DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison on the Dosimetry of TLD and PLD by Dose Area Product

DAP(Dose Area Product)를 이용한 TLD와 PLD의 선량 측정 비교

  • Received : 2011.10.24
  • Accepted : 2012.01.06
  • Published : 2012.03.28

Abstract

The results of analyzing the difference between performances of individual dosimeters on this research subjecting the PLD and TLD, which are the official personal dosimeters, through dosimetry are as follows. After scanning the integral dose using an automatic scanner, the values of two devices that went through dose adjustment process had a statistical difference in TLD and PLD measurements under each filming conditions which were 70kVp, 200mA, 0.012sec and 42kVp, 100mA, and 0.012sec (p<0.001 and p<0.001 respectively). As for the difference of measurement value between DAP and the two particles under 70kVp, 200mA, 0.012sec filming condition, TLD had a value lower than DAP average value by $44.2mGy{\cdot}cm^2$ and PLD had a value of $246.8mGy{\cdot}cm^2$ which was lower than DAP average value by $15.5mGy{\cdot}cm^2$, while under 42kVp, 100mA, 0.012sec filming condition, TLD had a value lower than DAP average value by $17.9mGy{\cdot}cm^2$ and PLD had a value of $82.6mGy{\cdot}cm^2$ which was lower than DAP average value by 7.6$mGy{\cdot}cm^2$. Also, compared to PLD, each of 10 devices measured dose value in TLD had a larger deviation between the particles, and for a reproducibility test which repeatedly measured one particle, PLD had ${\pm}1%$ which was lower than TLD's ${\pm}2%$. As such, PLD had a superior performance result in dose measurement capacities aspect compared to TLD, and therefore we could verify that PLD is more appropriate and advantageous in managing radiation-related task performing worker's personal radiation exposure management in the diagnostic radiation field.

Keywords

Personal Dosimeter;Thermoluminescent Dosimeter;Fluoro-glass Dosimeter;Radiation Workers

References

  1. 보건복지부령 제349호, 진단용 방사선발생장치의 안전관리에 관한 규칙, 2007.
  2. 식품의약품안전청, 2005년도 의료기관 방사선관 계종사자의 개인피폭선량 연보, 2006.
  3. 이환영, "의료기관 진단방사선사의 피폭 관리에 대한 인식도", 경북대학교 석사학위논문, 1991.
  4. International Atomic Energy Agency, Basic Requirements for Personnel Monitoring, IAEA Safety Series No.14, 1980.
  5. International Commission on Radiation Protection, General Principles of Monitoring for Radiation Protection for Workers, ICRP Publication 35 Ann, ICRP, Vol.9, No.4, 1982.
  6. 법령 제10909호, 원자력법령, 2011.
  7. 정운관, "필름배지 선량계에 의한 개인피폭선량 측정에 관한 연구", 방사선방어학회지, 제19권, 제1호, pp.41-58, 1994.
  8. 교육과학기술부, 2004 원자력 안전백서, 한국원자력안전기술원, 2004.
  9. 라정은, 신동오, 홍주영, 김희선, 임천일, 정희교, 서태석, "유리선량계의 선량 특성에 관한 연구", 방사선방어학회지, 제31권, 제4호, pp.181-186, 2006.
  10. 교육과학기술부, 2010 원자력 안전백서, 한국원자력안전기술원, 2010.
  11. 이두용, 김광진, 박희찬, "방사선 및 방사선동위원소 근로자 피폭실태 연구", 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 제9권, 제 6호, pp.247-255, 2009.
  12. 김상태, 최지원, 조상태, "열형광선량계를 이용한 16-MDCT와 64-MDCT의 관상동맥 CT 혈관 조영술 시 선량평가", 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 제 10권, 제6호, pp.338-339, 2010.
  13. 박영선, "진단방사선 기술분야에서의 방사선 방어 실태", 대한방사선협회지, 제11권, 제1호, pp.123-124, 1989.
  14. 하정우, 하태성, 안철, "개인선량판독서비스를 위한 TLD와 GD 판독시스템의 측정 품질보증과 관련된 특성 비교", 방사선폐기물학회지, 제2권, 제1 호, pp.125-131, 2004.
  15. P. N. Mobit, A. E. Nahum, and P. Mayles, "A Monte Carlo study of the qulity dependence factors of common TLD materials in photon and electron beam," Phys Med Biol, Vol.43, pp.2015-2032, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/43/8/002