N13 32-2008

ANSI/HPS N13.
32-2008
American National Standard
Performance Testing of Extremity Dosimeters
Approved: November 2008
American National Standards Institute, Inc.

ANSI/HPS N13.32-2008
Published by
Health Physics Society

1313 Dolley Madison Blvd.
Suite 402
McLean, VA 22101
Copyright © 2008 by the Health Physics Society.

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
ii
Foreword
(This foreword is not a part of the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society
(ANSI/HPS) N13.32-2008.)
This American National Standard provides a procedure for testing the performance of extremity personnel
dosimetry systems used to monitor the personnel exposure to the extremities from ionizing radiation. This
is the first revision of the original standard, HPS N13.32-1995. Testing the performance of personnel
dosimeters has been an active part of evaluation and quality assurance of personnel dosimetry systems.
By ANSI policy, standards must be reviewed and, if necessary, revised every few years. The Health
Physics Society working group that reviewed this standard held to three major objectives during revision:
(1) as far as possible, maintain an approach to testing consistent with the practical application of
extremity dosimeter systems without excluding current and developing techniques; (2) attempt to achieve
a measure of consistency with related national and international standards; and (3) base major changes
in the approach and content of the standard on scientific fact.
The group identified 12 major issues for consideration. The following paragraphs describe how the group
resolved these issues. Some of the issues are treated in greater detail in the appendices, which were
written to provide greater insight and convenience. The working group made the most significant changes
in the areas of test categories and test criteria.
The working group attempted to harmonize the test categories with those in the whole-body dosimetry
testing standard, ANSI/HPS N13.11-2001. Particularly, the photon test categories in the protection level
dose range were combined so that the previous test categories for low-energy and high-energy photons,
Categories II and III, are now both included in test Category II for photons. In addition, the number of x-
ray fields available for testing in the photon category was increased from four x-ray fields and one high-
energy photon field to six x-ray fields and two high-energy photon fields. The beta category now included
as Category III remains unchanged except for the addition of 85Kr as a replacement for 204Tl.
The working group considered the inclusion of a neutron-testing category based on the recommendation
in the Journal of the ICRU, Volume 1, No. 3 (2001), “Determination of Operational Dose Equivalent
Quantities for Neutrons.” At this time, though, the working group felt that the theoretical basis of neutron
dosimetry to extremities has not reached a sufficient level of national and international agreement to
promote the practice of neutron extremity dosimetry by including a testing category.
At the request of the dosimetry community, one additional test category was added to evaluate response
to the beta/photon mixtures (new Category IV). This category was added to accommodate test
participants submitting dosimeters with the ability to interpret Hp (0.07) in mixed fields or for dosimeters
that are energy/exposure field-independent. If a test participant chooses to test in this category, then that
participant will not be told which exposure fields (test sources) were used in any of the categories
(Categories I through IV), with the exception that the participant would be told which dosimeters were
exposed in the high-dose category (Category I). However, if the participant chooses the “General”
subcategory in Category I he or she will not be told whether the irradiating field was 137Cs or M150. This is
referred to as blind testing. There is no option to only blind-test in Category IV.
Normal testing, as in the previous version of the standard, is not done blindly and includes only
Categories I through III. In this case, the testing source is identified to the participant beforehand for the
purpose of allowing him or her to apply a specific correction factor to determine a more accurate personal
dose (dose equivalent). It is intended that this methodology would be consistent with the methodology for
normal processing of personnel dosimeters. That is, the processor would have knowledge of the worker’s
exposure field and be able to use this information during the determination of the dose equivalent.
iii
The working group modified the ratios of delivered doses for the mixture category to approximate fields
more normally found in the industry. The ratios of contributing shallow doses from betas and photons
were modified to range from 1:1 to 5:1 (beta:photons).
The working group also considered adding a photon mixture category comprising irradiations in high- and
low-energy photon fields. However, based on the response of dosimetry materials to photons with
energies above 100 keV, and with the addition of high-energy, broad-spectrum x-ray testing fields, the
group considered the testing provided in Category II to be adequate for mixed photon fields.
The selection method for irradiation levels remains unchanged from the previous version of this standard
(i.e., the choice of the use of logarithms to increase the number of irradiations at the lower personal dose
equivalents).
The working group agreed to the adoption of the personal dose equivalent at 0.07 mm depth or in mass
thickness 7 mg cm–2. Research has shown that the dose rate at 0.07 mm used for beta particles incident
on the slab phantom is applicable for use with the rod and pillar phantoms (ISO 2006). In selecting
personal dose equivalent at 0.07 mm, the working group chose to exclude a discussion of lens dose
equivalent (LDE). The group concluded that it was inappropriate to include LDE dose as part of a
standard addressing extremity dose.
Conversion coefficients for photons, listed in ISO 4037-3 (ISO 1999), were used with digitized spectra of
the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) x-ray beams to determine coefficients to
convert air kerma to personal dose equivalent for the x-ray testing fields. Considering the uncertainties in
estimating the extremity exposure in the field, the added uncertainty from this difference in computed
conversion factors from air kerma to dose is insignificant.
For practical purposes, the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) rod phantom will continue to be used for
testing of finger dosimeters.
The working group considered several different designs in selecting a pillar phantom for testing of
wrist/ankle dosimeters. They conducted an experiment to determine the differences in the amount of
backscatter among designs. Extremity dosimeters were irradiated on a solid PMMA pillar, a water-filled
PMMA pillar, an aluminum-core PMMA pillar, and a Styrofoam pillar. Only small differences in dosimeter
response were observed among these phantom designs. Therefore, for practical reasons, a solid PMMA
phantom, of the same dimensions, was chosen to replace the aluminum-core PMMA phantom described
in the previous version of this standard. The study is summarized in Appendix A6.
In the Unites States, performance test criteria for personal extremity dosimeter systems have historically
used a systematic approach (i.e., testing the performance of a group of dosimeters rather than basing the
test on individual dosimeter results). This philosophy was continued in the current revision of the
standard, and as before there are no individual dosimeter failure criteria to pass. However, the approach
to determining group failure criteria has been modified. In the past, group failure criteria were based on
(1) not exceeding the tolerance level (L) by the performance index, defined as the sum of the absolute
value of the bias (|B|) and standard deviation (S) of 15 dosimeters irradiated in a single test category and
(2) not exceeding individual limits on the |B| and S in a single test category. In this revision of the
standard a new testing model was adopted in which the performance index is redefined as the square
root of the sum of the squares of the B and S, consistent with current theory in statistical quality control
(see Wheeler and Chambers 1992, in Appendix I of this standard). The resulting performance index is
compared to a criteria limit determined by either (1) setting the new performance model’s area of
acceptable performance equivalent to the previous model’s area of acceptable performance or (2) limiting
the acceptable values of B and S to historical levels.
There are several notable differences in the two models that could affect the evaluation of performance of
dosimetry systems compared to past results. For the high-dose test category, the limit was chosen so the
area of acceptable performance was equal to the previous area of acceptable performance (i.e., by
equating the area of the triangle formed by L = |B| + S to the area of the half-circle formed by L2 = B2 +
iv
S2)). This is illustrated in Fig. D1 and results in (1) lowering the maximum allowable individual S and |B|
from 0.30 in the old model to 0.24 in the new model and (2) two identical small areas on the graph where
the allowable sum of the |B| and S would be greater than 0.30. The probability that a dosimeter system
would perform in the affected area of acceptable performance is extremely small. Further, the maximum
|B| + S in these small areas for the quadrature model was determined to be 0.34, which is only slightly
above the value of 0.30 for |B| + S allowed by the previous model. For the protection level categories, the
quadrature model was also adopted and the limit was chosen so the maximum acceptable individual
value of the |B| and S would be 0.35, consistent with the previous testing criteria. The maximum |B| + S
for the protection level categories was determined to be 0.495, which is only slightly less than the value of
0.50 for |B|+S allowed by the previous model. This is illustrated in Fig. D2.
The performance criterion for the General Beta test (Category IVC in the previous version of the standard
and Category IIIA in the current version of the standard) was modified from having no limit on |B| and S in
the previous version to a value of 0.35 in the current version as a result of applying the quadrature model
to all categories.
The working group modified the required ancillary tests to further distinguish between type tests and
periodic performance tests. The requirements for the lower limit of detection (LLD) and angular response
testing were removed from this standard because they constitute one-time tests that should be performed
upon the initial implementation or modification of a dosimeter system. Recommended protocols for those
studies are described in the attached appendices. In addition to those studies, the working group modified
the standard to also recommend the study of uncertainty for each dosimeter system. Based on the U.S.
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurements, guidance is given in the appendices for the
approach to uncertainty analysis (see ANSI/NCSL 1997, in Appendix 1 of this standard).
Suggestions for improving this standard are welcome. Suggestions should be sent to the Health Physics
Society, 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 402, McLean, VA 22101.
v
This standard was consensus-balloted and approved by the ANSI-accredited HPS N13 Committee on
November 6, 2007. At the time of balloting, the HPS N13 Committee had the following membership:
Chairperson Tracy Ikenberry

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Bryce Breitenstein
American Industrial Hygiene Association Irene Patrek
American Iron and Steel Institute Anthony LaMastra
American Mining Congress Scott C. Munson
American Nuclear Insurers Bob Oliveira
American Nuclear Society Nolan E. Hertel
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Shawn Seeley
Council on Ionizing Radiation Msmts & Standards (CIRMS) Chris Soares
Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals, Inc. (CORAR) Leonard Smith
Health Physics Society Sandy Perle
William Harris, Jr. (alternate)
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Lou Costrell
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Constantine Maletskos
Nuclear Energy Institute Ralph L. Andersen
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers Union (PACE) Mark Griffon
Dave Ortlieb (alternate)
U.S. Department of Commerce Timothy F. Mengers
Janna P. Shupe (alternate)
U.S. Department of Energy Robert Loesch
Joel Rabovsky (alternate)
U.S. Department of Defense John Esterl
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mike Boyd
Bonnie Gitlin (alternate)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Donald A. Cool
U.S. Navy Cdr. Brendan Glennon
Individual Member John A. Auxier
Individual Member Tracy Ikenberry
Individual Member Ronald L. Kathren
Individual Member Joseph P. Ring
Individual Member L. Max Scott
Individual Member Kenneth Swinth
Individual Member A. N. Tschaeche
Individual Member Toshihide Ushino
vi
The Health Physics Society Standards Committee working group responsible for the current revision had
the following members:
Rick Cummings, Chairman

(Idaho National Laboratory)
Aggie Barlow
(Yale University)
James Cassata
(U.S. Navy)
Jeff Hoffman
(Los Alamos National Laboratory)
Sander C. Perle
(Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.)
Roman K. Piper
(Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)
Christopher G. Soares
(National Institutes of Standards and Technology)
vii
Contents
1.0 Purpose................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Scope ...............................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Definition of Terms ...............................................................................................................................2
3.0 Test Procedure.....................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Administrative Procedure .................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Information to be Supplied to the Testing Organization..........................................................5
3.2 Test Schedule...................................................................................................................................5
3.3 Number of Test Dosimeters .............................................................................................................5
3.4 Dissemination of Test Results..........................................................................................................6
3.5 Test Categories ................................................................................................................................6
3.5.1 Category I: High-Dose Photons .............................................................................................7
3.5.2 Category II: Photons ..............................................................................................................7
3.5.3 Category III: Betas .................................................................................................................7
3.5.4 Category IV: Beta/Photon Mixtures........................................................................................8
3.6 Radiation Sources ............................................................................................................................8
3.7 Phantom Construction......................................................................................................................10
3.8 Irradiation Conditions .......................................................................................................................10
3.9 Selection of Irradiation Levels ..........................................................................................................11
3.10 Assignment of Personal Dose Equivalent (or Absorbed Dose) Values .........................................12
3.10.1 Photons ................................................................................................................................12
3.10.2 Beta Particles .......................................................................................................................14
4.0 Performance Criteria............................................................................................................................14
5.0 References to the Text................................................................................................................................14
Appendix A: Test Categories ......................................................................................................................16
A.1 Test Categories.................................................................................................................................16
A.2 Discussion of Specific Categories ....................................................................................................16
A.3 Test Irradiation Sources....................................................................................................................17
A.4 Test Irradiation Conditions ................................................................................................................18
A.5 Rationale for the Selection of Irradiation Levels and the Composition of Radiation Mixtures..........20
A.6 Rationale for Use of Phantoms for Performance Tests ....................................................................20
Appendix B: Source Standardization ..........................................................................................................21
B.1 Photons .............................................................................................................................................21
B.2 Beta Particles ....................................................................................................................................21
Appendix C: Interpretation of the Response...............................................................................................22
viii
C.1 Personal Dose Equivalent ................................................................................................................22

C.2 Conversion Coefficients Relating the Calibration Quantity to the Personal Dose Equivalent........ 22
Appendix D: Performance Criteria and Analysis.........................................................................................23
Appendix E: The Irradiating Laboratory (IL)................................................................................................25
E.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................25
E.2 Recipt and Handling of Dosimeters for Testing ...............................................................................25
E.3 Dosimeter Inventory and Tracking ..................................................................................................25
E.4 Dosimeter Mounting.........................................................................................................................25
E.5 Multiple Dosimeter Irradiations.........................................................................................................28
E.6 Quality Control Irradiation Measures................................................................................................28
E.7 Adjustment for Non-uniformity..........................................................................................................28
E.8 Adjustment for Sensitive Element Location .....................................................................................29
E.9 Returning Test Dosimeters ..............................................................................................................29
E.10 Personal Dose Equivalent Rate Limitations...................................................................................29
E.11 Reference Absorbed Dose or Personal Dose Equivalent..............................................................29
E.12 Traceability .....................................................................................................................................30
E.13 Field Quality ...................................................................................................................................30
E.14 Depth Doses...................................................................................................................................31
Appendix F: Conversion Factors for Photons .............................................................................................32
F.1 Radiation Units .................................................................................................................................32
F.2 X-ray Spectral Data ..........................................................................................................................32
F.3 Dosimetric Quantities .......................................................................................................................32
F.4 Converting Exposure to Air Kerma...................................................................................................34
Appendix G: Type and Periodic Performance Tests...................................................................................35
G.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................35
G.2 Type Testing ....................................................................................................................................35
G.3 Proficiency Testing...........................................................................................................................36
G.4 Testing Philosophy...........................................................................................................................36
G.5 Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) ........................................................................................................36
G.6 Angular Response Study .................................................................................................................37
G.7 Uncertainty.......................................................................................................................................38
Appendix H: Symbols and Acronyms..........................................................................................................39
Appendix I: References to the Appendices.................................................................................................41
ix
Performance Testing of Extremity personal dose equivalent for rod and pillar
Dosimeters phantoms are given in ISO 4037-3 (ISO 1999).
1.0 Purpose The standard applies to the evaluation of

dosimetry performed for radiation protection
This standard establishes standardized testing under low-dose and high-dose conditions in
conditions and criteria to evaluate the photon and beta fields. The tests for accident
performance of personnel extremity dosimetry dosimetry are approximately represented by the
services. high-dose category.
1.1 Scope As in the earlier standard, N13.32-1995

