DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Intercomparison of Counting Efficiency and the Performance of Two Whole-Body Counters According to the Type of Phantom

  • Pak, Minjung (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences) ;
  • Yoo, Jaeryong (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ha, Wi-Ho (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences) ;
  • Jin, Young-Woo (Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2016.02.29
  • Accepted : 2016.06.16
  • Published : 2016.09.30

Abstract

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.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences

References

  1. Li C, Wilkins R, Dai X, Sadi B, Ko R, Kramer GH. Canada's efforts in developing capabilities in radiological population monitoring. Health Phys. 2011;101(2):112-117. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e318213a719
  2. International Atomic Energy Agency. Rapid monitoring of large groups of internally contaminated people following a radiation accident. IAEA-TECDOC-746. 1994;7-10.
  3. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards. Quality management systems-Fundamentals and vocabulary. KS Q ISO 9000. 2007;7-11.
  4. Andrasi A. whole-body counter intercomparison as a tool of quality assurance. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2000;89(3-4):229-233. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033069
  5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Intercalibration of in vivo counting systems using an Asian phantom. IAEA-TECDOC- 1334. 2003;38-40.
  6. Fenwick JD, Mckenzie AL, Boddy K. Intercomparison of wholebody counters using a multinuclide calibration phantom. Phys. Med. Biol. 1991;36(2);191-198. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/36/2/004
  7. Nordic Nuclear Safety Research. In-vivo whole body measurement of internal radioactivity in the Nordic countries. ISBN 978- 87-7893-310-2. 2011;17-18.
  8. Kramer GH, Loesch RM, Olsen PC. The second international invivo monitoring intercomparison program for whole body counting facilities by Canadian and United States agencies. Health Phys. 2001;80(3):214-224. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200103000-00003
  9. Kramer GH, Loesch RM, Olsen PC. The 1993 intercomparison of the measurement of in vivo radioactivity. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 1999;86(3):197-205. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032943
  10. Thieme M, Hunt EL, Konig K, Schmitt-Hannig A, Godde R. European whole-body counter measurement intercomparison. Health Phys. 1998;74(4):465-471. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199804000-00008
  11. American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society. Performance Criteria for Radiobioassay. ANSI/HPS N13.30. 2011;9-10.
  12. American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society. Specifications for the Bottle Manikin Absorption Phantom. ANSI/HPS N13.35. 1999;8-13.
  13. Bush F. The integral dose received from a uniformly distributed radioactive isotope. British .J Radiol. 1949;22:96-102. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-22-254-96
  14. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. ICRP Publication 23. 1975;8-26.
  15. Idaho National Laboratory. Calibration of the Accuscan II In Vivo System for I-125 Thyroid Counting. INL/EXT-11-22663. 2011;97-101.
  16. American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society. Thyroid radioiodine uptake measurements using a neck phantom. ANSI N44.3. 1973;2-4.
  17. The International Organization for Standardization. Radiation protection-Performance criteria for radiobioassay. ISO 28218. 2010;10-12.
  18. Kramer GH, Hauck BM. The sliced BOMAB phantom: A new variant for intercomparison. Health Phys. 2006;90(2):161-166. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000176672.86806.89
  19. Kramer GH, Capello K, Phan Q. Effect of mass, at a fixed height, on the counting efficiency of a BOMAB phantom in three types of whole-body counter modeled by MCNP5. Health Phys. 2008;95(2):234-240. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HP.0000312369.68301.ef