Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2020), Vol. 00, No. 00, pp. 1–11 doi:10.

1093/rpd/ncaa036
Advance Access publication 00 Month 0000

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

A PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A NEW PERSONAL NEUTRON
DOSIMETRY SYSTEM AT SNRC
Gal Amit*, Ofir Even-Hen, Oshrit Awad, Yaniv Levi, Lotem Buchbinder and Hann Datz
Radiation Safety Department, Soreq Nuclear Research Center, Yavne, Israel
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Received 19 September 2019; revised 7 January 2020; editorial decision 30 January 2020; accepted 5 March 2020

This research reviews the performance of a commercial personal fast neutron dosimetry system that has recently been installed
in the External Dosimetry Laboratory at Soreq Nuclear Research Center (SNRC). Different kinds of neutron sources like
241 Am–Be, 252 Cf and some neutron generators are used in the industry as well as in some research institutes and reactors.
The workers in these places need to be regularly monitored for neutron radiation. These workers’ individual neutron doses have
been estimated at SNRC until recently by a 30-year-old in-house-made system based on the CR-39 ® solid state nuclear track
(SSNT) detector technology. Last year, a new Landauer CR-39 ® neutron dosimetry system was adopted, the Neutrak system.
This system employs a standard etching technique using NaOH solution, and measures the SSNT dosimeters automatically
and in a repeatable manner. This paper reviews the performance of Landauer’s commercial personal neutron dosimetry system.
The system performance shows excellent results in terms of linearity, repeatability, robustness, etch parameters sensitivity and
detection threshold.

INTRODUCTION recognized as a basic requirement for a successful

Soreq Nuclear Research Center (SNRC) External neutron personal monitor(4) .
Dosimetry Lab (EDL) is ISO 17025:2017 certified The main advantages of CR-39 dosimeters are
and services approximately 16,000 users throughout their insensitivity to photon and beta irradiation,
the country from various sectors including medical, their low fast neutron energy threshold, sensitivity
industrial and research. The workers are monitored over a wide range of neutron energies(5,6) and the
monthly mainly for X-rays, gamma and beta low impact that environmental effects(7) have on its
radiation, and both thermal and fast neutrons. response. Even though other detector technologies,
The monitored workers who might be exposed such as the bubble detector(8) , may have advantages
to X-rays, gamma or beta, use multi-element TLD in sensitivity, angle and response energy dependence,
card dosimeters, which contain three LiF:Mg,Ti the CR-39 dosimeter still remains the cheapest and
elements, each of them consisting of natural isotopic most versatile neutron dosimeter alternative, with a
composition of 7 Liand 6 Li.Workers who might also wide range response in term of neutron energies.
be exposed to thermal neutrons use TLD card From the late 70’s(9) and until recently, the Soreq
dosimeters, which contain four LiF:Mg,Ti elements, Nuclear Research Center (SNRC) fast neutron
three of them consist of enriched 7 Li and the fourth dosimetry system consisted of an in-house system.
element consist of enriched 6 Li. For fast neutron This system comprised of CR-39 sheets that were
dosimetry, a polyallydiglycol carbonate dosimeter, laser cut to produce detectors 55 × 70 mm in
also known as CR-39 ® (CR-39), is added to the TLD size with a thickness of 0.61 mm, and were then
card dosimeter. electrochemically etched in a 60◦ C K-OH solution
CR-39 solid state nuclear track detectors(1) with a concentration of 6.5 mol/l, to reveal tracks of
(SSNTD) technology has already been considered charged recoils recoiled from neutrons in the energy
a very promising technology back in the 70’s (2) , and range of above 150 keV. After performing the etching,
it is still one of the most commonly used methods for an operator manually counted the proton tracks with
personal neutron dosimetry. the help of a low-magnifying microfiche to calculate
CR-39 is composed of an organic polymer, which the dose.
is also commonly used in the manufacturing of Last year, a new personal neutron dosimetry sys-
eyeglass lenses. The abbreviation, CR, stands for tem, the Landauer, Neutrak system, has been put
Columbia Resin, which was the polymer developed to use at SNRC. The Neutrak system offers a sensi-
by Columbia Chemical Co Inc., and whose chemical tivity range for fast neutron detection from 40 keV
name is polyallyldiglycol carbonate (PADC). CR- up to 14 MeV with the ability to measure Hp (10)
39’s chemical formula is C12 H18 O7 , and it is suitable between 0.1 and 250 mSv. This system is designed
for neutron personal monitoring due to its high to measure detectors in an approximate pace of one
sensitivity to protons(3) , which has long been detector per 2 min using a Zeiss microscope, which

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
 G. AMIT ET AL.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Figure 1. The Neutrak system at SNRC, consisting of a Zeiss microscope coupled to a CCD camera, an x-y-z moving tray
and a robotic arm, which feeds the tray with plastic holder containing the CR-39 s.

is coupled to a CCD camera and to a robotic arm is photographed using the CCD camera. Ten images
that feeds the microscope’s moving x-y-z tray with are taken from the fast part of the detector, and
plastic holders one at a time (Figure 1), each holder three more images are taken from the thermal part
holding up to six detectors. The detector dimensions of the detector (These three images are only taken
are 9 × 19 mm with a thickness of 0.4 mm, and into account for Neutrak T detectors.) At the first
it weighs 0.44 g. The Neutrak system can measure reading stage, the Neutrak system uses a sophisticated
both fast neutrons using Neutrak-J detectors, which autofocus algorithm, which finds an optimal z focus
are covered with a polyethylene radiator, and thermal plane for each of the 10 image fields, each of them
neutrons using Neutrak-T detectors, which in addi- of size of 1.5 over 1.5 mm, on each of the holder’s
tion to the polyethylene radiator also have another six detectors. The system also creates a folder named
radiator made of Teflon loaded with enriched boron after the detector’s ID, which is automatically iden-
10
B.After receiving the detectors from the customers, tified by a two-dimensional barcode reader, and all
the first stage is the etching stage. The detectors are 10 images of the dosimeter are saved in that folder.
inserted into a 74◦ C-heated NaOH etching bath at a These images will later be analyzed using Landauer’s
concentration of 5.5 mol/l for 15 h. When the etching LabView-based image processing software (SW) to
is finished, the detectors undergo a thorough rinsing detect the proton tracks that damaged the detector
process to remove all NaOH and other residues, and material.
to polish the detectors for optimal optical reading The images are then reviewed using Landauer’s
conditions. data review SW, which shows all detected tracks per
Following the rinsing stage, the detectors holders dosimeter per image (circles in the middle pane of
are loaded into the robotic arm, which sequentially Figure 2), and gives the lab worker the ability to
feeds the microscope tray with holders. Each detector override the SW’s track detections (Figure 2) by either

2
 A PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A NEW PERSONAL NEUTRON DOSIMETRY SYSTEM AT SNRC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Figure 2. Landauer’s tracks review software. The right side of the screen handles the input folder and the list of dosimeters
to process. The current image of the dosimeter is enlarged in the central part of the screen. The left side shows the detected
tracks with a zoomed view, and the bottom part of the screen shows the number of tracks at each of the images of the current
CR-39 and its Hp (10) dose.

adding undetected tracks (false negatives) or by delet- has not changed by more than 10% each 2 years for
ing tracks detected by the SW, according to a set of thermal neutrons (not applicable for our lab) and
rules adopted by the scientific lab team. Finally, the each 5 years for fast neutrons. This calibration should
SW calculates the Hp (10) dose value for each dosime- be performed using Landauer’s procedure that was
ter by counting the tracks and using a predefined issued along with the Neutrak system. The initial
calibration factor that converts track numbers to neu- calibration of the system was done on site by two Lan-
tron Hp (10) doses. This calibration factor, which was dauer’s engineers right after the system’s installation.
tested and validated by Landauer, is specific to Lan-
dauer’s detectors exact composition and width, and to
the system’s specific etching process. The sensitivity
for fast neutrons is quite high, and for the Neutrak MATERIALS AND METHODS
system, reaches 10 tracks per 1 mSv per 1 mm(2) . Landauer’s Neutrak system has already been
The formula that Landauer’s software uses to convert accredited(10) an ISO17025:2005 by the French
the number of tracks into the dose level is given in Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation in 2016 and
Equation (1). has also passed an ISO21909:2005 test by Landauer
labs in 2012. The above ISO 17025:2005 accreditation
Tfast Tfast approved the laboratory of Landauer, France as a
Dfast = = (1) competent measurement and calibration laboratory,
S·K 189
but does not approve its dosimetry system. The
ISO21909:2005 test on the other hand, did test the
where Dfast is the calculated dose level, S is a factor dosimetric properties of Landauer,
that embeds the effective surface size (which incor- France laboratory. Since the French laboratory
porates a cropping factor of 1.19 into the real size) passed both ISOs above, the EDL manager at
and equals approx. 18.9 mm2 , and K is the cali- SNRC decided to settle for an accreditation for
bration factor, which was found by Landauer to be ISO17025:2015 by the Israeli branch of the Inter-
10 [mm−2 · mSv−1 ]. national Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation.
As for calibrating the system, Landauer’s recom- In addition to that it was decided to perform an
mendation is validating that the calibration factor independent thorough validation procedure in order

3
 G. AMIT ET AL.
to better understand and independently verify the Robustness
system’s performance.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Robustness was tested using two different phases. The
As part of the validation procedure, five different
first phase compared average measurement results of
evaluation procedures were done: linearity, repeata-
workers A and B, each one of the workers measur-
bility, robustness, etch parameters sensitivity and
ing two sets of five dosimeters. The second phase
detection threshold. At the end of the validation
compared average measurement results of worker A
procedure, an uncertainty calculation was performed
using the same set of five dosimeters on two differ-
for the dose error assessment of the Neutrak
ent working days. The goal of these two robustness
system. For the validation procedure purpose, nine
tests is to find out how much robust the system is
different etching processes were performed, allowing
to measuring the detectors by different technicians
different etching conditions to be tested. Some 117
and in different times by the same technician. As
different Neutrak-J dosimeters were irradiated(11)
in the repeatability test, the SNRC EDL has also
at the National Laboratory of Physics (NPL) in
defined the acceptable criterion for robustness to be
England to various dose levels ranging from 0.1 to
25% deviation in each of the above-mentioned tests.
20 mSv as described in Table A1. The dosimeters
Tables A4 and A5 show that these criteria were clearly
were irradiated by a 241 AmBeradionuclide source,
met. From Table A4, the relative average deviation in
applying a water-filled ISO phantom. The CR39
percent between measurement results of both workers
dosimeters were later etched, and read using the Zeiss
is 8.2%. From Table A5, it is evident that the relative
microscope. Afterwards, all the CR39s were analyzed
average deviation in percent between the measure-
and reviewed by the SNRC EDL trained staff.
ment results in different working days of worker A is
After finishing the validation procedure, SNRC’s
6.0%.
Landauer Neutrak system was also accredited an
These average deviations show that both measure-
ISO17025:2017 by the Israeli ILAC on May 2019.
ments that were taken by the same worker on different
In the following subsections, each of the validation
days and measurements that were taken by different
procedures is separately presented.
workers give similar results of no more than 10%
difference.
Linearity
Linearity tests measure the extent of the system’s Etch parameters sensitivity
response to a change in one of its variables. To
verify the system’s linearity, a total of 35 detectors A set of three parameters were identified as the most
(Table A2) were irradiated in groups of five detectors influential parameters on the etching process, and
to the following doses: 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 5, 10 and each one was changed in its turn to evaluate its effect
20 mSv. According to ISO 21909:2015(3) (Table A2), on the process. The identified parameters and their
the acceptance criteria for linearity is that the relative different values are:
standard deviation of measured dose levels should be
(1) The temperature inside the etching bath. The set
lower than 40% for doses of 0.1 mSv, lower than 30%
point is 74 ± 1◦ C, so a change of ±3◦ C was
for doses of 0.2 mSv, lower than 20% for doses of
applied. For each one of the temperatures, a new
0.5 mSv and lower than 10% for any dose of 1 mSv
etching process was run using three detectors,
and above. As can be seen from Table A2 and from
which were irradiated to 1 mSv, as shown in
Figures 3and 4, all mentioned criteria above were met
Table A6.
by the linearity measurements.
(2) The detectors’ vertical positions under the etch-
ing solution level. The assumption was that the
lower the detectors will be located under the etch-
Repeatability
ing solution level the harsher etching conditions
Repeatability tests measure the extent of repeated due to a possibly more concentrated solution
measurement deviations from other measurements they would experience. Five detectors were put at
taken under the same conditions. The repeatability the top-most slots of the etching basket, and five
of the measurement process was checked by mea- detectors were put in the basket’s bottom-most
suring six different dosimeters with three repetitions. slots. All 10 detectors were irradiated to 5 mSv,
Each repetition was performed by reloading the plas- as shown in Table A7.
tic holders into the robotic arm, measuring them (3) Solution concentration. The NaOH solution
again and performing a data review. The criterion for concentration was raised to 6.1 mol/l, 10% above
repeatability was preset by the SNRC EDL to be 10%, its nominal point, to simulate a situation of
using previous validation procedures that were run on solution evaporation over time and its effect on
other dosimetry systems in the past. The data from the process. Five detectors were irradiated to
Table A3 show that this criterion was met. 5 mSv, as shown in Table A8.

4
 A PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A NEW PERSONAL NEUTRON DOSIMETRY SYSTEM AT SNRC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Figure 3. A linear fit between measured and irradiated doses for all ranges of doses from 0.1 to 20 mSv.

Figure 4. Linear fit between measured and irradiated doses for low dose range from 0.1 to 0.5 mSv.

Since the stability of the above parameters is crit- All rigor tests met the criteria, and the results are
ical for the chemical process, and since both concen- summarized in Tables A6–A8. As Table A6 implies,
tration and temperature changes were taken to their lowering the etching temperature decreased the
extreme values, the SNRC EDL defined the criterion response of the system by about 9% as expected
(12–14)
for measured dose averages to be less than 30% for , while raising the temperature increased the
each of the parameters. system’s response by a higher value of 18%. Moreover,

5
 G. AMIT ET AL.
from Table A7, it is apparent that the location of in the measurement of detector that was irradiated
the detector under the etching solution level is not to 0.1 and 1 mSv, respectively, σ Irr is the reported

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

a meaningful factor for the system response, as the uncertainty by NPL for the detector irradiation
average of the five bottom detectors is only about procedure(17) , σ Rob is the calculated robustness
0.5% different than the average of the five upper uncertainty (higher of the two) as calculated in section
detectors. As for the third parameter, Table A8 shows 2.3, σ Rig is the rigor uncertainty (higher of the three
that the average response of the five detectors, which rigor tests) as calculated in section 2.4, σ Lin0.1 is the
were etched inside a more concentrated solution, is linearity uncertainty calculated for 0.1 mSv detectors
higher by about 10% than the average response of five and σ Lin1 is the linearity uncertainty calculated for
detectors from the linearity test, which were etched in 1 mSv detectors, both taken from last column of
a standard etching concentration. Table A3.

Detection threshold q
(15)
%SD0.1 = σ 2Irr + σ 2Rob + σ 2Rig + σ 2Lin = 38%
The detection threshold, as defined by ISO 21909:2005 0.1

equation (C-10), should be lower than 0.3 mSv. The (3)

definition of the detection threshold was changed in
ISO 21909:2015 to be the minimum measured dose q
equivalent, which is significantly higher (at the 95% %SD1 = σ 2Irr + σ 2Rob + σ 2Rig + σ 2Lin1 = 13% (4)
confidence level) than the mean dose equivalent of a
sample of non-irradiated detectors. As expected, the uncertainty in the measurement
To verify the detection threshold of SNRC EDL’s of a dose of 0.1 mSv is substantially higher than the
new neutron dosimetry system, a total of 30 non- uncertainty of a dose of 1 mSv.
irradiated detectors were etched, measured and ana-
lyzed. Results are summarized in Table A9.
Indeed, the detection threshold