(ANSI/HPS 1995), neutron exposure of the
extremities still presents a special problem. The
Specifications are given in this standard for test
committee reviewed this issue and found no
categories, test irradiation ranges, and
compelling evidence to implement a neutron
acceptable models with associated levels of
dose equivalent test for extremity dosimeters at
performance. A test is conducted when
this time. Quoting from the previous standard:
dosimeters are sent from the facility that
normally processes or reads the dosimeters
(i.e., the “processor”) to a testing organization Current neutron fluence-to-dose-equivalent
that facilitates the irradiation of the dosimeters conversion factors specified in recom-
under controlled conditions specified in this mendations of the NCRP are derived from the
standard. The dosimeters are returned to the maximum value of dose equivalent in a 30-cm
processor for evaluation. The results of dosi- diameter cylindrical torso phantom. These
meter processing are returned to the testing values include secondary charged particles
laboratory for evaluation under the criteria given from neutron interactions as well as
in this standard. contributions from gamma rays from the
absorption of neutrons by hydrogen atoms.
The standard applies to dosimetry systems used The use of data (including the quality factors)
to assess personal dose equivalent at a depth of from the cylindrical torso phantom model is
0.07 mm in ICRU tissue in extremities, specifi- not applicable for the extremities. Therefore,
cally, hands or feet and forearms or legs. As neutron test categories are not included in
such, the standard applies to the performance of this standard. This issue should be re-
dosimeters worn on fingers and on wrists or examined in future revisions of this document
ankles. Because the basis of the performance or when appropriate fluence-to-dose equiva-
test is the personal dose equivalent at a depth of lent conversion factors are established.
0.07 mm, this standard does not apply to
dosimeters used to assess the dose to the lens A concerted effort has been made in this
of the eye or the personal dose equivalent to the standard to segregate type-testing issues,
whole body. As in the previous version of this typically performed once in the lifetime of a
standard, no consideration is given to dosimeter system, from periodic performance
administrative aspects of dosimetry programs testing issues. As such, there is no specific
such as adequacy of dosimeter identification, requirement to conduct a one-time evaluation of
detailed formats of reports, field calibrations, dosimeter performance under conditions of non-
placement of dosimeters on extremities, or the perpendicular angular incidence. Neither is there
assessment of dose from the placement of a requirement to conduct a study to evaluate the
multiple extremity dosimeters. lower limit of detectability. These tests are
important in the interpretation of dosimeter
The basis of absorbed dose and dose equivalent results but should be addressed in a type-testing
in this standard is the personal dose equivalent standard.
at 0.07 mm specified in both the International
Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) The methodology and criteria presented in this
and the International Commission on Radiation standard provide the basis for evaluating the
Units and Measurements (ICRU). Specifically, performance of extremity dosimeter systems.
factors that convert air kerma in photon fields to Section 2 comprises a list of terms and
definitions used in the standard. Section 3
1
comprises the testing procedures, testing Air kerma, Ka: The quotient of dEtr by dm,
categories, specifications of testing fields, where dEtr is the sum of the initial kinetic
specification of testing phantoms, specification energies of all electrons liberated by photons in
of irradiation geometries, selection of irradiation a volume element of air of mass dm, thus
levels, and the assignment of shallow dose
equivalent. Section 4 describes the criteria by dEtr
which performance is judged to be acceptable. Ka = (Eq. 2)
dm
Following the example set in the standard for
testing whole-body personnel dosimeter Unit: J kg–1
systems, N13.11-2001 (ANSI/HPS 2001),
ancillary information to clarify and support the The special name for the unit of air kerma is
positions in this standard is included in the gray (Gy).
appendices.
(The special unit of air kerma, rad, is 10–2 Gy.)
The scope of this standard is sufficiently
comprehensive that satisfactory performance Average energy, E : The fluence-weighted
implies that a dosimetry processor or provider is average energy of a field of photons or beta
competent to assess personal extremity dose particles calculated as
under a broad range of field conditions using the
tested dosimetry system. Emax
E =
∫ 0
N (E )EdE
(Eq. 3)
Emax
2.0 Definition of Terms ∫ 0
N (E )dE
The definitions for many of the terms used in this

standard are given below. The definitions where N(E) is the fluence with energy between
presented for quantities and units are compliant E and E + dE and Emax is the maximum energy
with those of ICRU 51 (ICRU 1993). present in the spectrum.
Absorbed dose, D: The quotient of d ε by dm, Bias, B: The mean value of the performance
where d ε is the mean energy imparted by quotient, Pi, of a set of dosimeter test results
ionizing radiation to matter of mass dm, thus n
B ≡ P = (1/ n )∑ Pi (Eq. 4)
dε i =1
D= (Eq. 1)
dm where the sum is extended over all n values of
Pi for a particular test in a given radiation
category (or subcategory) and for a particular
Unit: J kg–1 phantom (rod or pillar).
The special name for the unit of absorbed dose Conversion coefficient: The quotient of
is gray (Gy). personal dose equivalent, Hp(d,α), by the
quantity for which the field is calibrated, air
(The special unit of absorbed dose, rad, is 10–2 kerma, averaged over the field spectrum, thus
Gy.)
The definition of the absorbed dose, D, as a

Hp (d,α ) (Eq. 5)
cK ,d ,α =
point function, allows the specification of the Ka
spatial variations of D as well as the distribution
of the absorbed dose in linear energy transfer at
the point of interest. where, for photons, d is 0.07 mm for the shallow
depth and α is the angle of radiation incidence.
2
Unit: Sv Gy–1 (rem rad–1) for photons radiation quantities known to a high degree of
certainty.
For beta particles, since the field quantity is
absorbed dose and the quality factor is unity, the Performance quotient, Pi: The relative
conversion coefficient is unity. difference of the absorbed dose or personal
dose equivalent reported by the test participant
Dose equivalent, H: The product of D and Q at from the delivered absorbed dose or personal
a point in tissue, where D is the absorbed dose dose equivalent, which for the i th dosimeter is
and Q is the quality factor at that point, thus defined as
H = DQ (Eq. 6) Pi ≡ [Hi′ − Hi ] / Hi (Eq. 7)
Unit: J kg–1 where Hi is the personal dose equivalent

assigned by the IL to the i th irradiated dosimeter
The special name for the unit of dose equivalent and Hi΄ is the corresponding personal dose
is sievert (Sv). equivalent reported by the test participant.
For tests of high-dose dosimetry, the same
(The special unit of dose equivalent, rem, is 10–2 definition applies with the absorbed dose, D,
Sv.) replacing the personal dose equivalent, H.
Dosimeter: A device to assess the absorbed Personal dose equivalent, Hp(d): The dose
dose or personal dose equivalent from ionizing equivalent dose in soft tissue as defined in ICRU
radiation received by a person. The dosimeter 51 (ICRU 1993) below a specified point on the
consists of radiation-sensitive elements and their body at an appropriate depth d.
surrounding packaging.
Note 1: The unit of the personal dose equivalent is
Extremity: The hand and arm below the elbow; joules per kilogram (J kg–1) with the special name
the foot and leg below the knee (NRC 2008). sievert (Sv).
Note 2: Any statement of personal dose equivalent

Extremity dosimetry system: A system used should include a specification of the depth, d,
to assess dose equivalent resulting from expressed in millimeters.
external radiation to the extremities. The
extremity dosimetry system includes the Note 4: Shallow dose equivalent is defined as the
dosimeter, the dosimeter processing system and personal dose equivalent at a depth of 0.07 mm in
the system used to ensure the quality of the ICRU tissue and is denoted by Hp(0.07).
dosimetry result.
Processor: A supplier of personnel dosimetry
Half-value layer: The thickness of material that services. These services include (1) furnishing
reduces the intensity of a radiation beam by dosimeters to the user, (2) evaluating the
one-half. readings of the dosimeters after their return in
terms of the absorbed dose or personal dose
Homogeneity coefficient: The ratio of the first equivalent as prescribed in this standard, (3)
half-value layer to the second half-value layer, recording the results, and (4) reporting them to
times 100. the user.
ICRU tissue: A tissue-equivalent (TE) material Protection levels: For this standard, protection
defined in the ICRU Report 33 (ICRU 1980) levels are considered to be below 0.1 Gy (10
having a density of 1,000 mg cm–3 and a rad). The upper end of the regulatory range of
composition by mass of 76.2% O, 10.1% H, protection dosimetry levels is addressed in the
11.1% C, and 2.6% N. “high-dose levels” categories.
Irradiating laboratory, IL: A laboratory Radiation field: A region in which ionizing

possessing radiation sources, calibration radiation of a known type, and known spectral
equipment, and associated facilities that is able and angular distribution, is present and whose
to irradiate dosimeters from the test sample to intensity is able to be quantified at one or more
3
points in terms of a field quantity such as fluence testing. Sections 3.9 and A5 use this term in the
or air kerma rate. discussion of the selection of proficiency testing
irradiation levels.
Reference dose point, RDP: The point in the
radiation field at which the field quantity is Test: Sequence of steps and actions needed to
specified. For the tests described in this evaluate the performance of personnel
standard, the RDP coincides with the surface of dosimeters.
the phantom along the central ray of the
radiation field passing through the center of the Test category: A collection of radiation qualities
phantom, with the exception of irradiations and absorbed dose or personal dose equivalent
conducted on the slab uranium source. For levels for which dosimetry testing is defined.
irradiations conducted on the slab uranium
source, the reference dose point is determined Test subcategory: A collection of radiation
empirically as 7 mg cm–2 beyond the slab fields in a test category that may include only a
covering that is in contact with the dosimeter. limited portion of the energy range of the full
category. The general subcategory in each
Residual maximum energy, Eres: The highest category contains the most comprehensive set
value of the energy of a beta particle spectrum of radiation fields (see footnotes on Table 1).
at the reference dose point after having been
modified by scatter and absorption. Testing organization: A group, independent of
the test participant's operation, that administers
Ring dosimeter: Any dosimeter worn on the and evaluates the performance testing of
fingers of the hand to measure radiation dose, participants. The testing organization may
alternatively referred to as a finger or finger-ring include the IL.
dosimeter.
Type test: A test performed on a small number
Shallow absorbed dose, Dp(0.07) or shallow of dosimeters of a given extremity dosimeter
dose equivalent, Hp(0.07): The absorbed dose system to determine performance characteristics
or personal dose equivalent at a depth of 0.07 of that dosimetry system and considered to be a
mm in an appropriate phantom of ICRU tissue. one-time determination based on some
Extremity doses are all expressed as shallow generally acceptable criteria.
absorbed dose or shallow dose equivalent.
Tolerance level, L: The boundary of acceptable
Standard deviation, S: The standard deviation performance of a dosimetry system. For this
of the values of the performance quotient, Pi, is standard the tolerance level is determined by the
following equation:
n
∑ (P − P )
i
2
(Eq. 8)
B 2 + S 2 ≤ L2
S≡ i =1
n −1 where B is the bias and S is the standard
deviation previously defined.
where the sum is extended over all n values of
Pi for a particular test in a given radiation
category or subcategory, and for a particular Uncertainty: Parameter associated with the
result of a measurement that characterizes the
phantom depth and
dispersion of the values that could reasonably
n
be attributed to the measurand (ANSI/NCSL
P = (1/ n )∑ Pi (Eq. 9)
1997).
i =1
Wrist dosimeter. Any dosimeter worn on the
wrist or ankle to measure personnel extremity
Target delivered absorbed dose (D ) or target
delivered personal dose equivalent (H): This dose.
value of D or H that is determined/calculated by
the IL and used as a target value to achieve
while exposing dosimeters sent for proficiency
4
3.0 Test Procedure • An indication of whether dosimeters are

worn on the wrist or as a ring.
This section specifies the performance test • A brief description of dosimeter design,
procedure. The procedure is summarized below. construction, and processing (including a
reference to the software version of the dose
• The test participant selects the categories algorithm).
for which evaluation is sought.
• A brief description of the dosimeter’s
• The test participant indicates whether the orientation on the phantom.
blind testing option is desired.
• Known or suspected limiting conditions (e.g.,
• The test participant indicates whether wrist exposure to ambient lighting, dose rate
or ring dosimeters are being submitted. limitations, exposure duration, etc.) that
• The test participant submits dosimeters, might influence the response of the
representative of those supplied to users, to dosimeter.
the IL over a period of several months. The
participant supplies the number of 3.2 Test Schedule
dosimeters required for testing in the
requested test categories. A test shall consist of three separate iterations
• The IL irradiates the dosimeters in the (or rounds) performed over a period of 3 to 6
radiation field(s) specified for applicable mo. The IL will return test dosimeters to the test
categories. participant/user within 45 d of the start of the
testing round. The test participant shall report
• The IL returns the dosimeters to the test results of evaluations to the IL within 45 d of
participant for evaluation. receiving the dosimeters. Failure by a participant
• The test participant evaluates the response to submit all dosimeter evaluations in a given
of the irradiated dosimeters in terms of the category within the required 45 d will result in
absorbed dose or personal dose equivalent failure of the category.
at the specified test depth.
• The test participant reports the results of the 3.3 Number of Test Dosimeters
dosimeter evaluation to the IL in the required
time. The test participant shall submit 15 dosimeters
(five per round) for each subcategory selected
• The testing organization evaluates the for evaluation. Two additional dosimeters shall
dosimeter performance based on criteria in be included in each round as replacement
this standard. dosimeters in case problems are encountered at
• The testing organization notifies the test the IL. Control dosimeters may be included in
participant of the dosimeter’s performance. each round to evaluate transit doses.
The IL shall not conduct a test for fewer than

3.1 Administrative Procedure three processors at a time or the IL shall use an
independent and simultaneous method to verify
3.1.1 Information to be Supplied to the the dose delivered to test dosimeters.
Testing Organization The test participant shall
provide the following information to the testing The minimum number of dosimeters that
organization: constitute a test for a dosimeter type submitted
for testing is 13 in any category. If the dose
• A certification that the dosimeters submitted interpretations from more than 2 of the
for each test are representative of those dosimeters irradiated in a given category are
supplied to customers. voided because of problems caused by either
• The test categories desired. the IL or the participant, statistical analysis of the
results in this category shall be delayed until
• An indication of whether blind testing (test replacement dosimeters have been submitted
category not disclosed to participant before and irradiated and the results reported by the
test results are reported) is desired. processor to the IL.
5
3.4 Dissemination of Test Results 3.5 Test Categories
The testing organization shall report all test Test categories and test dose-equivalent or
results to the participant after the test is absorbed dose ranges to be used during the
completed. An estimate for the uncertainty of the evaluation of extremity dosimetry systems are
assigned values of shallow dose equivalent shall specified in Table 1. To clarify the notation in the
be available from the IL. The participant shall not text of Table 1, E is meant to be the mean
be permitted to change or void reported results energy of the particular radiation field.
after the testing organization releases the test
results. (Note: circumstances can arise requiring
the participant to modify reported doses before
the IL distributes the final test reports. After the
final test report has been released, each
participant is given access to the delivered dose
levels for the test and, therefore, cannot modify
the test results at that time.)
Table 1. Irradiation categories, test irradiation ranges and tolerance levels.

