Evaluation of Dose Distribution Homogeneity and Accuracy for a Cs-137 Source Using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (CaSO₄:Dy and LiF:Mg,Ti)

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan, Medan, Indonesia

2 Radiation Measuring Instruments Laboratory, Center for Safety of Health Devices and Facilities (BPAFK) Medan, Ministry of Health, Indonesia

10.22038/ijmp.2025.90194.2595

Abstract

Introduction: Cesium-137 (Cs-137) is a widely used source of ionizing radiation across various fields.Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), due to their sensitivity and reliability, are frequently employed to measure radiation dose in medical, industrial, and research applications. This study specifically aims to assess the homogeneity and accuracy of CaSO₄:Dy and LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs to support calibration and radiation safety practices.
Material and Methods: The experiment utilized the G-10-360-15CS Gamma Beam Irradiator as the radiation source. The CaSO₄:Dy and LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs were mounted on a 30 × 30 × 5 cm Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) phantom. The testing procedure included TLD annealing, homogeneity testing, and dose accuracy assessment. The TLDs were calibrated using a Cs-137 reference source by comparing the actual delivered dose to the TLD readings. Testing was conducted at doses of (0.1 mSv and 0.5 mSv) and distances (100, 150, and 200 cm).
Results: The homogeneity test showed a uniform dose distribution (CV ≤ 15%) at distances of 150 cm and 200 cm. The accuracy test indicated a performance bias of –9.21% to –2.50% for TLD CaSO₄:Dy, with calibration factors ranging from 1.026 to 1.101, and a performance bias of 2.46% to –0.28% for TLD LiF:Mg,Ti, with calibration factors of 0.976 to 1.003. All values meet the required tolerance limits. Therefore, TLD CaSO₄:Dy and TLD LiF:Mg,Ti are suitable for radiation dose measurements.
Conclusion: Homogeneity and accuracy testing of TLD CaSO₄:Dy and LiF:Mg,Ti shows that dose distribution becomes more homogeneous as the distance increases. The best measurement accuracy is achieved at shorter distances.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Brady SL, Toncheva G, Dewhirst MW, Yoshizumi TT. Characterization of a 137-Cs irradiator from a new perspective with modern dosimetric tools. Heal Phys. 2013;97(3):195–
  2. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Oxford (UK); 2007.
  3. Asadian S, Zarghani H. Evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and performance of radiographers towards radiation protection in Southern Khorasan Province, Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2018;15:222–
  4. Akpochafor MO, Adeneye SO, Kehinde O, Omojola AD, Oluwafemi A, Nusirat A, et al. Development of Computed Tomography Head and Body Phantom for Organ Dosimetry. Iran J Med Phys. 2019;16(1):8–
  5. Kartikasari D, Zulys A, Hiswara E, Nuraeni N. Synthesis of Thermoluminescence Dosimeter (TLD) Using Calcium Sulfate (CaSO4) With Variations of Dysprosium (Dy) and Thulium (Tm) Dopants. AIP Conf Proc [Internet]. 2018;2023(020084):1– Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5064081.
  6. Fernández SDS, García-Salcedo R, Sánchez-Guzmán D, Ramírez-Rodríguez G, Gaona E, León-Alfaro MA de, et al. Thermoluminescent Dosimeters for Low Dose X-ray Measurements. Appl Radiat Isot [Internet]. 2016;107:340– Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso. 2015.11.021
  7. Efenji GI, Iskandar SM, Yusof NN, Rabba JA, Mustapha OI, Fadhirul IM, et al. Structural Properties of Thermoluminescence Dosimeter Materials, Preparation, Application, and Adaptability: A Systematic Review. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2024;28(4):1129–
