Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on September 9, 2007
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2007 125(1-4):23-27; doi:10.1093/rpd/ncl531
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
125/1-4/23    most recent
ncl531v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roed, H.
Right arrow Articles by Figel, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roed, H.
Right arrow Articles by Figel, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparing different error-conditions in film dosemeter evaluation

H. Roed1,* and M. Figel2

1 NIRH—National Board of Health, National Institute of Radiation Hygiene Copenhagen, Denmark
2 GSF—National Research Center for Environment and Health Neuherberg, Germany

*Corresponding author: hro{at}sis.dk

In the evaluation of a film used as a personal dosemeter it may be necessary to mark the dosemeters when possible error-conditions are recognised, such as errors that have an influence on the ability to make a correct evaluation of the dose value. In this project a comparison has been carried out to examine how two individual monitoring services, IMS [National Institute of Radiation Hygiene, Denmark (NIRH) and National Research Centre for Environment and Health, Germany (GSF)], from two different EU countries mark their dosemeters. The IMS are different in size, type of customers and issuing period, but both use films as their primary dosemeters. The error-conditions examined are dosemeters exposed to moisture or light, contaminated dosemeters, films exposed outside the badge, missing filters in the badge, films inserted incorrectly in the badge and dosemeters not returned or returned too late to the IMS. The data are collected for the year 2003 where NIRH evaluated ~50,000 and GSF ~1.4 million film dosemeters. The percentage of film dosemeters is calculated for each error-condition as well as the distribution among eight different employee categories, i.e. medicine, nuclear medicine, nuclear industry, industry, radiography, laboratories, veterinary and others. It turned out, that incorrect insertion of the film in the badge was the most common error-condition observed at both IMS and that veterinarians, as the employee category, generally have the highest number of errors. NIRH has a significantly higher relative number of dosemeters in most error-conditions than GSF, which perhaps reflects that a comparison is difficult due to different systemic and methodical differences between the IMS and countries, e.g. regulations and monitoring programs etc. Also the non-existence of a common categorisation method for employee categories contributes to make a comparison like this difficult.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.