Tolerance
Test irradiation level (L)
Test category
range (for B2 + S2
= L2)
I. High-dose, photons
A. General (B and C, random) 0.1 to 5 Gy
0.24
B. 137Cs ( E = 662 keV) (10 to 500 rad)
C. M150 ( E = 73.0 keV)
II. Photons
A. General ( E ≥ 20 keV)
1.0 to 100 mSv
B. High E ( E ≥ 500 keV) 0.35
(0.1 to 10 rem)
C. Medium E ( E ≥ 70 keV)
D. Narrow spectrum
III. Betas
A. General (B and C, random)
B. High E point source ( E ≥ 500 keV) 2.5 to 100 mSv
0.35
(0.25 to 10 rem)
C. Low E point source ( E < 500 keV)
D. Slab uranium ( E ≥ 500 keV)
IV. Beta/photon mixtures
3.5 to 100 mSv
A. General photon + beta 0.35
(0.35 to 10 rem)
B. Gamma + beta
Notes:
1. Only one irradiation below 2.5 mSv is allowed in Category II.
2. Acceptable sources for each category are described in the text.
3. Subcategories chosen in Categories II and III shall be used in Category IV where no subcategories
are specified.
4. In Category IV, mixed exposures range from 1:1 to 5:1 (beta:photons), based on the personal dose
equivalent.
5. In Category IV, only high-energy ( E ≥ 500 keV) photons should be used for mixed-source
exposures with low-energy ( E < 500 keV) betas.
6
A detailed discussion of each test category listed A participating laboratory may choose the blind
is included in Appendix A. option to demonstrate greater capabilities of
their dosimetry system. Dosimeters capable of
It is intended that each participant be tested in blind testing generally have one or both of these
the categories that best represent the services design features: (1) they have multiple elements
they provide. It is also intended that processors that are used to perform source/energy
employ the same methodology as is normally discrimination, and/or (2) they use nearly tissue-
used for processing personnel extremity equivalent materials such that source/energy
dosimeters for a client/user. discrimination is unnecessary.
Tests in Categories I, II, and III (including all Special subcategories are included for dosimetry
subcategories) are single-field exposures. That in certain types of work environments. Refer to
is, each individual dosimeter is exposed in only Appendix A for further discussion of work
one field. environments and subcategories.
Tests in Category IV are mixed-field exposures. 3.5.1 Category I: High-Dose Photons For the
That is, each individual dosimeter is exposed to “General (B and C, random)” subcategory IA,
two fields, a photon field and a beta field. Mixed- the radiation field in which each dosimeter is to
field exposures are not typically performed at the be irradiated shall be chosen at random by the
same time because most irradiation laboratories IL with the provision that at least three
are not equipped for simultaneous exposures dosimeters will be irradiated using each source
from two fields. Typically, mixed-field exposures (137Cs and M150).
are performed one at a time with the assumption
that the response of the dosimeter would be the 3.5.2 Category II: Photons For the photon
same for either method. subcategories IIA (General, ( E ≥ 20 keV)) and
Two modes of testing are offered: non-blind and IIC (Medium Energy ( E ≥ 70 keV)), specific
blind. When a participating laboratory only tests photon radiation fields shall be chosen at
in categories I, II, and/or III (i.e., they do not random by the IL for each irradiation with the
choose Category IV), then dosimeters will be provision that at least 3 dosimeters of the 15
tested with the non-blind option. That is, for each submitted for testing shall be irradiated in high-
dosimeter tested the participant will be told the energy photon fields ( E ≥ 500 keV). For the
irradiation source for the purpose of allowing the photon subcategories IIB (High E ( E ≥ 500
participant to apply a specific correction factor to keV)) and IID (Narrow Spectrum), specific
determine a more accurate personal dose photon radiation fields shall be chosen at
equivalent. This is consistent with the way a random by the IL for each irradiation.
processor calculates the extremity dose for most Additionally, for all subcategories under
single-element extremity dosimeter designs in Category II, only one dosimeter shall receive an
practice. In these cases, the occupational field is assigned test irradiation less than 2.5 mSv (250
known so a specific correction factor can be mrem).
used to give a more accurate measurement.
3.5.3 Category III: Betas For the “General (B
When a participating laboratory chooses and C, random)” subcategory IIIA, the specific
Category IV, dosimeters will be blind-tested in all beta irradiation field shall be chosen at random
categories tested. The participating laboratory from subcategories IIIB (High E Point Source
will not be told which sources were used to
expose any of the dosimeters, with the ( E ≥ 500 keV)) and IIIC (Low E Point Source
exception that the participant would be told ( E < 500 keV)) by the IL with the provision that
which dosimeters were exposed in the high- at least three dosimeters shall be irradiated
dose category (Category I). However, under using the high-energy ( E ≥ 500 keV) beta
blind testing, if the participant chooses the source and at least three shall be irradiated
“General” subcategory in Category I, he or she
using the low-energy ( E < 500 keV) beta
will not be told whether the irradiating field was
137 source. The slab uranium (Category IID) source
Cs or M150.
7
will not be included in the random selection of 3.6 Radiation Sources

sources in Category IIIA.
Note 1: For high energy ( E ≥ 500 keV), 90Sr/90Y The following radiation sources shall be
90 90
sources are used, where the Sr and Y are in available in the IL, as a minimum:
secular equilibrium. The theoretical maximum beta
particle energies from the beta decay of 90Sr/90Y are 1. At least one 137Cs and/or one 60Co gamma-
0.55/2.28 MeV, respectively. A 100 mg cm–2 filter ray source. The sources may be used either
90
(nominal) is used to absorb the Sr beta particle. in a beam-type irradiator equipped with a
Note 2: For low energy ( E < 500 keV), 85Kr sources collimator or in free air. The IL will make
are used, where the theoretical maximum beta measurements and verify that the shallow
85
particle energy from the beta decay of Kr is 0.687 and deep personal dose equivalents agree
204
MeV. In the past, Tl sources were also used with a to within 5%.
theoretical maximum beta particle energy of 0.760
MeV. 2. At least one constant potential x-ray
machine operating at an appropriate tube
3.5.4 Category IV: Beta/Photon Mixtures potential and with appropriate beam filters to
This category is for blind testing only. produce the x-ray spectra listed in Table 2a
Dosimeters tested in this category shall be of this standard such that (1) the first half-
irradiated in a beta field corresponding to the value thickness is within 5% and (2) the
subcategory in which the participant is tested in homogeneity coefficient is within 7% of
Category III (betas) and in a photon field those listed in Table 2a (ISO 1996; NIST
corresponding to the subcategory in which the 2001).
participant is tested in Category II (photons). 3. Sources of narrow-spectra photons to
include at least a 241Am source or an NS80
For all mixed-field irradiations, the specific x-ray beam to represent plutonium spectral
photon radiation fields used for the photon emissions at 60 keV.*
portion will be chosen at random from those 4. A sealed 90Sr/90Y beta-particle source
available in that subcategory, with the provision equipped with a 100 mg cm–2 filter (nominal)
that at least three of the exposures will be from to absorb the 90Sr beta particle. It shall meet
high-energy photons ( E ≥ 500 keV). the following specifications (ISO 2006):
a) The residual maximum energy, Eres, as
For all mixed-field irradiations, the specific beta defined in the ISO 6980 (ISO 2006),
radiation fields used for the beta portion will be shall equal or exceed 1.80 MeV.
chosen at random from those available in that b) The in-phantom absorbed dose at 100
subcategory, with the following provisions: mg cm–2, D(1), divided by the in-
phantom absorbed dose at 7 mg cm–2 ,
1. A high-energy photon ( E ≥ 500 keV) will D(0.07), shall be 1.01 ± 0.03.
always be used for mixed-field exposures c) The in-phantom absorbed dose at 1 g
with low-energy beta sources ( E < 500). cm–2, D(10), shall be less than 1% of the
Low-energy photon and low-energy beta in-phantom absorbed dose at 7 mg
exposures will never be used in combination cm–2.
for mixed-field exposures in performance
testing.
2. If the participant tested in beta subcategory
IIIA (General), then at least three exposures *
If an accreditation program requires a narrow
will be from the high-energy beta source spectrum, or k-fluorescence, x-ray field to adequately
test personnel extremity dosimeters in low-energy
( E ≥ 500 keV) and at least three exposures
plutonium fields (e.g., between 17 and 30 keV), then it
will be from the low-energy beta source ( E is recommended that a field specified in ISO-4037,
< 500 keV). part 1 be chosen as a reference and a conversion
3. Beta Subcategory IIID (Slab Uranium) will coefficient determined by fitting published shallow-
dose conversion coefficients to the measured energy
never be used for mixed-field exposures. fluence spectrum using an appropriate interpolation
methodology (see section F.3 in Appendix F of this
standard).
8
Note 1. The in-phantom depths for these depth- Note 1. The in-phantom depths for these depth-
dose specifications are not depths in the dose specifications are not depths in the
extremity phantoms, but are depths in the solid extremity phantoms, but are depths in the solid
slab phantom of PMMA with a thickness of 15 slab phantom of PMMA with a thickness of 15
cm and a face no smaller than 30 cm × 30 cm cm and a face no smaller than 30 cm × 30 cm
and no larger than 40 cm × 40 cm (ANSI/HPS and no larger than 40 cm × 40 cm (ANSI/HPS
2001). 2001).
Note 2. A summary of characteristics for beta Note 2. A summary of characteristics for beta
particle sources and fields is given in Table 2b particle sources and fields is given in Table 2b
of this document. of this document.
5. A sealed 85Kr beta-particle source meeting 6. A slab natural or depleted uranium source
the following specifications: (typically 3 inches wide and 24 inches long).
a) The residual maximum energy as defined
in ISO 6980-1 (ISO 2006) shall equal or Note: The uranium slab source should be of
sufficient width and length to simulate an infinite
exceed 0.53 MeV.
plane source to the dosimeter-phantom system
b) The in-phantom absorbed dose at 20 mg being irradiated.
cm–2, D(0.2), divided by the in-phantom
absorbed dose at 7 mg cm–2 shall be
0.80 ± 0.05.
Table 2a. Characteristics of NIST photon beam techniques.
NIST Half-valuea Homogeneitya E FWHM

b
tech. Added filter layer coefficient (keV) (keV)
Beam Al Cu Sn Pb Al Cu
code (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Al Cu
M30 0.5 0.36 65 20 13
M60 1.56 1.68 66 35 28
H50 4 0.1 4.2 0.142 92 90 39 14
M100 5 5.02 73 53 42
M150 5 0.25 10.2 0.67 87 62 73 59
H150 4 4 1.51 17 2.5 100 95 118 44
M250 5 3.2 18.5 3.2 98 86 139 105
H250 4 0.6 1.04 2.72 22 5.2 100 98 204 61
NS80 4 2 0.58 94 65 21
137
Cs 10.8 662
60
Co 14.9 1,250
a
The specified half-value layers should be duplicated to within 5% and the homogeneity coefficients to within 7%, if
necessary by adjusting the tube potential.
b
The inherent filtration is approximately 1.0 mm Be for beam codes M20–M50 and 3.0 mm Be for beam codes M60–
M300, H50–H300 and NS80.
9
Table 2b. Characteristics of beta particle sources and fields.
Source Half-life E Min. D(0.2)/ D(1)/ D(10)/

(y) Filter (MeV) Eres D(0.07) D(0.07) D(0.07)
(MeV)
85
Kr 10.77 1 PETa disc of radius 4 cm 0.26 0.53 0.80 ± — —
and thickness 50 µm, plus 0.05
1 PET concentric disc of
radius 2.75 cm and
thickness 190 µmb
90
Sr/90Y 28.78 — 0.84 1.80 — 1.01 ± < 0.01
0.03
Depleted 4.5 × 109 Between 3 and 7 mg cm–2 0.62c — — 0.58± < 0.03
or natural 0.04
uranium
a
PET is polyethylene terephthalate.
b
The filter shall be mounted at a distance of 10 cm from the source surface.
c
This is the average energy of beta particles emerging from the filtered source.
3.7 Phantom Construction is perpendicular to and passes through the

central axis of the phantom (the axis of the
Two phantom types shall be used for dosimeter cylinder along its length). For the uranium slab
irradiations: one (denoted as a pillar phantom in exposure, the dosimeters will be placed on a
ISO 4037-3) to represent a lower arm or leg to phantom (truncated if necessary) that is then
test wrist or ankle dosimeters and one to placed on the slab so that the surface of the
represent a finger to test ring or hand dosimeter is in contact with the uranium slab.
dosimeters (denoted as a rod phantom in ISO For the purposes of the test, the reference dose
4037-3). The rod phantom shall be a solid, right- point is 7 mg cm–2 beyond the plane of the
circular cylinder constructed of PMMA having a source covering. (Normally, uranium slabs used
diameter of 19 mm (3/4 inches) and a length of for testing are covered with approximately 7 mg
300 mm (about 1 foot) or more. The arm cm–2 of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) to
phantom shall be a solid, right-circular cylinder preclude the spread of contamination to test
of PMMA having a diameter of 73 mm (2 7/8 dosimeters.) Dosimeter irradiation geometries
inches) and a length of 300 mm (about 1 foot) or are summarized in Table 3.
longer. Designs for the previous phantoms are
described in Roberson et al. (1986) and ISO For photon and point geometry beta-particle
(1999). For the uranium slab irradiations the irradiations, the scatter from the room surfaces,
phantom lengths may be smaller than specified the source, and phantom support hardware shall
above. be measured and controlled so as to contribute
only a small fraction of the uncertainty in the
3.8 Irradiation Conditions assigned dose equivalent (see Section 3.10).
The IL may elect to irradiate several dosimeters
The dosimeters shall be irradiated on the simultaneously. The laboratory shall take
appropriate phantom. The reference dose point precautions to keep the mutual interference from
shall coincide with the center of the surface of the dosimeters low in comparison with the
the phantom facing the source. The dosimeters uncertainty of the absorbed dose or personal
shall be attached to the surface of the phantom dose equivalent delivered to the dosimeters.
so they are facing the source. The phantom
shall be positioned so that the central beam axis The IL shall adhere to standard good practices
for the irradiations (NVLAP 2001).
10
Table 3. Dosimeter irradiation geometries.

