Phys. 2008;95(2);234-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000312369.68301.ef
  9. Idaho National Laboratory. Calibration of the Accuscan II In Vivo System for I-125 Thyroid Counting. INL/EXT-11-22663. 2011;97-101.
  10. Calibration Phantom For In Vivo Whole Body Counter Specifications, Canberra Industries, Inc. Available from: http://www.canberra.com/products/768.asp
  11. American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society. Specifications for the Bottle Manikin Absorption Phantom. ANSI/HPS N13.35. 1999;8-13.
  12. Bento J, Teles P, silva L, Nogueira, Neves M, Vaz P. Performance parameters of a whole body counter. Radiat. Meas. 2010;45(2);147-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.02.004
  13. The International Organizaiton for Standardization. Radiation protection-Performance criteria for radiobioassay. ISO28218. 2010;10-2.
  14. American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society. Performance Criteria for Radiobioassay. ANSI/HPS N13.30 1996;23-9.
  15. Kramer GH, Loesch RM, Olsen PC. The Second International In-vivo Monitoring Intercomparison Program for Whole-Body Counting Facilities by Canadian and United States Agencies. Health Phys. 2001;80(3);214-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200103000-00003
  16. Robert D. How significant is a boxplot outlier. J. Stat. Educ. 2011;19(2):1-13.
  17. Kramer GH, Loesch RM, Olsen PC. The 1993 Intercomparison of The Measurement of In Vivo Radioactivity. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 1999;86(3):197-205. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032943