Next Article in Journal
LED Junction Temperature Measurement: From Steady State to Transient State
Previous Article in Journal
Improving the Accuracy of Direction of Arrival Estimation with Multiple Signal Inputs Using Deep Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 24
Issue 10
10.3390/s24102973
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Basic Performance Evaluation of a Radiation Survey Meter That Uses a Plastic-Scintillation Sensor

by
Keisuke Yamamoto
1,2,
Ryota Shindo
1,
Saya Ohno
1,
Satoe Konta
1,
Rio Isobe
1,3,
Yohei Inaba
1,3,
Masatoshi Suzuki
1,3,
Yoshio Hosoi
2 and
Koichi Chida
1,3,*
1
Course of Radiological Technology, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8575, Japan
2
Department of Radiation Biology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan
3
Department of Radiation Disaster Medicine, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, 468-1 Aramaki Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-0845, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2024, 24(10), 2973; https://doi.org/10.3390/s24102973
Submission received: 20 March 2024 / Revised: 30 April 2024 / Accepted: 3 May 2024 / Published: 7 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Physical Sensors)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
After the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in 2011, many types of survey meters were used, including Geiger–Müller (GM) survey meters, which have long been used to measure β-rays. Recently, however, a novel radiation survey meter that uses a plastic-scintillation sensor has been developed. Although manufacturers’ catalog data are available for these survey meters, there have been no user reports on performance. In addition, the performance of commercial plastic-scintillation survey meters has not been evaluated. In this study, we experimentally compared the performance of a plastic-scintillation survey meter with that of a GM survey meter. The results show that the two instruments performed very similarly in most respects. The GM survey meter exhibited count losses when the radiation count rate was high, whereas the plastic-scintillation survey meter remained accurate under such circumstances, with almost no count loss at high radiation rates. For measurements at background rates (i.e., low counting rates), the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation and GM survey meters were similar. Therefore, an advantage of plastic-scintillation survey meters is that they are less affected by count loss than GM survey meters. We conclude that the plastic-scintillation survey meter is a useful β-ray measuring/monitoring instrument.

1. Introduction

Survey meters have long played important roles in radiation measurement. In assessments of surface contamination, Geiger–Müller (GM) radiation survey meters have most commonly been employed for β-ray measurements. The Fukushima nuclear accident of 2011 released radioactive materials such as Sr-90, I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 into the environment [1,2]. Subsequently, measurements of the external and internal radiation doses to Fukushima prefectural citizens, local soils, and the environment were made by several researchers [3]. At that time, the need for survey meters that monitored environmental radiation and surface radiation contamination increased. Therefore, many types of survey meters were developed/used by various companies [4].
Radiation monitoring/measurement of β-rays (including electron beams) is important in the fields of environmental radiation and radiation medicine [5,6].
GM survey meters have long been used to measure β-rays [7,8,9,10,11]. They are often used to measure nuclides that emit γ-rays and β-rays (i.e., in mixed fields), such as Cs-137 and I-131. These meters use thin processed mica sheets (Figure 1) for the incident window required for β-ray detection. Given the penetration ability of beta rays, the minimum thicknesses available for mica sheets pose a lower threshold for beta detection. Survey meters in which the radiation sensor is a plastic scintillator can represent a viable alternative. Plastic-scintillation survey meters in which the radiation sensor is a plastic scintillator have thus been developed.
Conventional radiation-measuring instruments such as GM survey meters have been described in many papers [12,13,14,15,16] and several performance reports have appeared [17,18,19]. In contrast, although catalog data on plastic-scintillation survey meters are available [20,21], no user reports on performance for β-rays have appeared. In addition, although papers on plastic scintillators per se have appeared [22,23,24,25], as well as reports of the use of plastic scintillators in various experimental equipment [26], no paper has yet evaluated the performance of a plastic scintillator incorporated into a commercial survey meter. Therefore, it was important to evaluate the basic performance of this type of survey meter experimentally.

2. Instruments and Methods

Plastic-scintillation survey meters use a solid plastic scintillator as the radiation sensor. The measurement principle is shown in Figure 2. Radiation entering the plastic scintillator excites electrons in the scintillator, which emit light as they return to the ground state. The light is then collected by a photomultiplier, where it is converted to photoelectrons at the photocathode and these are multiplied to produce the output pulse. A plastic scintillator is characterized by a low effective atomic number, which renders it suitable for the measurement of charged particles, including β-rays. The luminescence and decay times are shorter than those of inorganic scintillators. The plastic-scintillation sensor is sturdy. In GM survey meters, radiation measurement is based on ionization of gas in the GM chamber when radiation enters. GM detectors are not sturdy, because of the thin mica window used. In this respect, the plastic-scintillation sensor can offer a more robust solution.