Maximum useful field diameter,
Source type Minimum distance, cma
cmb
Photon sources
241
Am 50 15
137
Cs, 60Co 100 15
NIST & ISO filtered techniques 100 15
Beta sources
Point-isotopic 30 10
Slab On contact —
a
Distance from the source center to the front surface of the phantom.
b
Dosimeters are positioned so that the sensitive elements are on the front face of the phantom and fall within the
maximum useful interval. The maximum useful interval defines the area of the phantom face that can be used for
irradiation without causing a resulting dose that exceeds the total uncertainty by ± 5%. The useful interval could
conceivably be and may be smaller than the maximum listed in this table if the resulting dose yields a total
uncertainty that exceeds ± 5%.
3.9 Selection of Irradiation Levels dose equivalent for the beta exposure. The
photon portion of the dose is determined by Eq.
For Categories I (High-Dose, Photons), II (1), as if it were a Category II (Photon)
(Photons), and III (Betas), the IL’s target exposure. The photon exposure plan can have
delivered absorbed dose (for Category I) or no more than 1 of 15 dosimeters irradiated with
target delivered personal dose equivalent (for a delivered personal dose equivalent less than
Categories II and III) has historically been 2.50 mSv (250 mrem), but the total dose
determined by the following equation: equivalent has to be greater than 3.50 mSv (350
mrem). After the target delivered photon
log (D or H) = log (D1 or H1) personal dose equivalent is calculated for each
+ ρ [log (Du or Hu) – log (D1 or H1)] (Eq. 10) dosimeter, the target beta personal dose
equivalent is determined by the following
where D (or H) is the IL’s target delivered equation:
absorbed dose (for Category I) or target
delivered personal dose equivalent (for H Beta = δ H Photon (Eq. 11)
Categories II and III),
where H Beta and H photon are the IL’s target
D l (or H l ) and D u (or H u ) are the lower (l) and delivered beta and photon personal dose
upper (u) limits of the delivered absorbed dose equivalents and δ equals a random variable
(or personal dose equivalent) of the range of test between and including 1 and 5. The beta
irradiation levels, and personal dose equivalent is to be a multiple of
one to five times that of the photon personal
ρ equals a random variable between 0 and 1. dose equivalent, that is, the ratio of the personal
dose equivalents of the two types of radiation
For Category II (Photons), no more than 1 of the qualities shall range between 1:1 and 5:1
15 dosimeters in any given subcategory shall be (beta:photon).
irradiated with a delivered personal dose
equivalent less than 2.50 mSv (250 mrem). The IL will attempt to expose the dosimeters to
the calculated targeted values, but obtaining the
For Category IV (Beta/Photon Mixtures) the exact values is not critical to the test. The IL will
target delivered personal dose equivalent of the determine the B and S using the actual delivered
photon exposure is first determined and then doses.
used to determine the target delivered personal
11
DS = K& a c K , s , α t (Eq. 12)

3.10 Assignment of Personal Dose
Equivalent (or Absorbed Dose) Values
or
The IL shall assign to each dosimeter a value for
the shallow dose equivalent (Hp(0.07)) or H p (0.07) = K& a c K , s , α t (Eq. 13)
absorbed dose (Ds).
3.10.1 Photons For photons, the dose equiva- where K& a is the air kerma rate, c K , s , α is the air
lent assigned to exposed extremity dosimeters kerma-to-dose equivalent conversion factor for
shall be calculated using the exposure-to-dose shallow dose(s) in Gy/Gy for high-level doses
conversion factors tabulated in ISO 4037-3 (ISO and Sv/Gy for protection-level doses, where α,
1999) and listed in Table 4 (provided for the angle between the central ray of emanation
informational purposes). The shallow absorbed from the source and the perpendicular tangent
dose (Ds) and shallow dose equivalent to the face of the dosimeter phantom, is taken to
(Hp(0.07)) for radioactive source irradiations be 0˚, and t is the irradiation time.
shall be calculated by:
12
Table 4. Factors to convert from air kerma to shallow personal dose equivalent.
Shallow personal dose equivalent conversion factor
( c K ,s ,α )
NIST Phantom ISO Phantom
beam Finger Arm beam Finger Arm
code α = 0o α = 0o code α = 0o α = 0o
a a
L15 0.93 0.93 HK10 0.89 0.89
a a
L20 0.94 0.95 HK20 0.95 0.95
a a
L30 0.97 0.99 HK30 0.99 0.99
a a
L40 1.00 1.03 HK60 1.07 1.07
a a
L50 1.02 1.07 HK100 1.12 1.12
a a
L80 1.06 1.17 HK200 1.16 1.16
a a
L100 1.07 1.21 HK250 1.16 1.16
a
HK280 1.16 1.16
a a
M20 0.96 0.97 HK300 1.16 1.16
M30 0.99 1.01
a a
M40 1.01 1.06 WS60 1.10 1.10
a a
M50 1.03 1.09 WS80 1.13 1.13
a
M60 1.05 1.15 WS110 1.16 1.16
a
M100 1.10 1.29 WS150 1.17 1.17
a
M150 1.14 1.35 WS200 1.16 1.16
a a
M200 1.16 1.34 WS250 1.15 1.15
a
M250 1.16 1.29 WS300 1.15 1.15
a
M300 1.15 1.24
a
NS10 0.91 0.91
a a
H10 0.91 0.91 NS15 0.95 0.95
a a
H15 0.96 0.96 NS20 0.98 0.98
a a
H20 0.98 0.98 NS25 1.00 1.00
a a
H30 1.03 1.08 NS30 1.03 1.03
a a
H40 1.07 1.19 NS40 1.07 1.07
a
H50 1.09 1.26 NS60 1.11 1.11
a a
H60 1.11 1.33 NS80 1.15 1.15
a a
H100 1.16 1.38 NS100 1.17 1.17
a
H150 1.17 1.32 NS120 1.17 1.17
a a
H200 1.16 1.27 NS150 1.17 1.17
a
H250 1.15 1.24 NS200 1.16 1.16
a a
H300 1.14 1.22 NS250 1.15 1.15
a
NS300 1.14 1.14
a
S60 1.07 1.21
a a
S75 1.06 1.17 LK10 0.91 0.91
a
LK20 0.99 1.00
137 a
Cs 1.11 1.15 LK30 1.03 1.08
60 a
Co 1.11 1.13 LK35 1.06 1.17
a
LK55 1.11 1.34
241
Am 1.14 1.39
Notes:
1. Multiplying kerma by the conversion factor yields the personal dose equivalent. If kerma is in grays,
the personal dose equivalent will be in sieverts. If kerma is in rads, the personal dose equivalent will
be in rems.
2. The a superscript denotes fields provided for informational purposes.
13
3.10.2 Beta Particles For beta particles, the 4.0 Performance Criteria
dose equivalent (Hp(0.07)) assigned to exposed
dosimeters shall be calculated using the Performance in a given category shall be
following: considered adequate if, for the shallow dose
equivalent or absorbed dose,
H p (0.07) = D& t ( 0.07) t c QF
(Eq. 14) B 2 + S 2 ≤ L2 (Eq. 15)
& (0.07) is the absorbed dose rate at a where B is the bias of the performance quotients
where Dt for a particular category or subcategory,S is the
depth of d = 0.07 mm (7 mg cm–2), t is the standard deviation of the performance quotients
irradiation time, and cQF is the quadrant for the particular category or subcategory, and L
correction factor (a correction to the reference is the tolerance level.
dose at the reference dose point to account for
differences due to the geometric offset). The values of the tolerance level, L, shall be: L =
0.24 in the high-dose category (Category I) and
For the uranium slab irradiations, the absorbed L = 0.35 in the low-dose categories. The level of
dose rate is interpreted to be 0.07 mm (7 mg 0.24 for the high-dose category yields the same
cm–2) beyond the covering on the slab area of acceptable performance as in the 1995
(nominally 210 mrem h–1 with a covering of 7 mg version of this standard (ANSI/HPS 1995).
cm–2 of PET).
In the test categories involving mixed radiation 5.0 References to the Text
fields, the values for the shallow personal dose
equivalent delivered to the dosimeter for each
type of radiation shall be added. ANSI/HPS. Performance testing of extremity
dosimetry. American National Standards
Except as noted below, the uncertainty of the Institute and the Health Physics Society;
personal dose equivalent or absorbed dose ANSI/HPS N13.32; 1995.
assigned by the IL to each irradiation shall not ANSI/HPS. Personnel dosimetry performance –
exceed ± 5% for photons and ± 7% for betas, criteria for testing. American National
excluding uncertainties in the dose equivalent Standards Institute and the Health Physics
conversion factors. The assigned uncertainty Society; ANSI/HPS N13.11; 2001.
shall include uncertainties in source ANSI/NCSL. American national standard for
standardization, uncertainty in the distance expressing uncertainty – U.S. guide to the
between the source and the RDP, and the expression of uncertainty in measurements.
uncertainty due to scattered radiation not American National Standards Institute and
stemming from the phantom. The individual National Conference of Standards Labora-
components shall be combined in quadrature, tories; ANSI/NCSL Report Z540-2; 1997.
and a coverage factor of two applied to the sum, ICRP. Conversion coefficients for use in
which implies a 95% confidence interval radiological protection against external
(ANSI/NCSL 1997). radiation. Stockholm: International Commis-
sion on Radiological Protection; ICRP
It is recognized that because of technological Publication 74; 1997.
limitations, the uncertainty in the assigned ICRU. Conversion coefficients for use in
personal dose equivalent for low-energy ( E < radiological protection against external
500 keV) beta particles may exceed ± 7%. The radiation. Bethesda, MD: International
effects of these uncertainties can be minimized Commission on Radiation Units and
by participants having dosimeter calibrations Measurements; ICRU Report 57; 1998.
performed by the IL prior to testing. ICRU. Quantities and units in radiation
protection dosimetry. Bethesda, MD:
International Commission on Radiation Units
and Measurements; ICRU Report 51; 1993.
14
ICRU. Radiation quantities and units. Bethesda, NIST. Calibration of x-ray and gamma-ray
MD: International Commission on Radiation measuring instruments. Gaithersburg, MD:
Units and Measurements; ICRU Report 33; U.S. National Institute of Standards and
1980. Technology; NIST Special Publication 250-
ISO. Nuclear energy – reference beta particle 58; 2001.
radiations – part 1: methods of production. NRC. Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Geneva: International Organization for Regulations (CFR): Energy, Chapter 1:
Standardization; ISO 6980-1; 2006. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Part
ISO. Reference beta particle radiation – part 3: 20: Standards for protection against radiation;
calibration of area and personal dosemeters 2008.
and determination of their response as a NVLAP. Implementation of traceability policy in
function of energy and angle of incidence. accredited laboratories, annex b of national
Geneva: International Organization for voluntary laboratory accreditation program –
Standardization; ISO 6980-3; 2006. procedures and general requirements.
ISO. X and gamma radiation for calibrating Gaithersburg, MD: National Voluntary
dosemeters and doseratemeters and for Laboratory Accreditation Program; NVLAP
determining their response as a function of Handbook 150; 2006.
energy – part 1: radiation characteristics and Roberson PL, Eichner FN, Reece WD.
production methods. Geneva: International Determination of photon conversion factors
Organization for Standardization; ISO 4037- relating exposure and dose for several
1;1996. extremity phantom designs. Richland, WA:
ISO. X and gamma radiation for calibrating Pacific Northwest Laboratory; Report PNL-
dosemeters and doseratemeters and for 5660; 1986.
determining their response as a function of
energy – part 3: calibration of area and
personal dosemeters as a function of energy
and angle of incidence. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization; ISO 4037-3;
1999.
15
Appendix A: Test Categories
This appendix provides additional information number of irradiations made with the same
relating to Section 3 in the main body of the source while adding increased variety to better
standard. simulate the diversity of conditions presented to
a test participant during normal operations.
A1. Test Categories

A2. Discussion of Specific Categories
Several notable changes to the test categories
arose from the working group’s desire to make Category I (High-Dose, Photons) has remained
the standard as consistent as possible with unchanged from the previous version of the
ANSI/HPS N13.11-2001 (ANSI/HPS 2001). For standard (ANSI/HPS 1995). The sources
instance, the group aligned the testing specified for testing remain 137Cs and M150 x-
categories with those in ANSI N13.11-2001 by rays.
combining the photon tests into a single photon
category and by increasing the number of Category II (Photons) combines the former
photon spectra available to evaluate extremity categories evaluating performance for low- and
dosimetry systems. high-energy photons. The category contains four
subcategories. The General subcategory (Table
The group decided to continue with the evolution 1, Subcategory IIA) is intended to evaluate those
toward a test protocol that more fully simulates systems employed to monitor diverse photon
the variety of conditions that dosimetry systems exposure environments as might be found in
are designed to assess. Toward that end, they large hospital, university, and industrial settings.
added scope by including a beta/photon mixture Systems evaluated under this category are able
category at the request of several entities in the to demonstrate performance with only 15
dosimetry industry. This test is important dosimeters, compared with 30 in the previous
because the energy deposition by beta radiation standard. The two intermediate subcategories
is mainly a surface effect, whereas photons (Table 1, Subcategories IIB and IIC) apply to
deposit energy throughout a dosimeter element. systems that are designed or operated for the
The choice of excluding a photon mixture measurement of a limited range of photon
category arose because the deposition of dose energies. For instance, high-energy photons
with energy is approximately homogenous over addressed in subcategory IIB might be
the thickness of a dosimeter element. encountered in reactor environments by workers
performing maintenance or repair on pump and
Consistent with ANSI/HPS N13.11-2001 and valve components; medium-energy photons
with the previous version of this standard, each might be encountered by workers performing
category contains special subcategories for use crystallography or diffraction experiments. The
in evaluating dosimeters under either general or fourth subcategory (Table 1, Subcategory IID)
more limited conditions. With the appropriate examines performance for a special group of
selection of the subcategories, evaluations of photon sources with narrow spectra that
dosimetry systems can be conducted that are simulate conditions of interest to the DOE.
similar to those in the 1995 version; therefore,
those systems focusing on the measurement of The rules for the selection of the irradiation
limited conditions should not be unduly sources in Category II are constructed so that at
challenged by the increased number of sources least three dosimeters are irradiated by sources
available for testing. with energies above 500 keV. This requirement
ensures that the performance data reflect
The use of subcategories continues a strategy irradiations across the full energy range.
adopted in the 1995 version and allows an
effective means by which the special needs of Category III (Betas) continues the beta particle
the Department of Energy (DOE) can be met evaluations with no material changes. The
and still attain the objective of having a unified standard substitutes 85Kr for 204Tl because of its
system of performance tests. The use of a more general availability, higher activity and
General subcategory reduces the excessive
16
longer half-life. This is discussed further in dose equivalent has been set so that no
Section A.3 below. personal dose equivalent of either component
will be less than the minimum required by the
Category IV (Beta/Photon Mixtures) evaluates corresponding category in which the radiation
dosimeter performance under conditions quality type is evaluated by itself. The mixture
simulating mixtures of beta particles and ratio is asymmetric because the deposition of
photons. With the current version, the standard dose from a beta source is generally a surface
introduces tests of beta particles with photons. effect that could cause the dose from a photon
Category IV has two subcategories. The source deposited at deeper depths in the
General category corresponds to mixtures of the dosimeter element to be misinterpreted. (For
photon subcategory selected in Category II and example, the deposition of dose at various
the beta particle subcategory selected in depths in a thermoluminescence dosimeter
Category III. element will result in different attenuations of
light arising from those depths, potentially
The group placed a restriction on the General affecting the calibration of the dosimeter.)
subcategory IVA in that no mixtures of low-
energy photons and low-energy beta particles A3. Test Irradiation Sources
are permitted. They believe that dosimetry
technology is not developed sufficiently to Numerous sources have been identified as
consistently assess such conditions at this level suitable for performance testing. The group did
of performance. In addition, the rules regarding not want the standard to limit the available
the selection of the radiation sources are such calibrated sources to a select few but was
that at least three dosimeters are exposed to strongly influenced by the limited capacity of
mixtures of high-energy beta particles and high- single-detector dosimeters to distinguish
energy photons and to mixtures of low-energy between radiation types and energies without a
beta particles and high-energy photons. The priori knowledge.
second more limiting subcategory evaluates
those systems used basically to monitor low- or The inclusion of 60Co stems similarly from the
high-energy beta particles in combination with group’s desire not to exclude the use of common
high-energy photons. The group recognizes the sources. In view of the number of radiological
practical issues surrounding the usefulness of settings in which very-high-energy photons exist,
60
evaluating the performance of whole-body Co represents an economical source that
dosimeters (e.g., when used to monitor the dose introduces, albeit in a limited way, some of the
to extremities). The shallow dose equivalent special considerations that influence dosimeter
indicated by the dosimeter, no matter how performance in this energy region.
accurate, is unlikely to represent the true
shallow dose equivalent received by an The inclusion of low-energy monoenergetic
individual in some settings because the photon sources stems mainly from the group’s
attenuating effects of personal protective desire to address extremity issues arising from
equipment (gloves) and the geometry of the handling of plutonium compounds within the
irradiation are not considered. However, this DOE.
practical issue does not eliminate the regulatory
85
demands that seek proof that systems can Kr replaces the 204Tl source as an alternative
assess whatever radiological conditions may be and potentially cost-effective low-energy beta
encountered. source. There are subtle differences in the beta
energy, and this may be detectable depending
For all subcategories in Category IV, the on the thickness of the sensitive element of the
Beta/Photon Mixture category limits the ratio of dosimeter and associated filtration. In the long
the personal dose equivalents of the two types term, 204Tl will not be commercially available and
of radiation qualities used in the previous replacing it with 85Kr will be required. As an
version of the standard. Specifically, the ratio of irradiation source, 85Kr is more beneficial to the
the shallow dose equivalent from beta particles IL because of its longer half-life. The group does
to the shallow dose equivalent from photons in not expect the accompanying photon emission
the Mixture category should range between 1 to introduce problems because the decay
and 5. In addition, the minimum total personal pathway occurs less than 1% of the time.
17
The group decided to continue use of the The IL shall ensure that the size of the radiation
uranium slab source geometry from the previous field is sufficient to fully irradiate the front
standard. It was concluded that the slab source surface of the phantom. The IL shall employ the
geometry provides a better approximation for necessary controls so that scattered radiation
dosimetry situations involving the handling of originating from sources other than the phantom
nuclear fuels and uranium in DOE special or the intervening air is minimized.
projects.
The group found no compelling reason to alter
The source specifications appear in Section 3.6 the range of possible absorbed doses for the
in the body of the standard. high-dose test. Some discussion centered on
whether there should be congruity with the lower
A4. Test Irradiation Conditions absorbed dose value in the high-dose category
and the annual regulatory limit for the shallow
All irradiations will continue to be made on the personal dose equivalent, that is, reducing the
PMMA phantoms. The rationale for using a lowest absorbed dose from 0.1 Gy (10 rad) to
phantom arises from the need to simulate the 0.05 Gy (5 rad). Because the annual regulatory
influence of the extremities on the radiological limit corresponds to personal dose equivalent
conditions to which a dosimeter is exposed. accumulated during a year (NRC 2007, 2008)
and does not distinguish between dose received
The reference dose point (RDP) at which the acutely from that received chronically, the need
delivered absorbed dose or personal dose for congruity was not evident. The high-dose
equivalent is assessed by the IL remains at the category addresses the acute exposure
surface of the phantom along the central ray of condition that prompts immediate action by
the radiation beam passing through the center of radiation protection officials, so the group
the phantom. In the case of the cylindrical retained the 0.1 Gy (10 rad) lower absorbed
phantoms used in this standard, the RDP is the dose value that has been used since the
point of intersection of the tangent of the circular standard’s inception.
cross section of the phantom and the central ray
of the irradiation beam where they are The group also discussed the value of keeping
perpendicular. The RDP for the uranium slab the high-level category at all. During the revision
source shall be 7 mg cm–2 beyond the surface of of the standard, several accidents occurred in
the last source covering. the United States that required dosimeters to
evaluate doses greater than 1 Gy. One accident
The group recognizes that the distance between resulted in a dose of 3.8 Gy. It was decided,
the reference point and the radiation source may therefore, that keeping the high-dose category
be different from the distance between the was important to maintain the credibility of
sensitive elements of the dosimeter and the dosimetry processors to accurately assess high
source. The IL is permitted to make a doses.
determination of the absorbed dose or personal
dose equivalent at a location in the dosimeter if The personal dose equivalent ranges remain
the test participant provides information about unchanged for the separate categories for
the distance that a holder and any articles of photons and beta particles. The group evaluated
attachment displace the dosimeter from the several sources to reach these conclusions.
phantom surface. This provision allows current First, the historical doses published by the
practices from both the Department of Energy Department of Energy (DOE 2000) demon-
Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) strated that (1) recorded doses extended to the
and the National Voluntary Laboratory Accred- 0.1 Sv (10 rem) range and (2) the recorded
itation Program (NVLAP) to be continued. The IL doses were weighted to the lower end of the
will only make the determination if the dose range (see Fig. A1 below). During the time
information has been supplied. The IL may elect that the group met to revise the standard, two
to make adjustments in the delivered absorbed accidental exposures greater than 100 rad were
dose or personal dose equivalent that occurs recorded in the radiation industry. Therefore,
because the dosimeter is offset from the central these dose equivalent ranges encompass the
ray. vast majority of personal dose equivalents
deemed important for occupational radiation
18
protection. The group discussed the need for dosimeter tested in the range less than 2.5 mSv
tests at or near lower limits of detection; (250 mrem). This decision was further supported
however, the influence of rounding erros causes by the regulatory limit at which extremity
large relative percentage uncertainties that are monitoring is required and by the consideration
quite small in absolute value. Therefore, the of elevated regulatory limits for annual extremity
group did not pursue tests at lower personal dose.
dose equivalents and, in fact, set a limit of one
DOE Extremity Exposures
1.E+06
1.E+05
Number of Exposures
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
(Exposure Categories in rem)
No Meas. Dose <0.1 0.1 - 1.0 1-5 5 - 10 10 - 20

Fig. A1. DOE extremity doses, 1996 through 2000.
The group discussed at length the extent of the required to monitor, and the extent of the
information to be provided to the test participant. communications between the processor and
Information is obtained indirectly from the user. This variability prevented any standard
boundaries of the test conditions and sources approach, and the group decided to retain the
established in the standard and also from the IL previous practices of revealing the category in
in the form of identifying dosimeters selected for which each dosimeter had been irradiated. If a
various categories. The debate centered on the test participant has opted for blind testing, only
amount of information the test participant the dosimeters irradiated in the high-dose
possesses for actual analysis of dosimeters category will be identified, consistent with
used by workers. The amount of information ANSI/HPS N13.11-2001. However, if the partici-
varies depending on the size of the organization, pant chooses the “General” subcategory in
the variability of the radiation conditions it is Category I he or she will not be told whether the
irradiating field was 137Cs or M150.
19
A5. Rationale for the Selection of Irradiation tissue slab (ICRU 1992). However, because
Levels and the Composition of Radiation ICRU tissue is not readily available, an alternate
Mixtures composition with similar backscatter properties
must be specified.
The selection method for irradiation levels
remains unchanged from the previous version. The previous version of this standard specified
The method uses logarithms to increase the the use of a PMMA rod phantom and an
number of irradiations at the lower personal aluminum core with a PMMA sleeve pillar
dose equivalents, thereby simulating the phantom. ICRU 47 recommends the use of a
personal dose equivalent distribution commonly PMMA slab for whole-body dosimeters in order
encountered in actual practice. to achieve uniformity in calibration procedures
(ICRU 1992). The ISO recommended the use of
Only 1 of 15 dosimeters is allowed to have a a water-filled slab (Böhm et al. 1999; ISO 2000).
delivered dose equivalent less than 2.50 mSv
(250 mrem) in any single subcategory of The group thoroughly discussed the composition
Category II. This prevents large fractional errors of the rod and pillar phantoms. There was no
from occurring at low personal dose equivalents compelling reason to reconsider the choice of a
that would be small in absolute terms but have a PMMA rod phantom. However, for the pillar
disproportionate effect on B and S. phantom, the earlier specification of an
aluminum core presented some potential for
deviation from backscatter represented by the
A6. Rationale for Use of Phantoms for ICRU water phantom. The extent to which
Performance Tests phantom composition influences the actual
photon response of a typical dosimeter was
A phantom is a specified object used to simulate tested by members of the committee by
the human body in terms of its scattering and conducting irradiations of thermoluminescence
absorption of radiation. Dosimeter calibration for dosimeter elements on four types of phantoms.
the determination of operational quantities of Although not rigorous, the data (shown in Fig.
interest requires placement on a phantom that A2 below) indicated that the dosimeters
provides a reasonable approximation to the irradiated on the PMMA and the water-filled
backscatter properties of the part of the body on phantoms agreed sufficiently to warrant the
which it is worn. modification of the current specification for the
pillar phantom from an aluminum core to a solid
The operational quantities of interest for PMMA phantom or a water-filled phantom. Since
personnel dosimetry are defined for an ICRU the PMMA phantom is more convenient to
construct and maintain, the group decided to
specify the use of the PMMA pillar phantom.
2.0
1.5
Response (gU/R)
1.0 Fig. A2. Response of extremity

dosimeters on various pillar
phantoms.
0.5
0.0
0 200 400 600 800
Effective Energy of X-ray Field, keV
Al Water PMMA Styro
20
Appendix B: Source Standardization
B1. Photons Use of the conversion factors assumes that

photon sources are calibrated in terms of air
Source standardization identifies the critical kerma at a point in free space. Conversion
parameters that must be reproduced in order to factors relate the free space measurement to the
achieve a radiation source whose energy personal dose equivalent at different depths in a
spectrum conforms to that used to establish the slab phantom whose front surface is centered at
conversion factors relating the primary the calibration point. The distance between the
calibration quantity, air kerma, to the personal calibration point and source must be sufficiently
dose equivalent. Failure to closely reproduce the large to approximate a plane, parallel beam. For
source characteristics will result in an incorrect photon sources, the distance should equal or
determination of the absorbed dose or personal exceed 1 m, although shorter distances may be
dose equivalent delivered at the reference point. appropriate to achieve large personal dose
Similarly, the accuracy of a measurement using equivalents in reasonable periods of time.
a transfer standard (e.g., ionization chamber)
depends on the degree the measured source or B2. Beta Particles
field corresponds to that used to calibrate the
standard. It is not the purpose of this standard to Beta particle sources should be calibrated
serve as a primer on source calibration and directly in terms of the absorbed dose at a depth
standardization. The key parameters that must of 7 mg cm–2 (0.07 mm) in tissue. Source
be matched to use the personal dose equivalent calibration can be performed with an
conversion factors presented in the standard extrapolation chamber whose front surface has
appear in Tables 2a and 2b. a mass density of 7 mg cm–2. The relative mass
collision stopping power, necessary to determine
For x-rays, the first half-value layer should be the tissue absorbed dose from an ionization
reproduced within 5% and the homogeneity measurement, depends on information about the
coefficient within 7%. The applied tube beta particle energy spectra. Beam flattening
kilovoltage may be adjusted to achieve the filters may be necessary to attain adequately
beam quality specifications. uniform spectra, angular distribution of incident
beta particles, and personal dose equivalent
Calibration of higher-energy photon sources rates across the front surface of the phantom.
must be conducted under electronic equilibrium Finally, calibration must account for the
conditions. Thin sheets of plastic placed in front absorption of beta particles and degradation of
of the source can help achieve this condition the beta particle energy spectra in air. A fixed
and remove any high-energy Compton electrons distance of 30 cm is suggested to ensure the
created in the source housing and collimators. variations in the mass of intervening air do not
Ion chambers used for calibration must have contribute unacceptable errors in delivering a
build-up caps with a thickness appropriate for personal dose equivalent to the RDP. This is
the photon energy. The establishment of particularly important for low-energy beta
electronic equilibrium is critical to achieve a particle sources. The IL is encouraged to use
condition in which the deep and shallow sources that have been calibrated by a primary
absorbed doses or personal dose equivalents or secondary calibration laboratory. Direct
are equal. measurements with the extrapolation chamber
may also yield acceptable results but should be
compared to the results from a primary or
secondary source calibration to ensure
consistency.
21
Appendix C: Interpretation of the Response
C1. Personal Dose Equivalent C2. Conversion Coefficients Relating the

