Absorbed dose to water was measured with ionisation chambers NE 2561 (#267), NE 2581 (#334), NE 2571 (#1028), using the IAEA standard water phantom. The ionisation chamber was inserted in the water phantom at a reference depth dependent on the type of the radiation quality used. Three radiation qualities were used namely 1.25 MeV gamma ray, 6 MV x-rays and 10 MV x-rays. The values of the absorbed dose to water were determined by the N(K)- and N(X)- based methods, i.e with the use of IAEA, HPA, NACP, AAPM, NCRP and ICRU protocols. The aim of this study was to make an intercomparison of the results, by taking the IAEA protocol as a standard. The largest deviation contributed by any of these protocols was recorded for each quality. It was found that AAPM, NCRP and ICRU protocols contributed 0.94% for 1.25 MeV gamma ray, NACP contributed 2.12% for the 6 MV x-rays, and NACP contributed 2.35% for 10 MV x-rays. Since the acceptable limit of deviation set by the IAEA for this absorbed dose work is ± 3%, it is clear that the overall deviations obtained were all satisfactory.
During the years 1985-2008, the Secondary Standards Dosimetry Laboratory of Malaysia (SSDL Malaysia) has participated 37 times in the IAEA/WHO intercomparison programmes. This paper reports an analysis of the intercomparison data and demonstrates that the quality of the SSDL calibration service is well within the limits required by IAEA.
A cylindrical gamma-ray 60Co source of activity alpha is predicted to produce an exposure rate X at a distance d in vacuum, given by X = gamma(T)(alpha/d2), where gamma(T) is the specific gamma-ray constant. It has been documented that this formula may be used to approximate X with an accuracy of 1% from a source of length l, provided that d/l > or = 5. It is shown that the formula is accurate to 0.1% under these conditions, provided that the distance is measured from the centre of the source. When absorption in the source and scattering in the collimator are considered, the position of the origin d = 0 can shift by a distance of the order of centimetres. Absorption in air between the source and the ionization chamber adds an exponential factor to the formula. It is shown that even when these modifications are included the discrepancy in the results, although generally less than 1%, is still large compared with the measurement errors. Some suggestions are made for the origin of this discrepancy.