detailed by ISO RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ISO 21909:2005
21909:2005, Dth , is fulfilled in Equation In this work, a thorough validation process of a
(2) using the standard deviation calculated in Landauer’s commercial personal neutron dosimetry
Table A9, i.e. 0.04 mSv, and taking tn from ISO system is reviewed in the literature for the first
21909:2005 (15) Table B2 (one sided Student’s values time. Various characteristics of the system, i.e.
for 95% confidence interval for sample size n) to be linearity, repeatability, robustness, rigor and detection
equal to 1.7 gives: threshold were calculated and verified. All the
characteristics met their appropriate predefined
21909:2005)
criteria. It is interesting to note that from the
D(ISO
th = tn · s = 1.7 · 0.04 = 0.068 ≤ 0.3 linearity test (Figure 4), by extrapolating the figure,
(2) we can estimate the system’s background level, i.e.
residual tracks over non-irradiated detectors. The
line equation gives a background level of 0.038 mSv,
Uncertainty calculation which is almost inside the range given by the data
For any new laboratorial system, one of the most from the detection threshold section, which gave an
important scientific determinations is the measure- average of 0.08 ± 0.04 mSv for the non-irradiated
ment uncertainty of the system. In the case of Lan- detectors.
dauer’s Neutrak system, the uncertainty is calculated Moreover, the uncertainty results are indeed
using some independent variable uncertainties. encouraging, since they take reasonable values with
In the uncertainty calculation there are both statis- respect to the irradiated doses, i.e. 38% uncertainty
tical errors for which the uncertainties were calculated value for detectors irradiated to 0.1 mSv and 13%
at the 95% confidence level, i.e. k = 2, and systematic uncertainty value for detectors irradiated to 1 mSv.
errors, which are summed with the statistical errors
using the sum of squares addition as depicted in
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Equation (3).
As advised by ISO 21909-1:2015(16) , we calculated The system performance shows excellent results in
the uncertainty for two different doses, one for terms of its linearity, repeatability, robustness, rigor
0.1 mSv, which is close to the system’s detection and detection threshold. Some additional character-
threshold as stated by Landauer and a second one istics of the system have yet to be tested. Among
for 1 mSv, which is one order of magnitude bigger these are fading, aging and the room’s light effect
than the former value. The parameters in Equations on the detectors. Other issues that are planned to
(3–4) are: %SD0.1 and %SD1 are the total uncertainty be investigated are the long-term stability of detector

6
 A PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A NEW PERSONAL NEUTRON DOSIMETRY SYSTEM AT SNRC
measurement results, the response of the Neutrak- 6. Morelli, B., Vilela, E. and Fantuzzi, E. Dosimetric
T detectors to thermal neutrons, and the possibil- performance of the fast neutron Dosemeter for ENEA

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

ity to shorten the etching process duration of 15 h personal Dosimetry service. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 85,
by enhancing either the etching bath temperature or 105–108 (1999).
the NaOH concentration while still maintaining the 7. Charvat, J. Neutron Dosimetry based on chemical etching
of proton tracks in CR-39. Radiat. Prot. Dosime. 23,
accurate response measurement results. 171–174 (1988).
8. Francesco, d. E. Advances in superheated drop (bubble)
detectors techniques. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 70, 103–108
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (1995).
The authors would like to thank the staff of the EDL 9. Eisen, Y., Eliau, A. and Karpinowitz, Z. A stable high
voltage, high frequency power supply for electrochemical
at SNRC for their great effort in producing all the etching. Nuc. Instrum. Methods 174, 613–615 (1980).
measurements that were reviewed in this paper. 10. Cofrac. ISO 17025:2005 Accreditation certificate.
(2016).
11. NPL. Certificate of Calibration, National Physics Lab-
REFERENCES oratory, Cert ref: N1553 (2017080149). (2017).
12. Fiechtner-Scharrer, A., Mayer, S., Boschung, M. and
1. Tommasino, L., Zapparoli, G., Spiezia, P., Griffith, Whitelaw, A. Influence of variation of etching condi-
R. V. and Espinosa, G. Different etching processes of tions on the sensitivity of PADC detectors with a new
damage track detectors for personnel neutron dosimetry. evaluation method. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 144, 150–154
Nuc. Tracks 8, 335–339 (1984). (2011).
2. Cartwright, B. G., Shirk, E. K. and Price, P. B. A 13. Dietrich, H. Influence of external and internal con-
nuclear-track recording polymer of unique sensitivity and ditions of detector sample treatment on the parti-
resolution. Nuc. Instrum. Methods 153, 457–460 (1978). cle registration sensitivity of solid state nuclear track
3. Massand, O. P., Kundu, H. K., Dhairyawan, M. P. and detectors of type CR-39. Radiat. Meas. 47, 518–529
Marathe, P. K. Studies with CR-39 solid state nuclear (2012).
track detector for personnel neutron monitoring. Bull. 14. Tsuruta, T. and Niwa, T. Experimental study of CR-39
Radiat. Protect. 15, 27–31 (1992). etched track detector for fast neutron Dosimetry. J. Nuc.
4. Massand, O. P., Kundu, H. K., Marathe, P. K. and Sci. Technol. 29, 1108–1115 (1992).
Supe, S. J. Development of Neutron Personnel Mon- 15. ISO. Passive personal neutron Dosemeters – per-
itoring System Based on CR-39 Solid State Nuclear formance and test requirements. (Vernier, Geneva,
Track Detector. (India: Atomic Energy Commission) Switzerland: International Standard ISO 21909) (2005).
(1990). 16. ISO. Passive neutrons dosimetry systems - part 1: perfor-
5. Pitt, E., Scharmann, A. and Simmer, R. Model calcu- mance and test requirements for personal. Dosimetry ,
lations for the fast neutron response of a CR-39 detector 21909–21901 (2015).
covered with a radiator. Nuc. Tracks Radiat. Measure 17. NPL. Certificate of Calibration, National Physics Lab-
19, 517–520 (1991). oratory, Cert ref: N1518 (2017080147/1) (2018).