Calibration Quantity to the Personal Dose
The procedures of this standard evaluate the Equivalent
ability of dosimetry systems to evaluate the
personal dose equivalent at depths of 0.07 mm, Much information, largely the result of computer
(Hp(0.07)) in a simplistic phantom representing calculations, exists about the relation of the
the extremities. The personal dose equivalent calibration quantity (air kerma for photons) to
represents a practical quantity to substitute for Hp(0.07). A few experimental measurements
the effective dose equivalent, a concept based have been performed and these substantiate the
on probabilistic estimates of adverse health computer models. Modeling can examine more
consequences that may occur following conditions more quickly and cost-effectively than
exposure to radiation. The radiation protection experiments. The group has elected to use
guidelines that form the basis of the radiation conversion coefficients that have been
control regulations in the United States are determined by NIST for the specified test
based on the effective dose equivalent. As sources. NIST based its work on calculations
defined, the effective dose equivalent cannot be published by Grosswendt for extremity phan-
measured because it depends on knowing the toms composed of ICRU tissue (Soares and
absorbed dose distribution within the exposed Martin 1995a). The NIST data correspond well
individual—information that is seldom avail- with those specified by the ISO.
able—and the individual’s tolerance against any
number of possible cancers attributed to
radiation, which is not known with certainty.
International radiation protection experts have

identified the personal dose equivalent as the
operational quantity to use for assessing and
controlling radiation exposure (ICRU 1993).
Extensive computer models reveal that under
the majority of exposure conditions Hp(0.07)
adequately addresses the extremity dose. The
group believes that the personal dose equivalent
as used in this standard satisfies the definitions
given by the government statutes as well as the
international guidelines. As such, the quanti-
tative dose data provided by dosimetry systems
satisfying this standard should be acceptable
from a regulatory perspective.
22
Appendix D: Performance Criteria and Analysis
Since the adoption of performance standards for Pursuant to that approach, the group decided
film dosimeters in the early 1970s (ANSI 1972), that a model encompassing the limits from the
criteria used to evaluate passive dosimetry previous version of this standard and embracing
systems have been based on group statistics, the philosophy of “On Target with Minimum
bias or standard deviation, or a combination of Variation” could be described as is given below:
both. The previous version of this standard
specified a limit on the sum of bias and standard L2 ≥ B 2 + S 2 (Eq. D2)
deviation and individual limits on each of those
statistics. The absolute value of the bias was The B and S statistics are immediately
used, so the criteria were symmetric about zero. recognizable as being identical to the bias and
The standard for testing the performance of standard deviation in this and other standards.
whole-body dosimeters, ANSI/HPS N13.11- The L is the limit of acceptable performance. By
2001, broke with that philosophy by specifying representing the L as L2 it can be seen that the
additional limits on the performance of individual area of acceptable performance describes a
dosimeters in some categories. semi-circle with -L ≤ B ≤ L and 0 ≤ S ≤ L.
The group reviewed past and current philos- One goal of the group was to make the
ophies on evaluating the performance of performance simpler without adversely affecting
dosimetry systems and reached the conclusion the historical performance of those dosimetry
that periodic testing is a form of protracted systems that have achieved accreditation under
process control and that an adequate model for past criteria. Accordingly, the group applied the
testing the performance of dosimetry systems criteria to historical extremity dosimetry data
had been described by Wheeler and Chambers from the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program
as the Average Loss Per Unit of Production to evaluate the impact of the new criteria. The
(Wheeler and Chambers 1992). The Average model was used with two different limits for the
Loss is directly proportional to the Mean Square high-dose and protection level categories. The
Deviation (MSD) About a Target defined as the limit for the high-dose category was chosen so
combination of the variance (σ 2) and the square that the previous area of acceptable
of the deviation from the target value ( X – τ )
performance remained intact. Fig. D1 below is
the application of the performance model to
2. Since the target values are spread over a
historical data in the high-dose category. The
range of values, the square of the deviation from
limit of the protection level categories was
the target should be normalized and redefined
chosen to retain the individual limits on B and S
as the bias. The MSD is then just the acceptable
and minimize differences in the area of
limit on performance. This approach embraces
acceptable performance. Fig. D2 below is the
the philosophy of operating a process “On
application of the performance model to
Target with Minimum Variation.”
historical data in the performance-level category
[
MSD (τ ) = σ 2 + (X − τ )
2
] (Eq. D1)
for all sources.†
As a result, the group found no compelling
evidence to reject a model based on statistical
process control that incorporated the proposed
limits.
†
The Working Group greatly appreciated the input
from Mr. Robert Loesch, Administrator, DOE
Laboratory Accreditation Program, and Dr. Scott
Schwahn, Administrator, DOELAP Performance
Evaluation Program.
23
Fig. D1. High-dose historical extremity dosimetry performance data plotted with
the previous and proposed performance models.
Fig. D2. Protection level historical extremity dosimetry performance data plotted
with the previous and proposed performance models.
24
Appendix E: The Irradiating Laboratory (IL)
E.1 Introduction E.3 Dosimeter Inventory and Tracking
The IL performs the procedures in this standard. The IL counts the dosimeters submitted by a test
This appendix provides guidance for the IL to participant for testing and ensures that the
facilitate proper testing. If the IL is being used as correct number and type of dosimeters have
part of the performance evaluation process for been submitted. The minimum number of
accreditation, the IL shall be accredited by a dosimeters for each round of testing is five
nationally recognized organization. dosimeters for each subcategory being
evaluated and two additional replacement
dosimeters. Because more than one processor
E.2 Receipt and Handling of Dosimeters for may submit dosimeters that appear similar and
Testing have similar numbering schemes, each dosi-
meter number shall be assigned a barcode or
The IL shall inspect all dosimeter shipments other unique identifier to aid in tracking the
received for testing and note any boxes or dosimeter throughout the testing process. The IL
shipping containers in poor condition or anything should maintain a record that cross-references
that otherwise might indicate damage to the participant’s dosimeter number and the IL-
contents. If damage to the box or container assigned number. Dosimeters from different test
appears severe, the IL should document receipt participants are combined into irradiation
condition. If tamper-proof seals or tape are packets for simultaneous irradiation. The IL
present and appear breached, the IL shall note applies a run number to each irradiation packet.
their condition. The IL shall notify the processor
if there is obvious or suspected damage to the E.4 Dosimeter Mounting
contents of the box.
Dosimeters shall be mounted such that the side
The IL should consider performing a radiological of the dosimeter facing the source of radiation is
survey of received dosimeters for possible consistent with participant’s instructions. Gen-
contamination. erally, this is a simple matter for finger
dosimeters but is less obvious for wrist
The IL records the date received and processor dosimeters, which often may be whole-body
name and should assign the project a unique dosimeters.
tracking or reference number. Any damaged
dosimeters found shall be noted, withheld from Dosimeters should be mounted in an orientation
testing, and replaced using spare dosimeters consistent with normal wear. If this information is
furnished by the processor. If an inadequate not provided by the participant, the IL should
number of spares are available, the IL shall contact the participant for further instructions or
contact the processor for further instructions. anticipate the most likely wear orientation (e.g.,
based on the mounting method: straps, clips,
Performance-testing dosimeters shall be stored apparent chip or filter placement, etc.) and
in an area with controlled access that is record that orientation within the test
background-monitored and has low background documentation. This is particularly important for
radiation whenever possible. If such an area is larger wrist dosimeters that could be exposed
unavailable dosimeters should be stored in with a degree of phantom backscatter incon-
shielded storage to minimize background sistent with normal wear (see Figs. E1 and E2).
exposure. If control dosimeters are submitted by
the processor, they should remain with the
dosimeters to be irradiated at all times with the
exception of those limited durations that dosi-
meters are being irradiated, in transit to/from the
irradiation area or within shielded staging areas
prior or subsequent to exposure.
25
Fig. E1. Example orientations of “whole-body” dosimeters mounted upon wrist/ankle (pillar)
phantom as viewed from the front of the phantom. The dosimeter on the left is placed with its
long axis in conjunction with the phantom’s cylindrical axis. The dosimeter on the right is placed
with its short axis in conjunction with the phantom’s cylindrical axis.
Fig. E2. Example orientations of “whole-body” dosimeters mounted on a wrist/ankle (pillar)

phantom as viewed from the side/end of the phantom. The dosimeter on the left is placed with
its long axis in conjunction with the phantom’s cylindrical axis. The dosimeter on the right is
placed with its short axis in conjunction with the phantom’s cylindrical axis.
Proper finger dosimeter orientation also should be specified by or requested from the participant. In the
absence of clear instructions, there is a potential for irradiation of sensitive elements of finger dosimeters
at angles and distances other than those specified in the test (see Fig. E3), especially when the sensitive
detector region is obscured within the ring or strap assembly.
26
Fig. E3. Possibly obscured sensitive elements may be difficult to orient properly without
a clear indication of the “center” or reference point of the dosimeter, as shown in the
above finger ring placement on a finger (rod) phantom. The dosimeter on the left is
mounted properly, but the dosimeter on the right shows improper mounting for normal
angle (0°) exposure. Reference Dose Point (RDP) is shown by black dot (•).
The IL shall strive to place dosimeters in consistent proximity to the phantom’s surface. The potential for
slight variations in offset is significant, especially for finger dosimeters using rigid rings. The potential is
increased when oversized rings are furnished (see Fig. E4).
Fig. E4. Oversized finger dosimeters placed on a finger (rod) phantom. Proper
orientation should strive for consistent placement of the sensitive area of the
dosimeter as close to the surface of the phantom as possible. The figure on the left
shows proper placement, and the figure on right shows potential misplacement due to
the shape of the ring or strap. Reference Dose Point (RDP) is shown by black dot (•).
Dosimeters shall be mounted using capabilities provided (e.g., rings, straps, etc.). Many finger dosimeters
are designed with an inherent placement means, such as a rigid or flexible ring or an adjustable strap. For
wrist dosimeters for which a strap or other mounting means is not provided, the use of tape or bands to
affix the dosimeter to the phantom is recommended. The IL should strive to provide a means of
placement that is consistent with the processor’s “normal” method of wear and that will not hinder the
designed effectiveness and/or sensitivity of the dosimeter to each particular reference field.
27
E.5 Multiple Dosimeter Irradiations
Dosimeters from several test participants should be irradiated simultaneously, when possible, to enhance
quality control. The possible number of dosimeters irradiated simultaneously will depend on the size and
orientation of the dosimeter. Typically, up to five finger-style dosimeters can be irradiated simultaneously
on a phantom. Larger dosimeters used to monitor wrists and ankles should be limited to two or three. The
sensitive region of each dosimeter must remain within the characterized and uniform area of the radiation
field, but also should be separated from other dosimeters so as to limit the amount of radiation scattered
from one dosimeter to others mounted nearby. Studies should be performed by the IL to verify that the
scatter from the dosimeters in each phantom irradiation position does not adversely affect the reading of
the dosimeters in the other irradiation positions. Such assessments may be difficult, however, because
the scatter influence will depend on the type and energy of the radiation; size and type of dosimeter being
tested; and the size, type, and proximity of dosimeters placed near the dosimeter being tested, which may
change with each individual irradiation. A more practical evaluation may be to evaluate a worst-case
combination of geometry conditions from which to establish a component of uncertainty for this influence.
E.6 Quality Control Irradiation Measures
The IL should evaluate the irradiations with calibrated off-axis monitors to ensure that the expected
absorbed dose or personal dose equivalent was delivered to the dosimeters. Off-axis monitors should be
of a material that will not induce a significant scatter influence upon the dosimeters being tested and
should take into consideration net signal generated by each applicable reference field. It may not be
possible to implement a monitor that is ideal for all applications and that yields the same level of precision
for all reference fields. Selection should be optimized to produce an indication/confirmation of the
delivered quantity with the best possible precision for the various anticipated reference fields. The
selected device should also be sensitive enough to identify small, unexpected deviations from the proper
source-to-phantom distance as well as other potential variations in irradiation geometry. Upon selection of
suitable monitors, statistical control limits should be established for use in confirming delivered radiation
quantities. It is possible that control limits may vary, depending on the radiation type, energy, and
delivered quantities.
Following exposure of test dosimeters, off-axis monitor readings (or the absorbed dose or personal dose
equivalent determined from that reading) shall be compared to the expected delivered quantities. If a
reading exceeds the applicable control limit or acceptance criteria, the IL should initiate an investigation to
determine the cause. If there is any doubt about the delivered absorbed dose or personal dose
equivalent, the dosimeters should be replaced with spare dosimeters and the irradiation repeated.
E.7 Adjustment for Non-uniformity
Dosimeters are placed along the surface of the phantom nearest the radiation source and within a
predefined radius above and below the point at which the beam axis intersects the phantom surface. The
IL shall measure the uniformity of the field in each exposure position. The IL should adjust the absorbed
dose or personal dose equivalent for any statistically identifiable non-uniformity at the defined positions,
or, if the non-uniformity is difficult to resolve (e.g., due to the precision of the measurement and/or minimal
non-uniformity), the IL should assign a commensurate degree of uncertainty for the non-uniformity and
refrain from applying specific corrections to the delivered dose.
For reference fields that have assigned non-uniformity corrections, the IL should strive to orient sensitive
detectors (especially those sensitive to the particular radiation type) as close as practical to the position
for which the correction is applicable.
28
E.8 Adjustment for Sensitive Element Location
The IL may adjust the reference absorbed doses or personal dose equivalents if the test participant
supplies the distance between the sensitive element and the phantom face. The IL shall determine this
adjustment based on appropriate measurements. Generally, adjustments for distance obey the inverse
square law with minor modifications associated with each radiation field.
E.9 Returning Test Dosimeters
The dosimeters shall be re-inventoried to ensure that all dosimeters submitted for testing are returned to
the participant. The IL should check the number of samples against the receipt inventory and resolve any
discrepancies. The IL shall inform the client of any missing dosimeters.
Dosimeters shall be suitably protected and appropriately identified with respect to test categories as
stipulated by the standard. Controls and/or spare dosimeters, as well as any dosimeters mis-irradiated or
found to be damaged, should be separated and appropriately identified. Shipping boxes or containers
should be appropriately labeled to caution the shipping company of the sensitivity of the contents to
radiation (e.g., “Keep away from radioactive material and excessive heat. Do not x-ray”). The package
should be augmented with tamper-proof warning tape or labels.
The IL shall return the irradiated test dosimeters to the test participants using a commercial express mail
service unless otherwise directed by the participant. The IL should return dosimeters early in the week to
minimize the possibility of a dosimeter shipment’s being stored temporarily next to a source of radiation
(e.g., medical radioisotopes) at the service warehouse during a weekend.
E.10 Personal Dose Equivalent Rate Limitations
For protection level irradiations, the personal dose equivalent rate should be less than 1 Sv h–1 (100 rem
h–1). Electronic (active) extremity dosimeters may be extremely sensitive to the rate of the delivered dose.
The IL should be provided any pertinent rate limitations by the processor and maintain the delivered
personal dose equivalent rate within such limits. Where the processor provides no specific guidance,
rates shall be maintained within the design specifications identified by the dosimeter manufacturer. If such
rates are not attainable within the IL, the IL, processor and any applicable accrediting body should consult
to derive a mutually satisfactory resolution.
E.11 Reference Absorbed Dose or Personal Dose Equivalent
The IL shall determine the delivered absorbed dose or personal dose equivalent for each irradiation as
the product of the field reference quantity (see Section E12 below) and associated conversion coefficients
correction factors, as follows:
( D or H ) delivered = Q ref ⋅C Hp ⋅C QF ⋅C dis (Eq. E1)
where Q ref is the field reference quantity, traceable to national standards;
C Hp is the conversion from the field quantity to the absorbed dose or personal dose equivalent at the
depth in tissue under the reference irradiation point or RDP;
C QF is the correction factor accounting for the non-uniformity of the reference field at the point of a
particular dosimeter; and
C dis is the distance correction factor used to correct the delivered dose to the position of the sensitive
element location.
29
The RDP is the intersection of the tangent of the cross section of the phantom and the central ray of the
irradiation beam where they are perpendicular.
E.12 Traceability
The reference fields for establishing calibration and test conditions at the IL rely on the following
quantities for traceability.
Table E1. Standards, quantities and traceability.
Radiation
Reference quantity National standard Transfer method
field
Gamma Air kerma rate (Gy s–1) Cavity ionization Ionization chamber
chambers (reference transfer standard)
X-rays Air kerma rate (Gy s–1) Free air ionization Ionization chamber
chamber (reference transfer standard)
Extrapolation ionization
Beta Absorbed dose rate (Gy s–1) Extrapolation
chamber or calibrated
ionization chamber
source
Ideally, the IL should maintain traceability to NIST to within 5% for standard fields; however, it is
recognized that because of technological limitations the agreement with NIST for beta particles may
exceed ± 5% (see 3.10.2). The IL should participate in the Measurement Quality Assurance program
conducted by NIST or in intercomparisons with NIST or other national standard agencies (e.g.,
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), National Physical Laboratory, etc.).
E.13 Field Quality
The IL shall determine the half-value layer and homogeneity coefficients for x-ray fields using the protocol
established in ISO 4037-1 (ISO 1996b). The ionization chamber used to determine these quantities
should have a “flat” response over the energies resulting from the addition of absorber materials. Filter
and absorber materials shall be controlled to the purity levels specified in ISO 4037-1. The potential
scatter influence shall be evaluated for one or more techniques within the x-ray facility and its contribution
to the field at the RDP shall be less than 5%. Guidance for such evaluations is also provided in ISO 4037-
1.
Gamma fields shall be produced with sources of adequate encapsulation to attenuate the beta
component (137Cs and 60Co) and low-energy (< 30 keV) photon emission of 241Am. As with x-ray facilities,
the potential scatter influence in each gamma irradiation facility shall be evaluated and the contribution to
the field at the RDP less than 5%. Encapsulation specifications and guidance for scatter evaluations are
provided in ISO 4037-1. For 137Cs and 60Co reference fields, electronic equilibrium shall be established at
the RDP. If lead attenuators are used to reduce the intensity of the field strength, a distance of at least
100 cm between the lead and the RDP shall be maintained to reduce the distortion of electronic
equilibrium.
The IL determines the depth dose (transmission) profiles in the PMMA phantom for the beta fields via the
use of an extrapolation chamber. Measurements are conducted from approximately 1 mg cm–2 through
1,000 mg cm–2 for 90Sr/90Y (the upper range may be truncated slightly for 85Kr fields) and the appropriate
quantities used to judge the penetrability of the field. The specific acceptable quantities for depth dose
30
ratios and the residual maximum beta energy (E res) are described in this standard (see Section 3.6) and
in ISO 6980 (ISO 1996a), respectively.
E.14 Depth Doses
For photon fields, a secondary ionization chamber is used to determine the air kerma at the point of the
measurement. The air kerma is multiplied by the air-kerma-to-dose-equivalent conversion factors (see
Appendix F) determined from the monoenergetic photon data published by Grosswendt (1995) for the
tissue ring and pillar phantoms.
The IL determines the dose to the appropriate depth in tissue (0.07 mm) for the beta fields via direct
measurement using an extrapolation ionization chamber with appropriate build-up. Specific guidance for
such determination is provided in ISO 6980, Pt. 2:2004 (ISO 2004).
31
Appendix F: Conversion Factors for Photons
The dose equivalent conversion factors for photons appearing in the present standard have been updated
based on new information and data on dosimetric quantities, phantom quantities, radiation units, and x-ray
spectra. In addition, conversion factors for angular testing have been derived. The bases for these several
changes are described below.
F.1 Radiation Units
Beginning in 1988, NIST began to calibrate ionization chamber dosimeters in units of air kerma (Gy or rads),
replacing the previous unit of exposure (roentgens). Consequently, in the standard the new calibration unit,
air kerma, has replaced exposure in the denominator of the revised photon dose equivalent conversion
factors.
F.2 X-ray Spectral Data
X-ray spectral data for the beam qualities used in this standard have been taken from digitization of the
spectra shown graphically in a previous publication (Soares 1991). They were also taken from
measurements made of NIST spectra at the Gesellschaft für Strahlen und Umweltforschung (GSF) in
Germany (Seelentag et al. 1979).
F.3 Dosimetric Quantities
Since ICRP Publication 26 was issued in 1977 (ICRP 1977), a number of reports of calculated and of
measured dose equivalent conversion factors for photons have appeared in the literature; these reports
have covered a variety of different phantom shapes and compositions. The dose equivalent conversion
factors listed in Table F1 are for photons incident on 19- and 73-mm-diameter phantoms of ICRU tissue
(Grosswendt 1995) representing finger and arm phantoms, respectively.
Shown in Table F1 are spectrum-weighted conversion factors for the NIST x-ray beams for each of the
phantoms. The spectrum-weighting calculations were done (Soares and Martin 1995b) using the x-ray
spectral data described above, the conversion factors in Table F1, values for the mass energy absorption
coefficients, µ(E), for air from Seltzer (1993), and least-squares fitted function interpolations to complete the
following summations:
H( 0.07, E)
∑ φ(E)µ(E)∆E (Eq. F1)
H( 0.07 )spectrum Ka
cK , s ,α = =
Ka ∑ φ(E)µ(E)∆E
where φ(E) is the relative number of photons in energy interval ∆E.
32
Table F1. Monoenergetic photon dose equivalent conversion factors, Hp(0.07)/Ka

in Sv/Gy, for extremity phantoms.a
Hp(0.07)/Ka in Sv Gy–1
Energy in keV Rod (finger) Pillar (arm)
phantom phantom
4 0.587 0.588
5 0.755 0.755
6 0.841 0.843
8 0.922 0.921
10 0.948 0.949
12.5 0.960 0.964
15 0.976 0.983
17.5 0.995 1.007
20 1.011 1.035
25 1.036 1.098
30 1.060 1.177
35 1.081 1.238
40 1.093 1.285
45 1.110 1.325
50 1.120 1.367
55 1.127 1.376
60 1.140 1.391
70 1.155 1.391
80 1.164 1.384
90 1.170 1.365
100 1.171 1.35
125 1.163 1.316
150 1.159 1.284
200 1.150 1.247
300 1.137 1.205
400 1.124 1.184
500 1.122 1.162
700 1.114 1.142
1,000 1.111 1.127
1,250 1.108 1.123
a
From Grosswendt (1995).
33
Table F2. NIST x-ray beamsa photon dose equivalent conversion factors, Hp(0.07)/Ka in Sv/Gy, for
extremity phantomsb
Beam code and Hp(0.07)/Ka in Sv Gy–1

(effective energy in keV) Finger phantom Arm phantom
M30 (24) 0.991 1.011
M60 (35) 1.048 1.146
H50 (39) 1.087 1.260
M100 (53) 1.103 1.289
M150 (73) 1.144 1.354
H150 (118) 1.166 1.323
M250 (139) 1.159 1.292
H250 (204) 1.150 1.243
137
Cs (662) 1.114 1.149
60
Co (1,250) 1.110 1.129
a
From Soares and Martin (1995a).
b
From ICRP (1977).
F.4 Converting Exposure to Air Kerma
If a radiation field has been characterized in terms of exposure (roentgen) instead of in terms of air kerma,
then the methodology to determine the delivered dose is identical to that described in Eq. (13) in section
3.10.1 of this standard, except that exposure, X, or exposure rate, X& , must be converted to air kerma, or
air kerma rate, using the following formula:
 −4 C
  
 2 . 58 × 10    
kg    W  J   1
K air [ 
in Gy = X in R ]    
  1 Gy
 J


 R    e  kg   1 − g  1 
   kg 
W 
where   is the mean energy per unit charge expended in air by electrons, equal to 33.97 J/kg, and g
 e
is the mean fraction (given below in %) of energy of the secondary electrons lost to Bremsstrahlung.
g = 0.32% for 60Co; 0.16% for 137Cs; and 0.0% for X-ray beams.
34
Appendix G: Type and Periodic Performance Tests
G.1 Introduction means to periodically and efficiently evaluate

radiological performance. The current structure
The purpose of this appendix is to elaborate on of the standard examines the ability of test
the differences between type testing and participants over time. Trends from successive
proficiency testing, particularly as it applies to performance tests yield better information about
the content of this standard. Type testing defines the test participant's quality control methods
the physical behavior of a dosimeter or than a single, comprehensive type test that
dosimetry system. Generally, the bounds of focuses more on the dosimetry technology than
acceptable dosimeter usage are established by on the test participant’s ability to use the
varying influence quantities and observing the technology.
change of the dosimeter in response to the
changes. Proficiency testing evaluates the ability The LLD test is specifically mentioned here only
of a dosimeter or dosimetry system to reliably because it was a part of previous versions of this
determine reference quantities under standard standard. Processors may want to evaluate the
test conditions. Type testing is generally LLD over the range of radiation qualities for
executed once before a dosimetry system is which service is provided. If such an evaluation
implemented, or upon modifications of the is made, due consideration should be given to
system, whereas proficiency testing is the variability of background dose arising from
conducted periodically to ensure that a different monitoring cycles, geographic loca-
dosimetry system is maintaining its ability to tions, and administrative controls.
reliably respond to different radiation conditions.
G.2 Type Testing
Type testing refers to an extensive evaluation of
the influence of a large number of factors Common extremity dosimeter systems in the
potentially affecting the ability of a dosimetry United States use film and thermoluminescence
system to measure absorbed doses or personal dosimeters (TLD) as radiation detectors. For
dose equivalents with an acceptable amount of these systems, it is impossible to separate the
uncertainty. In addition to gathering basic dosimeter from the dosimetry processing
radiological performance data, type tests equipment. The physical characteristics of the
examine, for example, the ability of the system dosimeter are intimately bound to the
to withstand extremes in environmental methodology and equipment used during the
conditions such as temperature, humidity, light, preparation and processing of the dosimeters.
mechanical shock, and electrical and Hence, when type testing a dosimeter the
electromagnetic fields. Time factors such as characteristics of the processing system must
fading, changes in sensitivity and the influence remain constant and well defined for the results
of background radiation appear in most test to be and to remain valid.
protocols as well. Type test programs and
recommendations have been developed by the Type tests should not be confused with Quality
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Assurance (QA) testing and sampling to ensure
Germany (PTB 1992), the European Community compliance with manufacturing standards. The
(Christensen et al. 1994), and the Canadian sampling and testing of new dosimeter holders,
Nuclear Safety Commission (AECB 1998). Each for example, to ensure the proper composition,
of these programs is different from the others, thickness, and placement of filters is not type
but all seek to define the limits under which a testing, but rather is a QA measure. Periodic QA
dosimetry system can satisfy a stated overall testing is also used to demonstrate the stability
level of accuracy and uncertainty. of material properties, placement, and sensitivity
over time.
Type tests are usually lengthy and costly
exercises. The working group evaluated the Complete type testing is typically done once,
wisdom of expanding the current standard to with sample checks performed as needed. Type
become aligned with type test protocols and testing is conducted to verify that the construc-
reaffirmed that the current structure is the best tion and function of a dosimeter system is within
35
the design tolerances. It also provides the processors, the testing procedure is "semi-
necessary information to understand the effects blind," in that although the delivered doses are
of operating outside normal conditions. Because unknown to them, the testing process is known.
type testing is performed to design standards, This process inherently contains the seeds by
the test results should be consistent and which a processor may unintentionally influence
reproducible using any appropriate processing the results of dosimeter processing.
equipment in the facility.
Proficiency testing is not intended to perturb the
The following items are usually, but not system from normal operating conditions, but
exclusively, included in type tests: rather to demonstrate the stability of the system
over time under standard laboratory conditions.
• Dosimeter self-irradiation
G.4 Testing Philosophy
• Batch homogeneity
• Reproducibility after repeated processing The group, in deciding which tests to employ in
• Batch reproducibility this standard, recognized the hybrid nature of
the standard in that it is partly a proficiency test
• Post-irradiation fading of the radiation- and partly a type test. While the energy and
induced signal linear response of the dosimeter system being
• Residual signal after high dose tested is challenged periodically under the test,
the committee decided to relegate the one-time
• Dose rate dependence angular and LLD tests to the appendices.
• Environmental effects: temperature,
humidity, static discharge, physical shock, The periodic testing of energy response ensures
radio frequency fields, electromagnetic that:
fields, electric fields, etc.
• Energy dependence • Processors of single-chip and two-chip
finger dosimeters can reproducibly deter-
• Angular dependence mine the reference quantity over a variety of
• Lower limit of detection energies (field corrections may be
necessary for single-chip and for two-chip
dosimeters in polyenergetic environments)
G.3 Proficiency Testing and
• Specific elements in multi-element wrist
Proficiency testing evaluates the ability of a dosimeters are challenged in the test.
dosimeter or dosimetry system to reliably
determine reference quantities under standard G.5 Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)
test conditions. It generally constitutes an
important part of the process of accreditation of The following procedures are recommended for
personnel dosimetry systems in the United determining the LLD. The basis for the method
States. Currently, accrediting bodies require is given in DOE report EH-0027 (DOE 1986).
periodic testing of dosimetry systems and Additional information regarding this method can
assessment of quality assurance programs used be found in Currie (1968). An alternate set of
to ensure the operational stability of dosimetry procedures is provided for cases in which
systems. performance testing has previously been
completed.
Proficiency testing is used to evaluate the ability
of a dosimeter processor to perform all the Suggested Method for the LLD Study
duties necessary to reliably determine a
reference quantity using a personnel dosimeter.
For each dosimeter design, at least
Proficiency testing, by nature, samples possible
10 dosimeters for irradiation per category and
radiation fields that comprise a subset of fields
10 dosimeters for background evaluation shall
that might reasonably be encountered by the
be selected from the routine-processed pool of
personnel dosimeter under routine use. For
dosimeters for this study. The dosimeters shall
36
be placed in an unshielded environment for a used in equations) shall be calculated as

sufficient time to obtain an unirradiated follows:
background signal typical of routinely processed
dosimeters. At least 10 dosimeters shall be
irradiated for each category to a dose
2[tp So + ( tp S1 / H1 )2 Ho] (Eq. G5)
LD = 2
significantly greater (e.g., 500 mrem) than the [1 - ( tp S1 / H1 ) ]
estimated lower limit of detectability. Both the
irradiated and unirradiated dosimeters shall be
processed and evaluated. The following where tp is the distribution for n – 1 degrees of
quantities shall be calculated: freedom and a p value of 0.95 (NBS 1963).
1 n Ho' is the average of the unirradiated dosimeter

