Dhaka University Journal of Applied Science & Engineering

• Yasmin Akter
  Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000
• AKM Mizanur Rahman
  Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Centre Dhaka, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka
• Md Hossain Sahadath
  Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000
• Selina Yeasmin
  Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Centre Dhaka, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka
• Nazia Hassan
  Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Centre Dhaka, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka
• Subrata Banik
  Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Centre Dhaka, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka
• Zakir Hossain
  Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Centre Dhaka, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka

The increasing use of radiation especially low radiation in everyday life demands an evaluation of the performance of dosimeter in the respective environment. The present work is concerned with the investigation of the thermoluminescence (TL) response of TLD-100 in a low radiation dose environment. Ten Harshaw TLD-100s were collected from Health Physics Division, Atomic Energy Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh and irradiated at different low dose radiation such as 46.82μGy, 93.82μGy, 140.73μGy, 187.54μGy and 234.1μGy with 90Sr/90Y Irradiator and readout by Harshaw 4500 TLD Manual Reader. Following the reading, detection limit, linearity, variation of standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were investigated. After that, the same TLDs were irradiated at a dose of 140.46μGy and fading test was incorporated for 7 days. TLD-100 upon low dose irradiation showed a good linear response (Coefficient of Determination, R2 ̴1) as well as a lower detection limit (DL). The value of DL has been found 40μGy. Standard deviation and coefficient of variation form a decreasing pattern with increasing low radiation. For a very short time period like 7 days, TLDs showed an irregular response. These investigations help conclude that TLD-100 can be used for low dose environments with proper calibration and correction factor calculation.

1. M. Waqar, A. Haq,S. Bilal and M. Masood,“Comparison of dosimeter response of TLD-100 and ionization chamber for high energy photon beams at KIRAN Karachi in Pakistan,”The Egyptian Society of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, pp. 479-483, 2017.
2. L.A. Dewerd & L.K.Wagner, “Characteristics of radiation detectors for diagnostic radiology,”Appl. Radiat. Isot, vol. 50, pp. 125-136, 1999.
3. C.C. Guimaraes & E.Okuno, “Blind performance testing of personal and environmental dosimeters based on TLD-100 and natural CaF2:NaCl,”Radiat. Meas., vol.37, pp. 127-132, 2003.
4. “IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency, Radiation doses in diagnostic radiology and methods of dose reduction,” IAEA-TECDOC-796(Vienna: IAEA), 1995.
5. Y. S. Horowitz & M. Moscovitch, “Highlights and pitfalls of 20 years of application of computerised glow curve analysis to thermoluminescence research and dosimetry,”Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 153, pp. 1-22, 2013.
6. P. Olko, “Advantages and disadvantages of luminescence dosimetry,”Radiation Measurements, vol. 45, pp. 506-511, 2010.
7. P. Bilski, W. Gieszczyk,B. Obryk &HodyrK, “Comparison of Commercial Thermoluminescent Readers Regarding High-Dose High-Temperature Measurements,”Radiat Meas., vol. 57, pp. 197-203, 2013.
8. I.T. Maria, G.P. Sonia, B. Cecattia and V.E. Linda, "Performance of thermoluminescence materials for high dose dosimetry", International congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA): Strengthening radiation protection worldwide, Buenos Aires (Argentina), 19-24 Oct, 2008.
9. L.O.Mércia, F.M.Ana, C.E.Natália, C.F.Maria, S.D.Renata &A.H.Clovis, “Influence of thermoluminescent dosimeters energy dependence on the measurement of entrance skin dose in radiographic procedures,”Radiologia Brasileira, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 113–118, 2010.
10. D.S.Fernandez, G.S.Ricardo, G.J.Mendoza, G. Sanchez-Guzman, R.Ramirez, E.Gaona &T.Rivera, “Thermoluminescent characteristics of LiF:Mg,Cu,P and CaSO4:Dy for low dose Measurement,” Phy Ins-det. vol. 78, pp. 61-80, 2016.
11. A.Delgado, J.M.Gomez Ros & J.L.Muniz,“Computerized analysis of LiF GR-200 TL signals: application to dose measurements in the μGy range,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim., vol. 60, pp. 147-153, 1995.
12. B.Ben-Shachar, M.Weinstein &U.German,“Somedosimetric properties of the LiF:Mg,Ti Evaluated by the automatic 6600 Thermoluminescent reader,”The 19th Conference of the Israel Nuclear Societies. December 9-10Dan Accadia Hotel, HerzliyaIsrael, pp. 6-4, 1996.
13. A.Savva,“Personnel TLD monitors, their calibration and response [Masters Dissertation],”Stag Hill: University of Surrey, UK, 2010.
14. B.Sabar, M.S.Alam, & A.S. Alzoubi,“Precision of Low-Dose Response of LiF:Mg, Ti Dosimeters Exposed to 80 kVp X-Rays,” J. Phys. Sci., vol. 22, no.1, pp. 125–130, 2011.
15. M.Sadeghi, S. Sina & R.Faghihi,“Investigation of LiF, Mg and Ti (TLD-100) Reproducibility,”Biom. Phys. Engin., vol. 5, no. 4,pp. 217-222, 2015
16. C.Furetta &P.Weng,“Operational Thermoluminescence Dosimetry”. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte, 1998.
17. “Thermo ELECTRON CORPORATION. Sr90/Y90 TLD-IRRADIATOR MODEL 2210”Instrument Manual. Waltham, Massachusetts, 1998.
18. “Saint-Gobain/Norton Industrial Ceramins Corporation.”Automatic TLD Workstation (Model 6600E) User's manual. Ohio: HarshawBicron, 1994.
19. C.R.Hirning, “Detection and determination limits for thermoluminiscence dosimetry,” Health Phys., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 223-227, 1992.
20. J.R.Cameron, N.Suntharalingam & G.N.Kenney, “ThermoluminescentDosim.”Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.
21. C.R. Watson, “Linearity of TLD response curves,”Health Phys., vol. 18, pp. 168–169, 1970.