Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shachar, B.B.
Right arrow Articles by Horowitz, Y.S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Shachar, B.B.
Right arrow Articles by Horowitz, Y.S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 22:87-96 (1988)
© 1988 Oxford University Press

Dosimetric Characterisation of the High Temperature Peaks of LiF:Mg,Ti and CaF2:Tm Using Computerised Glow Curve Deconvolution

B.B. Shachar and Y.S. Horowitz

Computerised glow curve deconvolution (CGCD) based on first order TL kinetics has been used to study the high temperature peaks in both LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD-700, Harshaw) and CaF2:Tm (TLD-300, Harshaw). The dose response of peak 7 in TLD-700 is supralinear down to the lowest dose level measurable (~2.5 mGy) and the supralinearity is strongly dependent on photon energy. This behaviour significantly complicates the use of peak 7 to peak 5 ratios in n-? dosimetry. Peak 6, although linear in its dose response, is difficult to separate accurately from its more intense neighbours, and cannot, therefore, be measured reliably below 10 mGy. CaF2:Tm, due to its linear response, is thus definitely superior to LiF:Mg,Ti for n-? dosimetry, via peak 5 to peak 3 ratios, especially if energy compensating filters are employed. For environmental dosimetry, peak 3 in CaF2:Tm is a poor choice due to its fading and the presence of a strong, non-radiation induced TL signal of between 5 and 25 µGy which lies directly under peak 3. On the other hand, peaks (5+6) can be used to measure dose levels down to 9 µGy with the CGCD analysis at a precision of ±20% (1 SD) and with no measurable fading. The X ray relative TL response of the peaks in CaF2:Tm appears to be strongly heating rate and/or batch dependent so that the use of peak (5+6)/peak 3 ratios for accurate determination of gamma radiation field quality requires further study.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
J. Livingstone, Y. S. Horowitz, L. Oster, H. Datz, M. Lerch, A. Rosenfeld, and A. Horowitz
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE 100 keV X-RAY DOSE RESPONSE OF THE HIGH-TEMPERATURE THERMOLUMINESCENCE IN LIF:MG,TI (TLD-100): THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION USING THE UNIFIED INTERACTION MODEL
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, November 24, 2009; (2009) ncp272v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
Y. S. Horowitz, L. Oster, and H. Datz
THE THERMOLUMINESCENCE DOSE-RESPONSE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGH-TEMPERATURE TL IN LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD-100)
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, July 6, 2007; (2007) ncm241v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
M. Weinstein, U. German, and Z. B. Alfassi
On neutron-gamma mixed field dosimetry with LiF:Mg,Ti at radiation protection dose levels
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, September 1, 2006; 119(1-4): 314 - 318.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
U. German, M. Weinstein, A. Dubinski, N. Vainblat, and Z. B. Alfassi
On fading corrections for LiF:Mg,Ti irradiated by thermal neutrons
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, August 1, 2004; 110(1-4): 305 - 308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.