2.1. Devices under Test

Two types of instruments were used to detect β-rays: a plastic-scintillation survey meter (the LUCREST Rugged Survey Meter TCS-1319H (Figure 3) sold by Nippon Raytec [20]) and a GM survey meter (the TGS-1146 (Figure 4), also sold by Nippon Raytec [21]). Both types of survey meter exhibit relative reference errors within ±25% in catalog data. We used two (Nos. 1 and 2) of each type of instrument, thus four survey meters were used in total.
Note that all measurements in this study were made in scaler mode. Conventionally, the count rate (count per minute [cpm]) mode is used to measure radiation when using survey meters. However, this mode has the disadvantages that time constants must be set and that measurement read-out errors (i.e., time-constant influence) are not uncommon. All of the survey meters used in this study offer scaler mode, which eliminates the need for time-constant settings and reduces reading errors. Therefore, we chose to use scaler mode.

2.2. Measurement Setup

Counts of the beta radiation of sealed Sr-90 and Cl-36 sources were measured in scaler mode for 1 min (i.e., counts per minute) 10 times using the two types of instruments described in Section 2.1; averages were then obtained as indices of the measured values. We performed the experiment five times for each source. When comparing the values obtained for the sources, the background radiation (BG) was subtracted. The radioactivity values of the Sr-90 and Cl-36 sources were 73.5 kBq and 850 Bq, respectively. The distances from the bottom of the source to the surface of the detector instrument were 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm. A measuring table (PS-202E) from Nippon Raytec was used for the experiments at 1.45 cm and 4.45 cm. For the experiments at 16 cm, a fixture was used instead of the measuring table to ensure geometrically identical conditions. Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the arrangements used for the measurements.

2.3. Measurement Setup (Using an Absorber)

When Sr-90 decays, it emits β-rays up to an endpoint energy of 0.546 MeV. Y-90, a daughter nuclide produced by such decay, further decays and emits β-rays up to an endpoint energy of 2.280 MeV (Table 1). Therefore, when measuring β-rays from a Sr-90 source, two types of β-rays with very different endpoint energies are detected simultaneously. Therefore, we also conducted experiments in which the radiation up to an endpoint energy of 0.546 MeV was shielded. An aluminum absorber plate with an outer diameter of 50 mm and an areal density of 217 mg/cm2 was used for shielding. The measurements were performed with the plate on top of the source. The absorber selectively shielded β-rays with energies below the 0.546 MeV Sr-90 endpoint energy. The other measurement conditions were the same as those without shielding. We performed the experiment 10 times each for 1.45, 4.45, and 16 cm.

2.4. Resolving-Time Measurements

In this study, the resolving times of the count-rate measurements of a plastic-scintillation survey meter and a GM survey meter (one of each) were also measured.
The Sr-90 source shown in Figure 8 was used when employing the two-source method for resolving-time measurements; it consists of two half-moon-shaped sealed sources that can be placed together when combined measurements are required. One source bears source information in orange characters and the other has such information in green characters. Let n12 be the count of the two sources measured coincidently, n1 the count of the orange source, n2 the count of the green source, and nb the background. Then, the resolving time τ can be expressed by the following equation [27]:
τ = (n1 + n2 − n12 − nb)/(n122 − n12 − n22)
Counts per minute were measured for four scenarios (both sources at the same time, orange source only, green source only, and background) 10 times each and obtained the average of each. After the measurements, the resolving time (s) was calculated. We performed the experiment five times for the plastic-scintillation survey meters and three times for the GM survey meters, respectively, and the averages were estimated. Two of the four survey meters described in Section 2.1 were used, one of each type. The arrangement during measurements was the same as that for measurements at 4.45 cm described in Section 2.2.

