Syed F. Naeem*, Christopher R. Fitzgerald, Brian Champine and Tony Sorensen,
{"title":"Comparison of Measured Radiation Exposure and Dose Rates with Analytical and Computational Methods","authors":"Syed F. Naeem*, Christopher R. Fitzgerald, Brian Champine and Tony Sorensen, ","doi":"10.1021/acs.chas.4c0011510.1021/acs.chas.4c00115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Proper selection and utilization of survey instruments are important to fulfilling radiation survey needs. Ion chambers are typically used to survey β and γ-ray radiation, whereas REM balls containing helium-3 detectors are used to survey neutrons. While analytical calculations provide good estimates of radiation doses, it becomes challenging to estimate doses in the presence of shielding material(s) under complex geometries. γ doses are underestimated without accounting for buildup in the shielding equation. Commercially available software such as MicroShield can be used to calculate final γ radiation exposure, which relies on mathematical techniques to account for the radiation buildup in complex geometries. However, MicroShield is limited to assessing γ exposure and doses. Both γ and neutron radiation doses can be modeled using Monte Carlo particle transport methods in the computer code MCNP. Neutron and γ radiation doses from various spontaneous fission sources can also be modeled in the MCNP. However, this is dependent upon implementing proper fission models in the MCNP to calculate neutron and γ radiation doses. MicroShield in the default configuration cannot calculate γ radiation doses from spontaneous fission sources. However, the γ radiation dose from a spontaneous fission source can be correctly calculated in MicroShield if a γ spectrum is provided. MicroShield, MCNP, and analytical calculations show good agreement with measurements for γ sources used in the paper. On the other hand, MCNP and analytical calculations show good agreement with measurements for the spontaneous fission source used in the paper.</p>","PeriodicalId":73648,"journal":{"name":"Journal of chemical health & safety","volume":"32 3","pages":"259–265 259–265"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of chemical health & safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chas.4c00115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Proper selection and utilization of survey instruments are important to fulfilling radiation survey needs. Ion chambers are typically used to survey β and γ-ray radiation, whereas REM balls containing helium-3 detectors are used to survey neutrons. While analytical calculations provide good estimates of radiation doses, it becomes challenging to estimate doses in the presence of shielding material(s) under complex geometries. γ doses are underestimated without accounting for buildup in the shielding equation. Commercially available software such as MicroShield can be used to calculate final γ radiation exposure, which relies on mathematical techniques to account for the radiation buildup in complex geometries. However, MicroShield is limited to assessing γ exposure and doses. Both γ and neutron radiation doses can be modeled using Monte Carlo particle transport methods in the computer code MCNP. Neutron and γ radiation doses from various spontaneous fission sources can also be modeled in the MCNP. However, this is dependent upon implementing proper fission models in the MCNP to calculate neutron and γ radiation doses. MicroShield in the default configuration cannot calculate γ radiation doses from spontaneous fission sources. However, the γ radiation dose from a spontaneous fission source can be correctly calculated in MicroShield if a γ spectrum is provided. MicroShield, MCNP, and analytical calculations show good agreement with measurements for γ sources used in the paper. On the other hand, MCNP and analytical calculations show good agreement with measurements for the spontaneous fission source used in the paper.