| 丁跃华,钱爱君,杨龙飞,等.生活饮用水放射性指标测量不确定度评定的实践探讨[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2026,46(6):619-626.Ding Yuehua,Qian Aijun,Yang Longfei,et al.Discussion on uncertainty evaluation in measurement of radioactive indicators in drinking water[J].Chin J Radiol Med Prot,2026,46(6):619-626 |
| 生活饮用水放射性指标测量不确定度评定的实践探讨 |
| Discussion on uncertainty evaluation in measurement of radioactive indicators in drinking water |
| 投稿时间：2025-10-18 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.cn112271-20251018-00364 |
| 中文关键词: 测量不确定度|生活饮用水|总α|总β |
| 英文关键词:Measurement uncertainty|Drinking water|Gross α|Gross β |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3150 |
| 全文下载次数: 31 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 通过系统分析生活饮用水中总α、总β放射性测量的不确定度来源,探讨各不确定度分量在实验室检测实践中的量化方法与改进措施,以提升实验室的整体检测能力。方法 以某实验室参加上海市疾病预防控制中心组织的总α、总β放射性测量能力比对为例,基于数学模型分析不确定度各分量来源,包括计数率、水样的体积、水样残渣的总质量、制备样品源所称取的水样残渣质量、仪器测量标准粉末源的计数效率和放射性回收率等,比较各不确定度分量的贡献。结果 在各不确定度分量中,计数率的贡献最大,其贡献率范围为39.2%~50.9%;其次为仪器测量标准粉末源的计数效率与放射性回收率,贡献率范围为15.6%~32.8%;水样残渣的总质量、制备样品源所称取的水样残渣质量及水样的体积贡献较小,贡献率范围为1.1%~5.3%。结论 通过对不确定度来源进行系统分析,并构建贴合实验室实践需求的评定方法,能够显著提升不确定度评定的可操作性,进而增强实验室测量结果的可靠性与可信度。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To identify the sources of uncertainty in the measurement of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in drinking water, discuss the method for quantifying each component of uncertainty in laboratory practice, and propose improvement measures to enhance the overall testing capability of laboratories. Methods With a laboratory as an example who has participated in a proficiency comparison for gross α and gross β radioactivity measurement organized by the Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the sources of various uncertainty components were analyzed based on a mathematical model. These components include count rate, water sample volume, total mass of water sample residue, mass of the water sample residue weighed during sample source preparation, counting efficiency of the instrument measured with standard powder sources, and radioactivity recovery rate. The contributions of these uncertainty components were compared. Results Of all uncertainty components, the highest contribution was from count rate, ranging from 39.2% to 50.9%; followed by the counting efficiency for standard powder sources and the radioactive recovery rate, from 15.6% to 32.8%; while the minor contributions was from the total mass of water residue, the mass of residue weighed during sample source preparation, and the water sample volume show, relatively, falling from 1.1% to 5.3%. Conclusions By systematically analyzing the sources of uncertainty and developing evaluation method tailored to laboratory practical needs, the operability of uncertainty assessment can be significantly improved, thereby enhancing the reliability and credibility of laboratory measurement result. |
| HTML 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|