Robust determination of effective atomic numbers for electron interactions with TLD-100 and TLD-100H thermoluminescent dosimeters

Lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) are the most commonly implemented for clinical dosimetry. The small physical magnitude of TLDs makes them attractive for applications such as small field measurement, in vivo dosimetry and measurement of out-of-field doses to critical structures. The most broadly used TLD is TLD-100 (LiF:Mg,Ti) and, for applications requiring higher sensitivity to low-doses, TLD-100H (LiF:Mg,Cu,P) is frequently employed. The radiological properties of these TLDs are therefore of significant interest. For the first time, in this study effective atomic numbers for radiative, collisional and total electron interaction processes are calculated for TLD-100 and TLD-100H dosimeters over the energy range 1 keV–100 MeV. This is undertaken using a robust, energy-dependent method of calculation rather than typical power-law approximations. The influence of dopant concentrations and unwanted impurities is also investigated. The two TLDs exhibit similar effective atomic numbers, ranging from approximately 5.77–6.51. Differences arising from the different dopants are most pronounced in low-energy radiative effects. The TLDs have atomic numbers approximately 1.48–2.06 times that of water. The effective atomic number of TLD-100H is consistently higher than that of TLD-100 over a broad energy range, due to the greater influence of the higher-Z dopants on the electron interaction cross sections. Typical variation in dopant concentration does not significantly influence the effective atomic number. The influence on TLD-100H is comparatively more pronounced than that on TLD-100. Contrariwise, unwanted hydroxide impurities influence TLD-100 more than TLD-100H. The effective atomic number is a key parameter that influences the radiological properties and energy response of TLDs. Although many properties of these TLDs have been studied rigorously, as yet there has been no investigation of their effective atomic numbers for electron interactions. The discrepancy between the effective atomic numbers of the TLDs and water is significantly higher than would be indicated by comparing effective atomic numbers calculated via the common – but dubious – power-law method. The mean effective numbers over the full energy range are 6.06, 6.09, 3.34 and 3.37 for TLD-100, TLD-100H, soft tissue and water respectively.

[1]  A. Nahum,et al.  A Monte Carlo study of the quality dependence factors of common TLD materials in photon and electron beams. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Y. Horowitz.  LiF:Mg,Ti Versus LiF:Mg,Cu,P: The Competition Heats Up , 1993 .

[3]  R. Cloutier.  Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. , 1989 .

[4]  B M Rao,et al.  Effective atomic numbers of biological materials in the energy region 1 to 50 MeV for photons, electrons, and He ions. , 1989, Medical physics.

[5]  S. McKeever,et al.  Thermoluminescence Dosimetry Materials: Properties and Uses , 1995 .

[6]  F. H. Attix.  Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry , 1991 .

[7]  P N Johnston,et al.  Electron Interaction with Gel Dosimeters: Effective Atomic Numbers for Collisional, Radiative and Total Interaction Processes , 2009, Radiation research.

[8]  P. N. Johnston,et al.  The effective atomic number of dosimetric gels , 2008, Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[9]  D. White,et al.  An analysis of the Z-dependence of photon and electron interactions. , 1977, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  S. Krishnaveni,et al.  Photon mass attenuation coefficients, effective atomic numbers and electron densities of some thermoluminescent dosimetric compounds , 2004 .

[11]  P. Olko,et al.  Dependence of LiF:Mg,Cu,P (MCP-N) Glow-Curve Structure on Dopant Composition and Thermal Treatment , 1997 .

[12]  M. Ginjaume,et al.  Photon Energy Response Matrix for Environmental Monitoring Systems Based on LiF:Mg,Ti and Hypersensitive Phosphors (LiF:Mg,Cu,P and a-Al2O3:C) , 1999 .

[13]  P. Bilski.  Lithium fluoride: from LiF:Mg,Ti to LiF:Mg,Cu,P. , 2002, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[14]  W D Bloomer,et al.  Effective atomic numbers of composite materials for total and partial interaction processes for photons, electrons, and protons. , 1997, Medical physics.

[15]  K. Shortt,et al.  The response of lif thermoluminescence dosemeters to photon beams in the energy range from 30 kV x rays to 60Co gamma rays. , 2003, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[16]  L. Gerward,et al.  Energy absorption buildup factors for thermoluminescent dosimetric materials and their tissue equivalence , 2010 .

[17]  P. Olko,et al.  The effects of ionisation density on the thermoluminescence response (efficiency) of LiF:Mg,Ti and LiF:Mg,Cu,P. , 2004, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[18]  Y. Horowitz.  The Average Distance Between MG-based Trapping Structures in LiF:Mg,Ti and LiF:Mg,Cu,P and the Relevance to Microdosimetry , 1999 .

[19]  Michael L. Taylor,et al.  Assessment of out-of-field doses in radiotherapy of brain lesions in children. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  W. Schöner,et al.  The LET Dependence of LiF:Mg,Ti Dosemeters and its Application for LET Measurements in Mixed Radiation Fields , 1999 .

[21]  Shivaramu,et al.  Effective atomic numbers for photon energy absorption and energy dependence of some thermoluminescent dosimetric compounds , 2000 .