3. Results

3.1. Measurements of β-Ray-Emitting Nuclides

Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the results for Cl-36 at each distance. Error bars in the graphs indicate standard deviations. For the first plastic-scintillation survey meter (No. 1), the averaged measured values (cpm) at distances of 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm were 10,624.86, 3027.10, and 247.72 cpm, respectively. For the second plastic-scintillation survey meter (No. 2), the values were 10,908.88, 3083.40, and 253.82 cpm, respectively. For the first GM survey meter (No. 1), the measured values were 11,405.16, 3336.96, and 292.50 cpm, respectively. For the second GM survey meter (No. 2), the values were 11,172.38, 3256.32, and 272.58 cpm, respectively. Compared with the GM survey meters, the differences in the sensitivities of the plastic-scintillation survey meters were −4.62%, −7.32%, and −11.30% at 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm, respectively (Table 2). According to the catalog data, both types of instruments exhibit relative reference errors within ±25%. In other words, all measurement disparities were within the relative ranges of reference error. At all distances, the GM survey meters yielded slightly higher values. However, the degree of error was not an issue. During measurements of Cl-36, the performances of each survey meter were approximately equivalent.
TGS No. 1 measurement No. 5 differs from the others; it also has a larger error (Figure 11). Although we are unsure of the reason for this difference, it might be due to measurement error.
Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the results for Sr-90 at each distance. All error bars in the graphs indicate standard deviations (N = 10). For the first plastic-scintillation survey meter (No. 1), the averaged measured values at distances of 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm were 265,731.34, 115,793.44, and 9849.54 cpm, respectively. For the second plastic-scintillation survey meter (No. 2), the values were 270,300.12, 120,131.38, and 10,275.68 cpm, respectively. For the first GM survey meter (No. 1), the measured values were 154,847.78, 87,535.98, and 10,434.40 cpm, respectively. For the second GM survey meter (No. 2), the values were 136,554.34, 82,743.12, and 10,391.46 cpm, respectively. The disparities in the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation survey meters compared to the GM survey meters were 83.95%, 38.55%, and −3.36% at 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm, respectively (Table 3). The values measured by the two types of meter were closest when the distance was 16 cm. However, at shorter distances, the plastic-scintillation survey meter values were much higher than those of the GM survey meters, with a difference exceeding the relative reference errors. The cause of this result will be investigated and clarified later in the text.

3.2. Measurements of β-Ray-Emitting Nuclides Using an Absorber

Next, measurements at the distances detailed in Section 3.1 were repeated with the absorber placed on top of the Sr-90 source; the results are shown in Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17. All error bars in the graphs indicate standard deviations (N = 10). For the first plastic-scintillation survey meter (No. 1), the averaged measured values for Sr-90 at distances of 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm were 64,107.60, 29,897.48, and 2480.95 cpm, respectively. For the second plastic-scintillation survey meter (No. 2), the values were 65,190.40, 30,631.42, and 2581.94 cpm, respectively. For the first GM survey meter (No. 1), the measured values were 53,730.13, 27,145.73, and 2753.90 cpm, respectively. For the second GM survey meter (No. 2), the values were 52,113.02, 26,804.48, and 2705.19 cpm, respectively (Table 4). The disparities in the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation survey meters compared to the GM survey meters were 22.16%, 12.19%, and −7.26% at 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm, respectively. As in Section 3.1 above, when the detection distance was short, the values measured by the plastic-scintillation survey meters were larger than those measured by the GM survey meters. However, the disparities were much lower than when the absorber was not used.

3.3. Resolving-Time Measurements

The resolving times of both types of survey meters are based on the measured values of the No. 1 instruments. The average resolving time of the GM survey meter was 292 μs for the three sets. That of the plastic-scintillation survey meter was less than 1 μs, on average, for the five sets; thus, very small compared to that of the GM survey meter. According to the TGS-1146 catalog, the decomposition time is approximately 250 μs. Thus, this can be considered a reasonable result, at least for the GM survey meter.

