| Wei Xiaofeng,Hou Xueli,Cao Qinjian,Yu Yifan,Zhao Yuan,Zhao Qing,Liu Liye.Analysis of IAEA individual monitoring intercomparison for external radiation exposure in Asia and the Pacific region in 2018[J].Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection,2020,40(12):956-961 |
| Analysis of IAEA individual monitoring intercomparison for external radiation exposure in Asia and the Pacific region in 2018 |
| Received:May 07, 2020 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2020.12.011 |
| KeyWords:External exposure dose Individual dose monitoring Dosimeter Intercomparison |
| FundProject:浙江省卫生健康科技计划项目（2021KY613） |
| Author Name | Affiliation | E-mail | | Wei Xiaofeng | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | | | Hou Xueli | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | | | Cao Qinjian | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | | | Yu Yifan | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | | | Zhao Yuan | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | | | Zhao Qing | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | | | Liu Liye | Department of Health Physics, China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan 030006, China | liuliye@cirp.org.cn |
|
| Hits: 1998 |
| Download times: 1111 |
| Abstract:: |
| 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 View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|
