• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.437-444
• /
• 2018

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.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.274-281
• /
• 2016

Background: Whole-body counters are widely used to evaluate internal contamination of the internal presence of gamma-emitting radionuclides. In internal dosimetry, it is a basic requirement that quality control procedures be applied to verify the reliability of the measured results. The implementation of intercomparison programs plays an important role in quality control, and the accuracy of the calibration and the reliability of the results should be verified through intercomparison. In this study, we evaluated the reliability of 2 whole-body counting systems using 2 calibration methods. Materials and Methods: In this study, 2 whole-body counters were calibrated using a reference male bottle manikin absorption (BOMAB) phantom and a Radiation Management Corporation (RMC-II) phantom. The reliability of the whole-body counting systems was evaluated by performing an intercomparison with International Atomic Energy Agencyto assess counting efficiency according to the type of the phantom. Results and Discussion: In the analysis of counting efficiency using the BOMAB phantom, the performance criteria of the counters were satisfied. The relative bias of activity for all radionuclides was -0.16 to 0.01 in the Fastscan and -0.01 to 0.03 in the Accuscan. However, when counting efficiency was analyzed using the RMC- II phantom, the relative bias of $^{241}Am$ activity was -0.49 in the Fastscan and 0.55 in the Accuscan, indicating that its performance criteria was not satisfactory. Conclusion: The intercomparison process demonstrated the reliability of whole-body counting systems calibrated with a BOMAB phantom. However, when the RMC-II phantom was used, the accuracy of measurements decreased for low-energy nuclides. Therefore, it appears that the RMC-II phantom should only be used for efficiency calibration for high-energy nuclides. Moreover, a novel phantom capable of matching the efficiency of the BOMAB phantom in low-energy nuclides should be developed.