| 卫晓峰,侯雪莉,曹勤剑,等.2018年IAEA亚太地区外照射个人剂量监测比对结果分析[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2020,40(12):956-961.Wei Xiaofeng,Hou Xueli,Cao Qinjian,et al.Analysis of IAEA individual monitoring intercomparison for external radiation exposure in Asia and the Pacific region in 2018[J].Chin J Radiol Med Prot,2020,40(12):956-961 |
| 2018年IAEA亚太地区外照射个人剂量监测比对结果分析 |
| Analysis of IAEA individual monitoring intercomparison for external radiation exposure in Asia and the Pacific region in 2018 |
| 投稿时间：2020-05-07 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2020.12.011 |
| 中文关键词: 外照射剂量 个人剂量监测 剂量计 比对 |
| 英文关键词:External exposure dose Individual dose monitoring Dosimeter Intercomparison |
| 基金项目:浙江省卫生健康科技计划项目（2021KY613） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3044 |
| 全文下载次数: 1543 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 了解亚太地区外照射个人剂量监测水平，分析监测工作中存在的问题，提高个人剂量监测能力、完善质量管理体系。方法 阐述国际原子能机构（IAEA）亚太地区外照射个人剂量监测比对方法，对于各照射组分别从相对误差、负相对误差比例、变异系数和固有误差4个方面分析了比对结果，对于总体结果从各照射情景及各参与者响应值R的分布情况进行分析，结合标准、技术导则对存在的问题及改进建议进行讨论。结果 共有22个国家的30个个人剂量监测机构参加了本次比对。所有测量结果的响应值R在0.67~1.50范围内，平均值为0.96±0.16（1σ）；4个照射组测量值的整体相对误差分别15.5%、16.4%、19.1%和16.6%；各照射组R的中位数与平均值相近且均接近于1.0，整体上R的分布偏向于1.0以下；24家参与者响应分布偏向1.0以下的有15家，占总数的62.5%。结论 所有参加机构均达到了本次比对要求，但在剂量系统校准、质量控制及不确定度分析方面存在一定问题。建议可通过加强量值溯源和检定校准的多样性、了解现场使用场景和优化剂量计性能、系统科学评估不确定度来提高个人剂量监测机构外照射剂量监测能力和质量管理水平。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To acertain the monitoring level for individual external radiation exposure in the Asia-Pacific region, analyze the problems existing in individual monitoring, raise the capability of individual monitoring, and improve the quality management system. Methods The inter-comparison result were analyzed for each of exposure scenarios in terms of relative error, negative relative error ratio, coefficient of variation, and intrinsic error. The overall result were analyzed with respect to the distribution of R for each exposure scenario and each participant. As a result, discussions were made of the problems and advises by referency to the relevant standards and technical guidelines. Results Totally 30 individual monitoring services from 21 countries participated in this regional intercomparison. The response R of all measurement result is in the range of 0.67-1.50, with an average value of 0.96±0.16 (1σ). The relative errors of the overall measurement values for four exposure scenarios were 15.5%, 16.4%, 19.1%, and 16.6% respectively. The median of R for each exposure scenario is close to the average, up to 1.0. There are 15 participants with a response distribution bias of less than 1.0, accounting for 62.5% of the total. Conclusions All the participants provided results that were within the acceptable limits. However, there are some problems in the calibration, quality control and uncertainty analysis. Capability of individual monitoring and quality management should be further improved through a combination of strengthening the traceability of the value and the diversity of verification and calibration, being aware of exposure scenarios and optimizing performance of dosimeter, and evaluating uncertainty scientifically. |
| HTML 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|