7
 G. AMIT ET AL.
Table A1. Distribution of dose levels in the validation process. Two quality-control dosimeters were irradiated to 1 mSv and two
non-irradiated dosimeters were added to each etching process.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Etch # # of CR-39 s Dose [mSv] Validation stage

1 6 1 Repeatability
2 5 0.5 Robustness
3 5 0.5 Robustness
4 5 0.5 Robustness
5 35 5 CR-39 s for each dose – 0.1, Linearity + Accuracy
0.2, 0.5, 1, 5, 10 and 20 mSv
6 5 3 for 1 mSv and 2 for 0.2 mSv Rigor
7 5 3 for 1 mSv and 2 for 0.2 mSv Rigor
8 10 5 Rigor
9 5 5 Rigor0pt1,102.42992pt

Table A2. All 35 dosimeters participating in linearity tests along with their average and relative standard deviations from
irradiated dose levels.

CR-39 # Irradiated dose mSv] Measured dose [mSv] Avg of measured Relative std of
doses [mSv] measured doses [%]

2 168 336 0.10 0.12 0.13 18.2

2 168 395 0.18
2 168 333 0.13
2 168 521 0.13
2 168 550 0.11
2 168 262 0.20 0.23 0.23 11.3
2 168 280 0.18
2 168 311 0.24
2 168 381 0.22
2 168 408 0.26
2 168 260 0.50 0.53 0.51 13.6
2 168 380 0.49
2 168 412 0.58
2 168 483 0.57
2 168 498 0.39
2 168 161 1.00 0.87 0.9 3.8
2 168 303 0.96
2 168 344 0.86
2 168 404 0.89
2 168 499 0.91
2 168 160 5.00 4.72 5.37 8.7
2 168 196 5.25
2 168 371 5.80
2 168 411 5.10
2 168 478 6.00
2 168 368 10.00 9.63 9.37 5.0
2 168 370 8.69
2 168 429 8.98
2 168 470 9.96
2 168 490 9.60
2 168 259 20.00 15.40 17.02 7.6
2 168 284 17.76
2 168 386 18.38
2 168 467 18.07
2 168 541 15.49

8
 A PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A NEW PERSONAL NEUTRON DOSIMETRY SYSTEM AT SNRC
Table A3. All six dosimeters that participated in repeatability tests along with their average and relative standard deviations.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

CR-39 # First measure Second measure Third measure Average value Relative standard
[mSv] deviation [%]

2 168 215 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.92 1.94

2 168 275 1.04 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.28
2 168 388 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.93 1.62
2 168 421 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.93 1.22
2 168 440 1.09 1.09 1.04 1.07 2.21
2 168 468 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.98 3.07

Table A4. Robustness test first criterion.

