Quantification of various factors influencing the precision of thermoluminescent detector calibrations for new and used chip sets

• Published in: Health physics (1958) Vol. 100 Suppl 2; p. S79
• Main Authors: Harvey, J A, Thomas, E M, Kearfott, K J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.05.2011
• Subjects: Equipment Reuse - statistics & numerical data; Health Physics; Humans; Radiation Protection; Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation; Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - statistics & numerical data
• ISSN: 1538-5159
• DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181edb823

Factors affecting the random and systematic error in calibrating three sets of 100 LiF:Mg,Ti thermoluminescent detector chips were investigated. The chips were held in a polymethyl methacrylate plate with 0.3 cm deep wells covered with a thin top plate, affixed to a polymethyl methacrylate phantom 150 cm from a 3.2 × 10(10) GBq 137Cs source, used to irradiate the chips to 4.52 mGy. Three sets of chips were used: one new, one heavily used, and one having relatively high degrees of visible physical damage. Variations in the exposure rate across the plate were measured with an ion chamber. Experimental drift was judged by performing successive calibrations on subsequent days, while always reading the chips in the same order. The chips were subject to manual examination to determine variations in mass and physical quality. This study indicates that more accurate calibrations can be obtained by accounting for the error caused by nonuniformity in the delivered dose, which was in this study as high as 4.4% from the center to the edges of the target. Making use of more than three calibrations only reduces the standard deviation as a percentage of the mean of a set by less than 1%. Desirable dosimeters in commercially rejected sets were identified by comparing each dosimeter's standard deviation of response across all calibrations to a commercially acceptable control set. Up to 50% variations in mass and visual quality, including opacity, fracture, and surface scratches to chips, showed little to no correlation with their response.