Geant4 Simulation of Number of Event Effect on the TLD LiF: Mg, Cu, P Energy Response
Main Article Content
Abstract
The effect of different number of events on the bare thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) LiF:Mg,Cu,P chip energy response has been simulated using Geant4. This simulation aims to determine the optimum number of events with a minimum computational time. 14 photon energies in a range of 16–1250 keV with a range number of events 2×107 – 2×1012 were applied. A LiF: Mg, Cu, P chip with 4.5 mm diameter and 0.9 mm thick on the surface of 30×30 cm2 water phantom and a thin 10 µm slice of water (at 10 mm deep in the phantom) were considered as the sensitive volumes to calculate the respective absorbed dose DTLD and DW. The relative energy response R was calculated from the ratio of DTLD and DW for each energy normalised to DTLD and DW ratio of energy 662 keV. 2×109 number of events were found to be the optimum number of events with a minimum computational time.The simulation results were validated to the measurement results and the mean deviation of 0,59% was yielded. As the deviation are within the acceptable limit of ±25%, it was concluded that the results were considered satisfactory and the materials and physics processes applied in the code were correct.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
References
[2] S. R. Cherry, J. A. Sorenson, and M. E. Phelps, “Radiation Safety and Health Physics,” in Physics in Nuclear Medicine (Fourth Edition), S. R. Cherry, J. A. Sorenson, and M. E. B. T.-P. in N. M. (Fourth E. Phelps, Eds. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012, pp. 427–442.
[3] W. Priharti, S. B. Samat, and A. B. A. Kadir, “Uncertainty Analysis of Hp(10)meas/Hp(10)del Ratio for TLD-100H at Energy,” J. Teknol. (Sciences Eng., vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 115–118, 2013.
[4] H. Sofyan, “Dosimeter ThermoLuminesensi sebagai Dosimetri Personal dalam Pemantauan Dosis Radiasi Eksternal,” no. April, pp. 129–134, 2012.
[5] P. Allisy-Roberts and J. Williams, “Radiation hazards and protection,” in Farr’s Physics for Medical Imaging (Second Edition), P. Allisy-Roberts and J. B. T.-F. P. for M. I. (Second E. Williams, Eds. W.B. Saunders, 2008, pp. 23–47.
[6] W. Gieszczyk et al., “Evaluation of the relative thermoluminescence efficiency of LiF: Mg, Ti, and LiF: Mg, Cu, P TL detectors to low-energy heavy ions,” Radiat. Meas., vol. 51–52, pp. 7–12, 2013.
[7] J. S. Pereira et al., “TYPE TESTING of LiF: Mg, Cu, P (TLD-100H) WHOLE-BODY DOSEMETERS for the ASSESSMENT of Hp(10) and Hp(0.07),” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 216–223, 2019.
[8] Elfida, “Dosimeter Film dan TLD sebagai Dosimeter Perorangan,” Bul. Limbah, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 2005.
[9] J. Izewska and G. Rajan, Review of Radiation Oncology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. Vienna: IAEA, 2005.
[10] D. S. Fernández et al., “Thermoluminescent characteristics of LiF: Mg, Cu, P, and CaSO4: Dy for low dose measurement,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 111, pp. 50–55, 2016.
[11] W. N. S. W. Ikmal, S. B. Samat, and A. B. A. Kadir, “Evaluation of deep and shallow doses for OSLD and TLD-100H,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1784, 2016.
[12] S. B. Samat and W. Priharti, “Response of LiF:Mg,Cu,P TL detector simulated with Geant4,” Sains Malaysiana, vol. 46, no. 8, 2017.
[13] C. Hranitzky and H. Stadtmann, “Simulated and measured Hp(10) response of the personal dosemeter Seibersdorf,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 166–169, 2007.
[14] K. Tang, H. Fan, H. Cui, H. Zhu, and Z. Liu, “Studies on energy response of newly developed LiF: Mg, Cu, P TL CHIPS WITH ADDITIONAL PbO DOPING,” Radiat Prot Dosimetry, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 284–287, 2015.
[15] F. Moradi et al., “Composition and thickness dependence of TLD relative dose sensitivity: A Monte Carlo study,” Radiat. Meas., vol. 129, p. 106191, 2019.
[16] J. S. Eakins, D. T. Bartlett, L. G. Hager, C. Molinos-Solsona, and R. Tanner, “The MCNP-4C2 design of a two-element photon/electron dosemeter that uses magnesium/copper/phosphorus-doped lithium fluoride,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 128, no. 1–4, pp. 21–35, 2008.
[17] J. Allison et al., “Recent developments in GEANT4,” Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip., vol. 835, pp. 186–225, 2016.
[18] M. Zerfaoui, A. Rrhioua, A.Moussa, S. Didi, Y. Tayalati, and M.Hamal, “GEANT4 simulation of 192Ir source to study voxelization and number of event effect on the dose distribution,” in Proceedings of the Mediterranean Conference on Information & Communication Technologies 2015, 2015, pp. 575–580.
[19] B. Obryk, C. Hranitzky, H. Stadtmann, M. Budzanowski, and P. Olko, “Energy response of different types of rados personal dosemeters with MTS-N (LiF: Mg,Ti) and MCP-N (LiF: Mg, Cu, P) TL detectors,” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 144, no. 1–4, pp. 211–214, 2011.
[20] F. H. Attix, Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry. Weinheim: Wiley, 2004.