  8. Stanković Petrović JS, Knežević ŽI, Kržanović NL, Majer MC, Živanović MZ, Ciraj-Bjelac OF. Review of the thermoluminescent dosimetry method for the environmental dose monitoring. Nucl Technol Radiat Prot. 2021;36(2):150–
  9. Calibration of Radiation Protection Monitoring Instruments (Safety Report Series No. 16). 2000.
  10. Asiah NM. Cek Stabilitas Dan Pengukuran Laju Kerma Udara. J Sains Fis. 2023;3(2):26–
  11. Laarhoven PJM van, Aarts EHL. Simulated Annealing: Theory and Applications. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 1987; 187.
  12. Arief S, Fitri M. Machinability Analysis of SUH 35 Material Subjected to Annealing Process on Engine Valve Making Surface Grinding. J Tek Mesin. 2025;14(1):66–
  13. Oktaviani A, Setiawati E, Hidayanto E, Nuraeni N. Determination of Uniformity Value Response and Calibration Factors TLD Chips Using GAMMA Sources. Int J Sci Res Sci Technol. 2023;9(11):296–
  14. Romanyukha A, Hoy A. Comparison of the performance of thermoluminescence and direct ion storage dosimeters in accreditation proficiency testing. Radiat Meas. 2020;135(106371).
  15. American National Standards Institut. American National Standard for Dosimetry __ Personnel Dosimetry Performance __ Criteria for Testing. McLean (VA); 2009.
  16. Vanhavere F, Carinou E, Gualdrini G, Clairand I, Merce MS, Ginjaume M, et al. ORAMED: Optimization of Radiation Protection of Medical Staff. EURADOS Re. 7TH EURADOS Report 2012-02. Braunschweig: EURADOS. 2012; 194.
  17. Widhianasari Y, Satoto B, Darmini. Kualitas Performa TLD Reader. Bojonegoro: Madza Media. 2022.
  18. Alanazi SF, Alarifi H, Alshehri A, Almurayshid M. Response Evaluation of Two Commercial Thermoluminescence Dosimeters (TLDs) Against Different Parameters. BJR Open [Internet]. 2023;5(20220035). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220035
  19. Kardianto, Kristanti KH, Tiswati KA, Dwihapsari Y. Analisis Nilai Ketidakpastian dan Faktor Kalibrasi pada Alat Ukur Radiasi di Balai Pengamanan Fasilitas Kesehatan Surabaya. J Fis dan Apl. 2019;15(2):56–
  20. Radiation Oncology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students (E. B. Podgorsak, Ed.). Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2005.
  21. Bartkoski DA, Bar-David A, Kleckner M, Mirkovic D, Tailor R, Moradi-Kurdestany J, et al. Analysis of a novel X-ray lens for converging beam radiotherapy. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2021;11(19180). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98888-8
  22. Grygier A, Skubacz K, Chałupnik S. The correction factors for UD802 dosimeters irradiated with different radiation energies and at different incidence angles. J Radiol Prot. 2021;41(3):526–
  23. Diyona F, Milvita D, Herlinda S, Sandy KYP. Analisis Pengaruh Sudut Penyinaran terhadap Dosis Permukaan Fantom Berkas Radiasi Gamma Co-60 pada Pesawat Radioterapi. J Fis Unand. 2016;5(2):131–
  24. Pashazadeh A, Baghani HR, Robatjazi M, Kadavil P. The effect of geometrical parameters of skin brachytherapy patch source on depth dose distribution using Monte Carlo simulation. Appl Radiat Isot. 2024;204(111117).
  25. Pradhan AS, Adtani MM, Varadharajan G, Bakshi AK, Srivastava K, Bihari RR. Hand Book On The Use of TLD Badge Based On CaSO4:Dy Teflon TLD Discs for Individual Monitoring. Mumbai: Bhabha Atomic Reseach Center. 2002.
  26. Liuzzi R, Savino F, Avino VD, Pugliese M. Evaluation of LiF : Mg, Ti ( TLD-100 ) for Intraoperative Electron Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance. PLoS One. 2015;10(10).
  27. Analisis Sebaran Dosis Paparan Radiasi Pesawat C-ARM Terhadap Jarak Pada Ruang Operasi. J Sainstek. 2017;9(2):183–9.

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 23, Issue 1
January and February 2026
Pages 69-75

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 August 2025
  • Revise Date: 19 February 2026
  • Accept Date: 18 November 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics