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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sáez-Vergara, J.C.
Right arrow Articles by Miralles, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sáez-Vergara, J.C.
Right arrow Articles by Miralles, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 85:207-211 (1999)
© 1999 Oxford University Press

Photon Energy Response Matrix for Environmental Monitoring Systems Based on LiF:Mg,Ti and Hypersensitive Phosphors (LiF:Mg,Cu,P and a-Al2O3:C)

J.C. Sáez-Vergara, A.M. Romero, M. Ginjaume, X. Ortega and H. Miralles

Detectors from six commercially available varieties of LiF:Mg,Ti, LiF:Mg,Cu,P and a-Al2O3:C were arranged in two environmental holders made of PMMA and PVC and processed with the corresponding procedures established at CIEMAT and INTE-UPC. Irradiations were performed at the INTE-UPC Calibration Laboratory with X ray qualities from the ISO 4037 narrow spectrum series and 137Cs and 60Co gamma beams. Additional gamma irradiations were performed at CIEMAT Calibration Facility with the aim of confirming the anomalous under-response to 60Co photons shown by TLD-100. For each TLD system the photon energy response in the range (33 keV-1250 keV) was analysed and discussed. Results were tabulated including the estimated uncertainties for each of the photon energies. As expected, an over-estimate of dose for a-Al2O3:C at low energies was observed. LiF provided results within 30% over the energy range 33 keV-1250 keV when placed in an appropriate holder. Relative energy response differences between LiF:Mg,Ti and LiF:Mg,Cu,P were observed irrespective of the manufacturer and the holder.


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.