Ho =
n
∑ i =1
X io (Eq. G1) values without subtracting a background signal.
Alternate Method for the LLD Study

n
If the performance testing was completed within
∑( X io - H o )2 (Eq. G2) 6 mo of this study, then the values of B and S
So = from an ANSI/HPS N13.32 proficiency test may
i =1
n- 1 be used to calculate [tp * S / (1 + B)], which is
then used in place of (tp S1 /H1) in the above
equation. Only a set of unirradiated dosimeters
would be required to determine LD.
n
1
H1 =
n
∑i=1
Xi1 (Eq. G3) G.6 Angular Response Study
For each dosimeter design submitted for testing

and for each type of radiation in Categories II
and III for which performance is tested, a study
n of dosimeter performance should be carried out
∑(X
i=1
i1 - H1 )2 (Eq. G4) once when the incident radiation is not
perpendicular to the face or front of the
S1 = dosimeter. No performance criteria are applied
n- 1 to the results of this study. At least one of the
radiation spectra listed in subcategories IIA and
IIIA should be used, depending on the
where Xio are unirradiated dosimeter values and subcategories chosen by the participant.
Xi1 are irradiated dosimeter values. Subcategory IIID (slab source geometry) is
excluded from this requirement.
The values Ho and H1 are the mean evaluated
dose-equivalent values for the unirradiated and To conduct the angular dependence study, the
irradiated dosimeters, respectively. dosimeters shall be mounted on the phantom
specified for the performance tests. For this
So and Sl are the associated standard study, the original orientation of the phantom is
deviations. assumed to be vertical (that is, in the up-down
direction). Identical irradiations should be given
The dosimeter readings shall be processed to at least three dosimeters of each kind (except
through the dose algorithms without truncation when performing irradiations at large angles of
or distortion (i.e., do not zero any readings). If a incidence, as discussed later in this paragraph).
background is subtracted, negative values shall The angle of incidence shall be varied in two
be retained for the calculation of So. The planes perpendicular to each other and to the
algorithms for the calculation of shallow dose plane of the dosimeter in the original test
equivalent shall be used to calculate Ho and H1. configuration. Vertical rotation shall be achieved
The lower limit of detection (LLD or LD when by turning the phantom about the vertical axis
37
formed by the front surface of the phantom G.7 Uncertainty

(coincident with the RDP) in its original
orientation, which is vertical to the longitudinal For each dosimeter design, the uncertainty in
axis of the beam of radiation. The distance to the reported dose should be documented. The
the source shall still be measured to the uncertainty is generally evaluated for a typical
phantom face immediately behind the dosimeter. dose equivalent level (e.g., 0.001 Sv, 100
Rotation about the horizontal axis is achieved by mrem), although, if the standard deviations of
turning the entire phantom 90° upon the reported dose equivalents have been measured
transverse axis (i.e., the axis coincident with the over a wide range of delivered dose equivalents,
longitudinal axis of the beam) of the phantom then it is recommended that the uncertainties be
and rotating the phantom about the RDP. In this reported for the range.
orientation, only one dosimeter may be exposed
per phantom, although more than one phantom Computing the uncertainty in the reported dose
may be implemented to attain concurrent equivalent should conform to the procedure
irradiations of multiple samples. described in ANSI/NCSL Z540-2:1997
(ANSI/NCSL 1997). The procedure involves
The following angles shall be included in the taking the partial derivative of each term,
study of angular dependence: 0°, ± 30°, ± 60°, ± multiplying it by the uncertainty in that term, and
85°, and 180°. Category III is excluded from the adding it to the products for the other terms. If
180° requirement. Values for the dose the correlations of the cross terms are significant
equivalent for each irradiation exposure should (as determined by the dosimetry organization),
be approximately 0.005 Sv (500 mrem). For a then the cross terms should also be considered.
given angle of incidence and type and energy of
incident radiation, the results of the angular If the dose algorithm contains several
dependence study shall be expressed as the “branches” that are based on element ratios,
ratio of the applicant's interpretation of dose then the contribution to the total uncertainty from
equivalent (corrected for distance as each branch should be determined using Monte
appropriate) to the actually administered dose Carlo or equivalent techniques.
equivalent obtained on the basis of
perpendicular incidence.
38
Appendix H: Symbols and Acronyms
a cross-sectional area
ANSI American National Standards Institute
B bias
c̄K,d,α spectrum averaged conversion coefficient from air kerma to personal dose equivalent at
depth d
c̄φ spectrum averaged conversion coefficient from fluence to personal dose equivalent
cdis distance correction factor
cHp generalized conversion coefficient from field quantity to dose equivalent
cQF quadrant correction factor
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
d depth
D absorbed dose
Dp(d) personal absorbed dose at depth d
DOE Department of Energy
DOELAP Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program
E energy
E average energy
Emax maximum energy
Eres residual maximum energy
Etr energy transferred to electrons by photons
FWHM full width at half-maximum
H dose equivalent
Hi i th assigned dose equivalent of a series
H’i i th reported dose equivalent of a series
Hp(d,α) personal dose equivalent at depth d and angle of incidence α
HPS Health Physics Society
ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection
ICRU International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements
IL irradiating laboratory
39
ISO International Organization for Standardization
Ka air kerma
L tolerance level
LDE lens dose equivalent
LLD or LD lower limit of detection
m mass
n number of elements in a series
N number of photons, beta particles or neutrons
N(E) number of photons, beta particles or neutrons with energy E
NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
Pi i th performance index in a series
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PMMA polymethylmethacrylate (acrylic, trade names Perspex®, Plexiglas®, and Lucite®)
PTB Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
Q quality factor
Qref reference field quantity
RDP reference dose point
S standard deviation
TE tissue equivalent
α angle of incidence
γ ratio of photon to neutron personal dose equivalent rate
ε mean energy imparted by ionizing radiation to matter
φ fluence
φn neutron fluence
40
Appendix I: References to the Appendices
AECB. Technical and quality assurance and Health, Office of Safety and Health;
standards for dosimetry services in Canada. DOE/EH-0660; 2000.
A joint federal-provincial standard. Canada: Eisenhower EH. Quality assurance for
Atomic Energy Control Board; AECB measurements of ionizing radiation.
Regulatory Standard S-106; 1998. Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory
ANSI/NCSL. American national standard for Commission; NRC Report NUREG/CR-3775;
expressing uncertainty – U.S. guide to the 1984.
expression of uncertainty in measurements. Grosswendt B. Angular dependence factors and
American National Standards Institute and air kerma to dose equivalent conversion
National Conference of Standards coefficients for cylindrical phantoms irradiated
Laboratories; ANSI/NCSL Report Z540-2; by plane-parallel extended monoenergetic
1997. photon beams. Radiat Prot Dosim 59:165–
ANSI. American national standard for radiation 179; 1995.
protection – photographic film dosimeters – Grosswendt B. Angular-dependence factors and
criteria for performance. New York: American air-kerma-to-dose-equivalent conversion
National Standards Institute; ANSI N13.7- coefficients for 1.9 cm rod and 7.3 cm pillar
1972; 1972. phantoms irradiated by extended
ANSI/HPS. Performance testing of extremity monodirectional x-ray beams. Radiat Prot
dosimeters. American National Standards Dosim 59:181–193; 1995.
Institute and Health Physics Society; N13.32- ICRP. Recommendations of the International
1995; 1995. Commission on Radiological Protection.
ANSI/HPS. Personnel dosimetry performance - Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Report 26;
criteria for testing. American National 1977.
Standards Institute and Health Physics ICRU. Measurement of dose equivalents from
Society; ANSI N13.11-2001; 2001. external photon and electron radiations.
Böhm J, Alberts WG, Swinth KL, Soares CG, Bethesda, MD: International Commission on
McDonald JC, Thompson IMG, Kramer H-M. Radiation Units and Measurements; ICRU
ISO recommended reference radiations for Report 47; 1992.
the calibration and proficiency testing of ICRU. Quantities and units in radiation
dosemeters and dose-rate meters used in protection dosimetry. Bethesda, MD:
radiation protection. Radiat Prot Dosim International Commission on Radiation Units
86:87–105;1999. and Measurements; ICRU Report 51; 1993.
Christensen P, Julius HW, Marshall TO. ISO. Reference beta radiations for calibrating
Technical recommendations for monitoring dosemeters and doseratemeters and for
individuals occupationally exposed to external determining their response as a function of
radiation. Brussels: Directorate-General for beta radiation energy. Geneva: International
Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Organization for Standardization; ISO 6980;
Protection; European Commission on 1996.
Radiation Protection 73; Report EUR 14852 ISO. Reference beta radiations for calibrating
EN; 1994. dosemeters and doseratemeters and for
Currie LA. Limits for qualitative detection and determining their response as a function of
quantitative determination. Anal Chem beta radiation energy. Geneva: International
40:586–593; 1968. Organization for Standardization; ISO 6980,
DOE. Department of Energy standard for the Pt. 2:2004; 2004.
performance testing of personnel dosimetry ISO. X and gamma reference radiation for
systems. Springfield, VA: National Technical calibrating dosemeters and dose rate meters
Information Service; DOE Report DOE EH- and for determining their response as a
0027; 1986. function of photon energy - Part 1:
DOE. DOE occupational radiation exposure. Characteristics of the radiations and methods
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, for their production. Geneva: International
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety Organization for Standardization ; ISO 4037-
1; 1996.
41
ISO. X and gamma reference radiation for Seelentag WW, Panzer W, Drexler G, Platz L,
calibrating dosemeters and dose rate meters Santer F. A catalog of spectra for the
and for determining their response as a calibration of dosemeters. Munich:
function of photon energy - Part 3: Calibration Gesellschaft für Strahlen- und
of area and personal dosemeters and the Umweltforschung; GSF Bericht S 560; 1979.
measurement of their response as a function Seltzer SM. Calculation of photon mass energy-
of energy and angle of incidence. Geneva: transfer and mass energy-absorption
International Organization for coefficients. Radiat Res 136:147–170; 1993.
Standardization; ISO 4037-3:2000; 2000. Soares CG. Private communication; 1991.
NBS. Experimental statistics. Washington, DC: Soares CG, Martin PR. A consistent set of
U.S. National Bureau of Standards; U.S. conversion coefficients for personnel and
Government Printing Office; NBS Handbook environmental dosimetry. Proceedings of the
91; 1963. Panasonic User's Group Meeting, Somerset,
NRC. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations PA, June 5–9; 1995.
(CFR): Energy, Chapter 1: Nuclear Regulatory Soares CG, Martin PR. Why change the ANSI
Commission (NRC), Part 20: Standards for N13.11 (NVLAP) conversion coefficients for
protection against radiation; 2008. photons, again? Health Phys 68:S41; 1995.
NRC. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Wheeler DJ, DS Chambers. Understanding
(CFR): Energy, Chapter 3: Department of statistical process control. Knoxville, TN: SPC
Energy, Part 835: Occupational radiation Press; 1992.
protection; 2007.
PTB. Measuring instruments for use in radiation
protection, type tests, thermoluminescence
dosimetry systems and photoluminescence
dosimetry systems. Braunschweig, Germany:
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt; PTB
Report PTB-A 23.2; 1992.
42

N13 32-2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N13 32-2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

N13 32-2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANSI/HPS N13.

American National Standard

Performance Testing of Extremity Dosimeters

Approved: November 2008

American National Standards Institute, Inc.

Health Physics Society

Copyright © 2008 by the Health Physics Society.

Printed in the United States of America

Chairperson Tracy Ikenberry

Rick Cummings, Chairman

C.1 Personal Dose Equivalent ................................................................................................................22

1.0 Purpose The standard applies to the evaluation of

1.1 Scope As in the earlier standard, N13.32-1995

The definitions for many of the terms used in this

The definition of the absorbed dose, D, as a

H = DQ (Eq. 6) Pi ≡ [Hi′ − Hi ] / Hi (Eq. 7)

Unit: J kg–1 where Hi is the personal dose equivalent

Note 2: Any statement of personal dose equivalent

Irradiating laboratory, IL: A laboratory Radiation field: A region in which ionizing

3.0 Test Procedure • An indication of whether dosimeters are

The IL shall not conduct a test for fewer than

3.4 Dissemination of Test Results 3.5 Test Categories

Table 1. Irradiation categories, test irradiation ranges and tolerance levels.

will not be included in the random selection of 3.6 Radiation Sources

Table 2a. Characteristics of NIST photon beam techniques.

NIST Half-valuea Homogeneitya E FWHM

M30 0.5 0.36 65 20 13

M60 1.56 1.68 66 35 28

H50 4 0.1 4.2 0.142 92 90 39 14

M150 5 0.25 10.2 0.67 87 62 73 59

H150 4 4 1.51 17 2.5 100 95 118 44

M250 5 3.2 18.5 3.2 98 86 139 105

H250 4 0.6 1.04 2.72 22 5.2 100 98 204 61

Table 2b. Characteristics of beta particle sources and fields.

Source Half-life E Min. D(0.2)/ D(1)/ D(10)/

3.7 Phantom Construction is perpendicular to and passes through the

Table 3. Dosimeter irradiation geometries.

DS = K& a c K , s , α t (Eq. 12)

Appendix A: Test Categories

A1. Test Categories

DOE Extremity Exposures

No Meas. Dose <0.1 0.1 - 1.0 1-5 5 - 10 10 - 20

1.0 Fig. A2. Response of extremity

Appendix B: Source Standardization

B1. Photons Use of the conversion factors assumes that

Appendix C: Interpretation of the Response

C1. Personal Dose Equivalent C2. Conversion Coefficients Relating the

International radiation protection experts have

Appendix D: Performance Criteria and Analysis

Appendix E: The Irradiating Laboratory (IL)

E.1 Introduction E.3 Dosimeter Inventory and Tracking

Fig. E2. Example orientations of “whole-body” dosimeters mounted on a wrist/ankle (pillar)

E.5 Multiple Dosimeter Irradiations

E.6 Quality Control Irradiation Measures

E.7 Adjustment for Non-uniformity

E.8 Adjustment for Sensitive Element Location

E.9 Returning Test Dosimeters

E.10 Personal Dose Equivalent Rate Limitations

E.11 Reference Absorbed Dose or Personal Dose Equivalent