Worker A Worker B
CR-39 # Dose [mSv] CR-39 # Dose [mSv]

2 168 281 0.51 2168220 0.50

2 168 390 0.55 2168318 0.43
2 168 428 0.56 2168431 0.52
2 168 469 0.59 2168463 0.53
2 168 484 0.46 2168549 0.46
Average 0.53 ± 0.09 Average 0.49 ± 0.08

Table A5. Robustness test second criterion.

Worker A day 1 Worker A day 2

CR-39 # Dose [mSv] CR-39 # Dose [mSv]

2 168 281 0.51 2168253 0.48

2 168 390 0.55 2168369 0.45
2 168 428 0.56 2168372 0.57
2 168 469 0.59 2168516 0.50
2 168 484 0.46 2168544 0.50
Average: 0.53 ± 0.09 Average: 0.50 + 0.08

Table A6. Rigor test first criterion – temperature change.

CR-39 # Temp. [◦ C] Irradiated dose Measured dose Avg [mSv] Deviation of avg
[mSv] [mSv] from irradiated
dose [%]

2 168 255 71◦ C 1 0.77 0.83 ± 0.04 −17.4

2 168 315 0.87
2 168 500 0.84
2 168 404 74◦ C 0.89 0.92 ± 0.03 −8.0
2 168 499 0.91
2 168 303 0.96
2 168 178 77◦ C 1.13 1.10 ± 0.02 10.0
2 168 216 1.09
2 168 236 1.08

9
 G. AMIT ET AL.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Table A7. Rigor test second criterion – vertical position of detectors under etching solution level.

CR-39 # CR-39 place in Irradiated dose Measured dose Avg [mSv] Deviation of avg
basket [mSv] [mSv] from irradiated
dose [%]

2 168 173 Upper 5 5.32 5.53 ± 0.03 9.6

2 168 208 5.58
2 168 263 5.56
2 168 301 5.49
2 168 531 5.70
2 168 184 Lower 5 5.48 5.50 ± 0.05 9.1
2 168 195 5.72
2 168 243 5.40
2 168 424 5.12
2 168 503 5.76

Table A8. Rigor test third criterion – NaOH concentration change. First five detectors were etched with NaOH solution
concentration raised to 6.1 mol/l, and second five detectors are the reference detectors that were etched at the linearity stage
with a standard NaOH solution concentration of 5.5 mol/l.

CR-39 # Irradiated dose level Measured dose level Avg [mSv] Deviation of avg from
[mSv] [mSv] irradiated dose [%]

2 168 188 5 5.62 5.85 ± 0.20 17.0

2 168 219 6.15
2 168 297 5.67
2 168 409 5.81
2 168 520 5.99
2 168 368 5 4.72 5.37 ± 0.47 7.4
2 168 370 5.25
2 168 429 5.80
2 168 470 5.10
2 168 490 6.00

10
 A PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A NEW PERSONAL NEUTRON DOSIMETRY SYSTEM AT SNRC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/rpd/ncaa036/5823521 by Linkopings universitetsbibliotek user on 22 April 2020

Table A9. Detection threshold measurements.

Index CR-39 # Measured dose of unirradiated CRs

[mSv]

1 2 591 217 0.04

2 2 591 245 0.01
3 2 591 255 0.03
4 2 591 260 0.01
5 2 591 305 0.04
6 2 591 337 0.07
7 2 967 401 0.00
8 2 967 409 0.00
9 2 967 460 0.00
10 2 967 558 0.03
11 2 967 576 0.01
12 2 967 610 0.02
13 2 967 612 0.02
14 2 967 680 0.05
15 2 967 349 0.02
16 2 967 707 0.03
17 2 967 348 0.15
18 2 967 365 0.05
19 2 967 418 0.14
20 2 967 485 0.10
21 2 967 499 0.08
22 2 967 523 0.06
23 2 967 573 0.08
24 2 967 640 0.04
25 2 967 667 0.03
26 2 967 708 0.14
27 2 591 217 0.04
28 2 591 245 0.01
29 2 591 255 0.03
30 2 591 260 0.01
Average: 0.04 ± 0.04

11