4. Discussion

In the field of radiation medicine, exposure of patients and staff to radiation is an issue of great importance [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. To date, many studies have evaluated radiation doses and protection from exposure [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Our laboratory has also published many research papers on patient radiation measurements, occupational exposure evaluation, and how to reduce radiation doses [44,45,46,47]. Radiation exposure in nuclear medicine using radioactive materials (radiopharmaceuticals) is another important problem [48,49]. Radiation monitoring using a survey meter is often performed in rooms where nuclear medicine and X-ray medicine are applied. Radiation survey meters are important, not only in monitoring nuclear facilities but also in medical settings. Thus, we investigated the performance of a new radiation survey meter with a plastic-scintillation sensor because there have been no user reports regarding the performance of plastic-scintillation survey meters.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to offer a basic performance evaluation of a plastic-scintillation survey meter.
When Cl-36 and Sr-90 sources were measured without an absorber, the values provided by the GM survey meters were lower only for the Sr-90 source.
When Cl-36 was measured, the GM survey meters had slightly higher readings than the plastic-scintillation survey meters (Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14), likely because of measurement error. Another reason may be that as the distance between the source and detector increased, the β-ray energy was affected by air-induced attenuation. For the GM survey meters, the incident β-ray ionizes the organic gas in the GM tube; the resulting wave height is independent of the incident energy of the β-ray. In contrast, the wave height of the plastic scintillation survey meters depends on the energy of the β-ray that reaches the scintillator. Therefore, the plastic-scintillation survey meter may have produced lower readings than the GM survey meter. This suggests that the difference in sensitivity (cpm) between the two models increased according to the distance between the source and detector.
According to the catalog data, the measurement ranges are 0–300 kcpm for the plastic-scintillation survey meter (TCS-1319H) and 0–100 kcpm for the GM survey meter (TGS-1146). This means that the upper limit of the measurement range was exceeded only when the Sr-90 source was measured using the GM survey meter without the absorber.
Furthermore, if the radioactivity of the source is A, the number of counts per second is N, the fraction of solid angle covered by the detector is λ1, and the counting efficiency of the device is λ2, then Equation (1) holds:
N = λ1λ2A
By transforming this equation, the counting efficiency of the device, λ2, can be expressed using Equation (2):
λ2 = N/λ1A
As noted in Section 2.2, the radioactivity A is 850 Bq for the Cl-36 source and 73.5 kBq for the Sr-90 source. The fraction of solid angle covered by the detector λ1 can be expressed by Equations (3) and (4) when the distance between the source and the detector is h (1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, or 16 cm) and the radius of the detector surface is r (2.5 cm for both the plastic-scintillation survey meters and the GM survey meters) as shown in Figure 18.
cos θ = h/√(r2 + h2)
λ1 = (1 − cos θ)/2
Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (2) yields Equation (5):
λ2 = 2N/{A(1 − cos θ)}
Insertion of the corresponding values for N, A, r, and h into Equations (3) and (5), allows the graph for λ2 (Figure 19) to be drawn.
The graph shows that the counting efficiencies of both the plastic-scintillation survey meters and the GM survey meters are smaller during Sr-90 measurements compared to Cl-36 measurements. Both instrument types may not be able to adequately measure the high-energy β-rays from Y-90. The decreases in the counting efficiencies of the GM survey meters were particularly noticeable as the distance between the meter and the source decreased.
The efficiency slightly exceeded 1.0 when Cl-36 was measured at 4.45 cm (Figure 19), but since it is theoretically impossible for efficiency to exceed 1, this result may reflect an error.
As mentioned in Section 3.3, the average resolving time of the GM survey meter was 292 μs, whereas that of the plastic-scintillation survey meter was less than 1 μs. If the counts for the GM survey meters are adjusted for the counting losses (thus, by applying count loss corrections, i.e., using Equation (6)), Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 become transformed into Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22. Note that Equation (6) is valid when the true counting rate (cpm) is R, the actual counting rate (cpm) is r, and the resolving time is τ:
R/60 = r/60 + (r/60)2τ
Equation (6) will essentially provide an approximation that is valid for low counting rates; it may be ineffective when applied to highly radioactive sources.
All error bars in the graphs indicate standard deviations (N = 10). From these results (the graphs of Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22), it can be seen that the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation survey meters and the GM survey meters were comparable after adjusting for the counting losses of the GM survey meters. The disparities in the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation survey meters relative to the GM survey meters became 7.42%, −2.08%, and −8.05% at 1.45 cm, 4.45 cm, and 16 cm, respectively. The results for TGS-1146 (no. 2) remain lower than the others at 1.45 cm. Individual differences between models may have affected this result (they are not sufficiently large to be problematic).
