Effectiveness of personal dose monitoring intercomparison results in a laboratory in Shanghai

Background Individual monitoring of occupational external exposure is an essential part of the occupational health management of radiation workers, and is an important basis for the evaluation of individual absorbed dose and the diagnosis of occupational radiation diseases. Continuous participation of monitoring service providers in intercomparison is a fundamental quality assurance for routine monitoring, which can identify problems and improve them in time.

Objective Taking the Laboratory of Radiation Protection in Shanghai Institute of Preventive Medicine as an example, to evaluate the performance of an individual occupational external dose monitoring system in the laboratory, identify influencing factors of the monitoring results, and provide a basis for improving the quality of daily monitoring by analyzing the process and results of a national intercomparison of individual dose monitoring.

Methods  According to the Testing criteria of personnel dosimetry performance for external exposure (GBZ 207-2016), and the relevant requirements of Class II (photon) inspection, a total of 20 groups of blind sample dosimeters were measured for four consecutive years from 2018 to 2021. The radiation energy source of each group was identified, and related personal dose equivalent H_p(10), the uncertainty of measurement results, and the deviation between the reported value and the reference value were calculated. The national intercomparison process and results of individual dose monitoring were also analyzed.

Results The energy sources of the blind samples in the tested laboratory for four years were N100 or Cs-137. The reported dose values of the blind samples were 0.57-4.61 mSv, the combined uncertainties were 0.043-0.365 mSv, the expanded uncertainties (k=2) were 0.09-0.73 mSv, and the relative expanded uncertainties (k=2) were 13.8%-16.4%. The single-group performance ∣P_i∣ of 20 sets of blind samples in the four years was ≤0.10, the yearly comprehensive performance of 5 sets of blind samples was ≤0.10, and the yearly Q score of the test report was >15 points. The laboratory achieved excellent results in the national intercomparison of individual dose monitoring in four consecutive years, except the Q value not reaching full score.

Conclusion The laboratory exhibits standardized data processing of individual dose monitoring, generates accurate and reliable results, and meets the requirements of relevant national standards; but it should continue to participate in the national intercomparison of individual dose monitoring, strengthen the angular response research of energy identified dosimeter, improve the monitoring ability of low-dose X-rays, analyze the key points of reducing the uncertainty of measurement results, and continuously improve the monitoring ability.