Skip Navigation



Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access published online on February 15, 2005
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, doi:10.1093/rpd/nch428
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
113/1/14    most recent
nch428v1
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 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 Nunes, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Surette, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nunes, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Surette, R. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press [2005]
Received June 30, 2004
Revised October 22, 2004
Accepted November 1, 2004

Article

EVALUATION OF TWO PERSONAL DOSEMETERS IN POLYENERGETIC MONO- AND MULTI-DIRECTIONAL NEUTRON FIELDS

J. C. Nunes 1* and R. A. Surette 1

1 Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada K0J 1J0

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. C. Nunes, E-mail: nunesj{at}aecl.ca


  Abstract

The neutron dose-equivalent response of two commercially available electronic personal neutron dosemeters was studied in several laboratory-produced broad-spectrum neutron fields. Fluence-weighted mean energies ranged from 200 keV to 4 MeV; personal dose-equivalent rates ranged from 75 to 10 mSv h-1; and angles of incidence were multidirectional, 0°, 30° and 60°. Three of these fields have been shown previously to resemble ones found in CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium is a registered trademark of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) power plant workplaces. Both dosemeters were found to perform reasonably well across the range of energy spectra and angles of incidence. One type of dosemeter displayed values of the personal dose equivalent that were, at worst, within a factor of ~2 of the reference values and, at best, within a few per cent of the reference values. The other type displayed values of the personal dose equivalent that were consistently within unity and 20% of the reference values. Although the radiological performance of one was found to be more accurate, this device was also found to be the less rugged of the two. Some of the data acquired in this work were compared with results previously published by others. There was consistency between these sets of data.


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.