Therefore, the large disparities in the readings at close range only when the Sr-90 source was measured without the absorber were attributable to counting losses caused by the long resolving time associated with high numbers of β-rays and were more pronounced for GM survey meters. Therefore, if using a GM survey meter in a situation in which a very large number of β-rays is detected, it is necessary to ensure that the counting loss is adjusted for via count loss correction. When obtaining measurements using the plastic-scintillation survey meter, the measured values do not change significantly, so no count loss correction is needed. However, in situations where the counts are very high, the influence of count loss may even be present in a plastic scintillator. Therefore, if immediate count rates are required from a high-radiation field, a plastic-scintillation survey meter is recommended. For measurements at background rates (i.e., low counting rates), the counting rates of the plastic-scintillation and GM survey meters were similar.
Furthermore, typically, GM survey meters suffer from degeneration of the GM tube resulting from gas depletion and/or leakage from the detector. Thus, a GM survey meter that has been in use for a long time may exhibit low sensitivity. In a plastic-scintillation survey meter, there is little degeneration of the solid scintillation sensor.
In summary, radiation monitoring is important both in the field of radiation medicine and in atomic power plants [1,3]. Verification of radiation-survey-meter performance is necessary. We evaluated the basic performance of a novel β-ray survey meter that uses a plastic-scintillation sensor. We compared the fundamental characteristics of this meter to those of a GM survey meter, which is the traditional β-ray survey meter. The plastic-scintillation survey meter exhibited roughly the same basic performance as the GM survey meter. However, gas degeneration is not an issue when using a plastic-scintillation sensor. The GM survey meter exhibited counting losses at very high counting rates. Finally, we are of the view that the overall characteristics of the plastic-scintillation survey meter were good.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the measurements (counting rates) of a plastic-scintillation survey meter exposed to β-ray-emitting radionuclides were evaluated and compared to those of a Geiger–Muller survey meter. The counting rates for the Cl-36 source were comparable. The values for the Sr-90 source measured using the plastic-scintillation survey meter were higher than those measured using the GM survey meter and increased with increasing counting rate. If the count number is not too high, the plastic-scintillation survey meter is as effective as the GM survey meter. As the count increases to very high values, the count loss of the GM survey meter becomes noticeable. The very short resolving time with almost no count loss is one of the advantages of plastic-scintillation survey meters. Furthermore, the solid plastic-scintillation sensor is sturdy. We conclude that the plastic-scintillation survey meter is a useful β-ray measuring/monitoring instrument.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Y., R.S., S.O., S.K., R.I. and K.C.; methodology, K.Y. and K.C.; software, K.Y., Y.I. and M.S.; validation, K.Y., Y.I., M.S., Y.H. and K.C.; formal analysis, K.Y., R.S., S.O., S.K. and R.I.; investigation, K.Y., R.S., S.O., S.K. and R.I.; resources, Y.I., M.S., Y.H. and K.C.; data curation, K.Y., R.S., S.O., S.K. and R.I.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Y.; writing—review and editing, Y.H., Y.I., M.S. and K.C.; visualization, K.Y., Y.I. and M.S.; supervision, Y.H. and K.C.; project administration, Y.H. and K.C.; funding acquisition, K.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported in part by the program of NRA Human Resource Development, Human Resource Development Program for Advanced Radiation Protection with Practical Problem-Solving Skills, Japan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Masaki Fujisawa, Tohoku University, Japan, and Mamoru Kato of the Akita Medical Center, Japan, for their invaluable assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Smith, G. UNSCEAR 2013 Report. Volume I: Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami. J. Radiol. Prot. 2014, 34, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Report Vol. I. Report to the General Assembly Scientific Annex A: Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. 2013. Available online: https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2013/UNSCEAR_2013_Annex_A_JAPANESE.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2024).
  3. Monzen, S.; Hosoda, M.; Tokonami, S.; Osanai, M.; Yoshino, H.; Hosokawa, Y.; Yoshida, M.A.; Yamada, M.; Asari, Y.; Satoh, K.; et al. Individual Radiation Exposure Dose Due to Support Activities at Safe Shelters in Fukushima Prefecture. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chida, K.; Nishimura, Y.; Sato, Y.; Endo, A.; Sakamoto, M.; Hoshi, C.; Zuguchi, M. Examination of the long-term stability of radiation survey meters and electronic pocket dosemeters. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2008, 129, 431–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kondo, H.; Shimada, J.; Tase, C.; Tominaga, T.; Tatsuzaki, H.; Akashi, M.; Tanigawa, K.; Iwasaki, Y.; Ono, T.; Ichihara, M.; et al. Screening of Residents Following the Tokyo Electric Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Health Phys. 2013, 105, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fujibuchi, T.; Toyoda, T.; Terasaki, K. Measurement of basic characteristics of scintillation-type radiation survey meters with multi-pixel photon counter. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2018, 140, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ogino, H.; Hattori, T. Operational level for unconditional release of contaminated property from affected areas around Fukuhsima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2013, 157, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kobayashi, D.; Miyake, M.; Kakamu, T.; Tsuji, M.; Mori, Y.; Fukushima, T.; Hazama, A. Reducing radiation exposure using commonly available objects. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2013, 18, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singseeta, W.; Thong-aram, D.; Pencharee, S. Design and construction of portable survey meter. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 901, 012056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pandey, S.; Pandey, A.; Deshmukh, M.; Shrivastava, A.K. Role of Geiger Muller Counter in Modern Physics. J. Pure Appl. Ind. Phys. 2017, 7, 192–196. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tsujimura, N.; Yoshida, T. Beta dose rate measurements with an end-window GM survey meter in environments contaminated by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Prog. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2014, 4, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pashazadeh, A.M.; Aghajani, M.; Nabipour, I.; Assadi, M. Annual effective dose from environmental gamma radiation in Bushehr city. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2014, 12, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wakita, H. Geochemistry as a Tool for Earthquake Prediction. J. Phys. Earth 1977, 25, S175–S183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Borbinha, J.; Romanets, Y.; Teles, P.; Corisco, J.; Vaz, P.; Carvalho, D.; Brouwer, Y.; Luís, R.; Pinto, L.; Vale, A.; et al. Performance Analysis of Geiger-Müller and Cadmium Zinc Telluride Sensors Envisaging Airborne Radiological Monitoring in NORM Sites. Sensors 2020, 20, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pommé, S.; Pelczar, K.; Kajan, I. Air humidity and annual oscillations in 90Sr/90Y and 60Co decay rate. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Goddard, B.; Hitt, G.W.; Bridi, D.; Isakovic, A.F.; El-Khazali, R.; Abulail, A. Data from multi year and multi radiation detector measurements of different radiation sources with environmental data. Data Brief. 2020, 31, 105828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ceklic, S.; Arandjic, D.; Zivanovic, M.; Ciraj-Bjelac, O.; Lazarevic, D. Performance of radiation survey meter in X- and gamma-radiation fields. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 2014, 162, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Arkani, M.; Khalafi, A.; Arkani, M. Efficient dead time correction of G-M counters using feed forward artificial neural network. Nukleonika 2013, 58, 317–321. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kadhim, A.K.; Kadni, T.B. Calibration of ionization chamber survey meter. Iraqi J. Phys. 2016, 14, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. TCS-1319H. Available online: https://www.aloka.co.jp/usersupport/catalog/pdf/AR-020_220525.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2024).
  21. TGS-1146. Available online: https://www.aloka.co.jp/usersupport/catalog/pdf/AR-021_220525.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2024).
  22. Nam, J.S.; Choi, Y.S.; Hong, S.B.; Seo, B.K.; Moon, J.K.; Choi, J.W. Study on the Characteristics of a Scintillator for Beta-ray Detection using Epoxy Resin. EPJ Web Conf. 2017, 153, 07005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bae, J.W.; Kim, H.R. Plastic scintillator beta-ray scanner for in-situ discrimination of beta ray and gamma ray radioactivity in soil. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2020, 52, 1259–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Min, S.; Kin, Y.; Ko, K.H.; Seo, B.; Cheong, J.H.; Roh, C.; Hong, S. Optimization of Plastic Scintillator for Detection of Gamma-Rays: Simulation and Experimental Study. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nguyen, P.; Nakamura, H.; Kitamura, H.; Sato, N.; Takahashi, T.; Maki, D.; Kanayama, M.; Shirakawa, Y.; Takahashi, S. Alpha Particle Response for a Prototype Radiation Survey Meter Based on Poly(ethylene terephthalate) with Un-doping Fluorescent Guest Molecules. Jpn. J. Health Phys. 2016, 51, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maekawa, T.; Sumita, A.; Makino, S. Thin Beta-ray Detectors using Plastic Scintillator Combined with Wavelength-shifting Fibers for Surface Contamination Monitoring. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 1998, 35, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Marais, P.G. Resolving time determination of nucleonic apparatus with the two-source method. S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci. 1965, 8, 969–978. [Google Scholar]
  28. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Radiological Protection in Cardiology; ICRP Publication 120; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 42, Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_42_1 (accessed on 13 February 2024).
  29. Ishii, H.; Chida, K.; Satsurai, K.; Haga, Y.; Kaga, Y.; Abe, M.; Inaba, Y.; Zuguchi, M. Occupational eye dose correlation with neck dose and patient-related quantities in interventional cardiology procedures. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 2021, 15, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tam, S.-Y.; Fung, Y.-Y.; Lau, S.-Y.; Lam, W.-N.; Wong, E.T.-H. Scatter Radiation Distribution to Radiographers, Nearby Patients and Caretakers during Portable and Pediatric Radiography Examinations. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Fujibuchi, T. Radiation protection education using virtual reality for the visualisation of scattered distributions during radiological examinations. J. Radiol. Prot. 2021, 41, S317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Matsubara, K. Assessment of Radiation Dose in Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology Procedures for Patient and Staff Safety. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chida, K. What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel? Radiol. Phys. Technol. 2022, 15, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. ORAMED: Optimization of Radiation Protection of Medical Staff. EURADOS Report 2012-02, Braunschweig, 2012, April. Available online: https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/17229/EURADOS_Report_201202%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 19 February 2024).
  35. ICRP. Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical Imaging; ICRP Publication 135. Ann. ICRP 46(1); Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_46_1 (accessed on 19 February 2024).
  36. ICRP. Education and Training in Radiological Protection for Diagnostic and Interventional Procedures; ICRP Publication 113. Ann. ICRP 39 (5); Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. ICRP. Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures; ICRP Publication 139. Ann. ICRP 47(2); Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  38. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions/Early and Late Effects of Radiation in Normal Tissues and Organs—Threshold Doses for Tissue Reactions in a Radiation Protection Context; ICRP Publication 118; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 41, Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_41_1-2 (accessed on 13 February 2024).
  39. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Avoidance of Radiation Injuries from Medical Interventional Procedures; ICRP Publication 85; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 2000; Volume 30, Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_30_2 (accessed on 13 February 2024).
  40. Koenig, A.; Maas, J.; Viniol, S.; Etzel, R.; Fiebich, M.; Thomas, R.; Mahnken, A. Scatter radiation reduction with a radiation-absorbing pad in interventional radiology examinations. Eur. J. Radiol. 2020, 132, 109245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Endo, M.; Haga, Y.; Sota, M.; Tanaka, A.; Otomo, K.; Murabayashi, Y.; Abe, M.; Kaga, Y.; Inaba, Y.; Suzuki, M.; et al. Evaluation of novel X-ray protective eyewear in reducing the eye dose to interventional radiology physicians. J. Radiat. Res. 2021, 62, 414–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Nakagami, K.; Moritake, T.; Nagamoto, K.; Morota, K.; Matsuzaki, S.; Kuriyama, T.; Kunugita, N. Strategy to Reduce the Collective Equivalent Dose for the Lens of the Physician’s Eye Using Short Radiation Protection Curtains to Prevent Cataracts. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. International Atomic Energy Agency. Implications for Occupational Radiation Protection of the New Dose Limit for the Lens of the Eye; TECDOC 1731; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2013; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  44. Inaba, Y.; Nakamura, M.; Zuguchi, M.; Chida, K. Development of novel real-time radiation systems using 4-channel sensors. Sensors 2020, 20, 2741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Haga, Y.; Chida, K.; Kaga, Y.; Sota, M.; Zuguchi, M. Occupational eye dose in interventional cardiology procedures. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chida, K.; Kaga, Y.; Haga, Y.; Kataoka, N.; Kumasaka, E.; Meguro, T.; Zuguchi, M. Occupational dose in interventional radiology procedures. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2013, 200, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chida, K.; Saito, H.; Otani, H.; Kohzuki, M.; Takahashi, S.; Yamada, S.; Shirato, K.; Zuguchi, M. Relationship between fluoroscopic time, dose—Area product, body weight, and maximum radiation skin dose in cardiac interventional procedures. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006, 186, 774–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Fujisawa, M.; Haga, Y.; Sota, M.; Abe, M.; Kaga, Y.; Inaba, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Meguro, T.; Hosoi, Y.; Chida, K. Evaluation of Lens Doses among Medical Staff Involved in Nuclear Medicine: Current Eye Radiation Exposure among Nuclear-Medicine Staff. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bernier, M.O.; Journy, N.; Villoing, D.; Doody, M.M.; Alexander, B.H.; Linet, M.S.; Kitahara, C.M. Cataract Risk in a Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists Performing Nuclear Medicine Procedures. Radiology 2018, 286, 592–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensors 24 02973 g001
Figure 1. Thin Mica (the incident window of the GM survey meter).
Figure 1. Thin Mica (the incident window of the GM survey meter).
Sensors 24 02973 g001
Sensors 24 02973 g002
Figure 2. Measurement principle of the plastic scintillator.
Figure 2. Measurement principle of the plastic scintillator.
Sensors 24 02973 g002
Sensors 24 02973 g003
Figure 3. The plastic-scintillation survey meter TCS-1319H.
Figure 3. The plastic-scintillation survey meter TCS-1319H.
Sensors 24 02973 g003
Sensors 24 02973 g004
Figure 4. The GM survey meter TGS-1146.
Figure 4. The GM survey meter TGS-1146.
Sensors 24 02973 g004
Sensors 24 02973 g005
Figure 5. Measurement distance 1.45 cm.
Figure 5. Measurement distance 1.45 cm.
Sensors 24 02973 g005
Sensors 24 02973 g006
Figure 6. Measurement distance 4.45 cm.
Figure 6. Measurement distance 4.45 cm.
Sensors 24 02973 g006
Sensors 24 02973 g007
Figure 7. Measurement distance 16 cm.
Figure 7. Measurement distance 16 cm.
Sensors 24 02973 g007
Sensors 24 02973 g008
Figure 8. The Sr-90 nuclide source used in the two-source method.
Figure 8. The Sr-90 nuclide source used in the two-source method.
Sensors 24 02973 g008
Sensors 24 02973 g009
Figure 9. Measurement results for Cl-36 (1.45 cm).
Figure 9. Measurement results for Cl-36 (1.45 cm).
Sensors 24 02973 g009
Sensors 24 02973 g010
Figure 10. Measurement results for Cl-36 (4.45 cm).
Figure 10. Measurement results for Cl-36 (4.45 cm).
Sensors 24 02973 g010
Sensors 24 02973 g011
Figure 11. Measurement results for Cl-36 (16 cm).
Figure 11. Measurement results for Cl-36 (16 cm).
Sensors 24 02973 g011
Sensors 24 02973 g012
Figure 12. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 1.45 cm distance.
Figure 12. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 1.45 cm distance.
Sensors 24 02973 g012
Sensors 24 02973 g013
Figure 13. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 4.45 cm distance.
Figure 13. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 4.45 cm distance.
Sensors 24 02973 g013
Sensors 24 02973 g014
Figure 14. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 16 cm distance.
Figure 14. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 16 cm distance.
Sensors 24 02973 g014
Sensors 24 02973 g015
Figure 15. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 1.45 cm distance (using an absorbing plate).
Figure 15. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 1.45 cm distance (using an absorbing plate).
Sensors 24 02973 g015
Sensors 24 02973 g016
Figure 16. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 4.45 cm distance (using an absorbing plate).
Figure 16. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 4.45 cm distance (using an absorbing plate).
Sensors 24 02973 g016
Sensors 24 02973 g017
Figure 17. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 16 cm distance (using an absorbing plate).
Figure 17. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 16 cm distance (using an absorbing plate).
Sensors 24 02973 g017
Sensors 24 02973 g018
Figure 18. The measurement conditions.
Figure 18. The measurement conditions.
Sensors 24 02973 g018
Sensors 24 02973 g019
Figure 19. The counting efficiencies of the devices per se.
Figure 19. The counting efficiencies of the devices per se.
Sensors 24 02973 g019
Sensors 24 02973 g020
Figure 20. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 1.45 cm distance (with adjustment of the GM survey meter counts for the resolving time).
Figure 20. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 1.45 cm distance (with adjustment of the GM survey meter counts for the resolving time).
Sensors 24 02973 g020
Sensors 24 02973 g021
Figure 21. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 4.45 cm distance (with adjustment of the GM survey meter counts for the resolving time).
Figure 21. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 4.45 cm distance (with adjustment of the GM survey meter counts for the resolving time).
Sensors 24 02973 g021
Sensors 24 02973 g022
Figure 22. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 16 cm distance (with adjustment of the GM survey meter counts for the resolving time).
Figure 22. Measurement results for Sr-90 at 16 cm distance (with adjustment of the GM survey meter counts for the resolving time).
Sensors 24 02973 g022
Table 1. The endpoint energy of radiation emitted from the nuclides used in the experiments.
Table 1. The endpoint energy of radiation emitted from the nuclides used in the experiments.
NuclideCl-36Sr-90Y-90 (Daughter Nuclide of Sr-90)
Endpoint energy of radiation [MeV]β − 0.709 (98.1%)
β + 0.120 (0.014%)
EC (Electron Capture) (1.9%)		β − 0.546 (100%)β − 2.280 (100%)
Table 2. Difference in measured values using plastic-scintillation survey meters and GM survey meters (using Cl-36).
Table 2. Difference in measured values using plastic-scintillation survey meters and GM survey meters (using Cl-36).
Distance1.45 cm4.45 cm16 cm
The difference in sensitivity of the plastic scintillation survey meter relative to the GM survey meters−4.62%−7.32%−11.3%
Whether the difference is within the relative reference error (≤±25%)Yes.Yes.Yes.
Table 3. Difference in measured values using plastic-scintillation survey meters and GM survey meters (using Sr-90).
Table 3. Difference in measured values using plastic-scintillation survey meters and GM survey meters (using Sr-90).
Distance1.45 cm4.45 cm16 cm
The difference in sensitivity of the plastic scintillation survey meter relative to the GM survey meters83.9%38.6%−3.36%
Whether the difference is within the relative reference error (≤±25%)No.No.Yes.
Table 4. Difference in measured values using plastic-scintillation survey meters and GM survey meters (using Sr-90, and absorbing plates).
Table 4. Difference in measured values using plastic-scintillation survey meters and GM survey meters (using Sr-90, and absorbing plates).
Distance1.45 cm4.45 cm16 cm
The difference in sensitivity of the plastic scintillation survey meter relative to the GM survey meters22.2%12.2%−7.26%
Whether the difference is within the relative reference error (≤±25%)Yes.Yes.Yes.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yamamoto, K.; Shindo, R.; Ohno, S.; Konta, S.; Isobe, R.; Inaba, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Hosoi, Y.; Chida, K. Basic Performance Evaluation of a Radiation Survey Meter That Uses a Plastic-Scintillation Sensor. Sensors 2024, 24, 2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24102973

AMA Style

Yamamoto K, Shindo R, Ohno S, Konta S, Isobe R, Inaba Y, Suzuki M, Hosoi Y, Chida K. Basic Performance Evaluation of a Radiation Survey Meter That Uses a Plastic-Scintillation Sensor. Sensors. 2024; 24(10):2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24102973

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yamamoto, Keisuke, Ryota Shindo, Saya Ohno, Satoe Konta, Rio Isobe, Yohei Inaba, Masatoshi Suzuki, Yoshio Hosoi, and Koichi Chida. 2024. "Basic Performance Evaluation of a Radiation Survey Meter That Uses a Plastic-Scintillation Sensor" Sensors 24, no. 10: 2973. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24102973

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop