Electron Dosimetry Using Monte Carlo Techniques

  • Keran O’Brien
Part of the Ettore Majorana International Science Series book series (EMISS, volume 3)


The energy response of thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) to electrons is of great practical importance since the response of a dosimeter to any form of ionizing radiation depends, essentially, on electron energy deposition. However, measurements of TLD electron energy response are in generally poor agreement with one another. In Fig. 1 are shown two recent sets of measurements by Holt et al.1 and by Paliwal and Almond2, for LiF. The results are expressed as fSTACK, the response of the TLD relative to the cobalt-60 γ-ray dose absorbed in water. Only those TLDs exposed in a polystyrene “phantom” at a depth of 1.5 cm are exhibited in the graph. The energy ordinate is the electron energy incident on the outer surface of the polystyrene. The large discrepancy in the shape and magnitude of the two response curves was rather disconcerting and has provoked much discussion in the literature. It has even been suggested that the discrepancy is the result of differences in the chemical composition of the dosimeters.3


Monte Carlo Calculation Lithium Fluoride Monte CARLO Code Electron Energy Incident Thermoluminescence Dosimeter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. G. Holt, G. R. Edelstein, and T. E. Clark, Phys. Med. Biol. 20: 559 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Paliwal and P. R. Almond, Phys. Med. Biol. 20: 547 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. G. Gantchew and K. Toushlekova, Phys. Med. Biol. 21: 300 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. L. Beck, “A Monte Carlo Simulat ion of the Transport of Electrons and Photons in Matter,” USAEC Report HASL-213 (1969).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. L. Beck, “Energy Spectra from Coupled Electron-Photon Slowing Down,” USERDA Report HASL-309 (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. L. Diffey, Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isotopes 26: 492 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. H. Hubbell, “Photon Cross Sections, Attenuation Coefficients, and Energy Absorption Coefficients from 10 keV to 100 GeV,” National Bureau of Standards Report USNRDS-NBS 29 (1969).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Heitler, The Quantum Theory of Radiation, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1954.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. W. Armstrong and R. G. Alsmiller, Jr., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 82: 289 (1970).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Dalton and J. E. Turner, Health Phys. 15: 257 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. E. Turner, P. D. Roecklein, and R. B. Vora, Health Phys. 18: 159 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. W. Lewis, Phys. Rev. 78: 526 (1950).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. D. Birkhoff, Encyclopedia of Physics, S. Flügge, ed., 34:53, Springer, Berlin (1958).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radiation Dosimetry: Electrons with Initial Energies Between 1 and 50 MeV,” Report 21, ICRU Publications, Washington, D.C. (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    CIRA, “COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere, Report of the Preparatory Group for an International Reference Atmosphere” (Accepted at the COSPAR Meeting in Florence, April 1961 ), North Holland, Amsterdam (1961).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keran O’Brien
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Department of EnergyEnvironmental Measurements LaboratoryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations