LEADER 03586aam  2200505I  450 
001 9910711380103321
005 20160926090653.0
024 8 $aGOVPUB-C13-037c597afe2e5ac0f44efb8d178b440e
035   $a(CKB)5470000002482227
035   $a(OCoLC)958885808
035   $a(EXLCZ)995470000002482227
100   $a20160921d2016      ua             0
101 0 $aeng
181   $2rdacontent
182   $2rdamedia
183   $2rdacarrier
200 10$aMethods for characterizing a radiation detector for specifying radiation fields during testing against standards for homeland security applications /$fA. L. Sallaska; L. Pibida; B. Minniti; C. M. O Brien
210  1$aGaithersburg, MD :$cU.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology,$d2016.
215   $a1 online resource (17 pages) $cillustrations (color)
225 1 $aNIST technical note ;$v1916
300   $aApril 2016.
300   $aContributed record: Metadata reviewed, not verified. Some fields updated by batch processes.
300   $aTitle from PDF title page (viewed April 30, 2016).
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references.
330 3 $aA wide variability exists among commercial radiation detection instruments used to measure exposure rate or ambient dose equivalent rate. These instruments are used to measure both the radiation background and the radiation field produced by radioactive sources that are used to test other types of radiation detection systems against different consensus document standards. Most radiation fields specified in the ANSI standard are quite low, ranging from 0.05 Sv/h to 0.5 Sv/h above background. Due to the radiation fields being so low in intensity, the uncertainty of the measurements made with these instruments can be potentially quite large. As a result of these large uncertainties, it is possible that the response of the various parameters being tested by the standards (e.g., alarm indication, radionuclide identification) will be dependent on the specific radiation detector employed by the testing laboratory. In this work, we used two different methods to set the radiation fields to analyze the differences that can be expected. One method is based on measurements performed with a high pressure ion chamber while the second method is based on calculating the radiation fields from a known source activity using a point source estimate. The sources of uncertainties in both methods are identified and are reflected in the differences that can be expected in setting the radiation fields. In order to achieve consistency across different testing laboratories in setting radiation fields, we provide insight to what are the most relevant factors that affect the determination of the field using either one of the two methods.
606   $aDetection
606   $aHomeland security
606   $aRadiation
615  0$aDetection.
615  0$aHomeland security.
615  0$aRadiation.
700   $aSallaska$b A. L$01399763
701   $aMinniti$b B$01399764
701   $aO'Brien$b C. M$g(Carl M.)$01343800
701   $aPibida$b Leticia$01399765
701   $aSallaska$b A. L$01399763
712 02$aPhysical Measurement Laboratory (National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.))
801  0$bNBS
801  1$bNBS
801  2$bGPO
801  2$bNBS
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910711380103321
996   $aMethods for characterizing a radiation detector for specifying radiation fields during testing against standards for homeland security applications$93465646
997   $aUNINA