Comparisons of the standards for air kerma of the GUM and the BIPM for 60 Co and 137 Cs gamma radiation

Transcription

1 Comparisons of the standards for air kerma of the GUM and the BIPM for 60 Co and 137 Cs gamma radiation P. J. Allisy-Roberts, C. Kessler, D.T. Burns Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, F Sèvres Cedex, M. Derlaciński, J. Kokociński Główny Urząd Miar, Miar, Elektoralna 2, Warsaw, Poland Abstract Direct comparisons of the standards for air kerma of the Główny Urząd Miar (GUM, Poland) and of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) were carried out in the 60 Co and 137 Cs radiation beams of the BIPM in The results, expressed as ratios of the GUM and the BIPM standards for air kerma, are with a combined standard uncertainty of in 60 Co, and with a combined standard uncertainty of in 137 Cs. The result in 60 Co agrees with the direct comparison carried out in 1996 when the new correction factors adopted by the GUM and the BIPM in 2007 and 2009 are applied for the present comparison. 1. Introduction Direct comparisons of the standards for air kerma in 60 Co and 137 Cs gamma radiation of the Główny Urząd Miar (GUM), Poland and the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) were carried out in April 2006 in the BIPM 60 Co and 137 Cs radiation beams. The last direct comparison of the air kerma standards for 60 Co gamma radiation was in 1996 [1]. No previous comparison has been made for 137 Cs air kerma although some measurements were made with the primary standard in the BIPM 137 Cs beam in The standard for air kerma of the GUM is a cavity ionization chamber constructed at the Orszagos Mérésügyi Hivatal (now known as the Magyar Kereskedelmi Engedélyezési Hivatal MKEH), Budapest, Hungary in 1983 (type ND 1005, serial number 8303). The main characteristics are given in Table 1. The standards of the BIPM are parallel-plate graphitewalled cavity ionization chambers described in [2, 3]. 1/18

2 Table 1. Characteristics of the GUM standard of air kerma Type: cylindrical graphite cavity standard ND Nominal values Chamber Outer height / mm Outer diameter / mm Inner height / mm Inner diameter / mm Wall thickness / mm 4 Electrode Diameter / mm 2 Height / mm 10 Volume Air cavity / cm 3 relative uncertainty / cm Wall Material ultrapure graphite Density / g cm Impurity fraction < Applied tension (both polarities) Voltage / V Determination of the air kerma For the BIPM standards and the GUM standard, the air kerma rate is determined from K & = Πk (1) 1 ( I / m)( W / e)(1 g) ( μen / ρ) a, c sc, a i where I is the ionization current measured for the mass m of air in the cavity, W is the average energy spent by an electron of charge e to produce an ion pair in dry air, ḡ is the fraction of electron energy given to radiative processes, ( μ en / ρ ) is the ratio of the mean mass-energy absorption coefficients of air and graphite, a, c s c,a is the ratio of the mean stopping powers of graphite and air, k i is the product of the correction factors to be applied to the standard. Physical data and correction factors The values of the physical data used in (1) are consistent with the CCEMRI(I) 1985 recommendations [4]. These values and those for the various corrections needed for 60 Co and 137 Cs radiation are also shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, for both the GUM and the BIPM standards, together with their associated uncertainties. Although the comparison was held in 2006, the results have been updated for the BIPM reference standards adopted in 2007 and 2009 for 60 Co and 137 Cs respectively [5, 6]. 2/18

3 Table 2. Physical constants and correction factors with their estimated relative uncertainties of the BIPM and GUM standards for the 60 Co radiation beams at the BIPM BIPM standard GUM standard values uncertainty (1) values uncertainty (1) 100 s i 100 u i 100 s i 100 u i Physical Constants ρ dry air density (2) / kg m ( μ / ρ c a en ) a,c s, (3) (3) W / e J/C g bremsstrahlung loss Correction factors: k g re-absorption k s recombination losses k h humidity k st stem scattering k wall wall attenuation and scattering (4) (5) k an axial non-uniformity (4) k rn radial non-uniformity V chamber volume / cm (6) I ionization current / pa Relative standard uncertainty quadratic summation combined uncertainty Relative standard uncertainty neglecting contributions from physical constants and k h quadratic summation combined uncertainty 0.24 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Expressed as one standard deviation s i represents the type A relative standard uncertainty estimated by statistical methods, u i represents the type B relative standard uncertainty estimated by other means At Pa and K Combined uncertainty for the product of s, and W / e c a Uncertainties included in the uncertainty of the chamber effective volume See text for Monte Carlo calculated value that has been adopted For standard CH5-1, the measured volume cm 3 reduced by the factor /18

4 Table 3. Physical constants and correction factors with their estimated relative uncertainties of the BIPM and GUM standards for the 137 Cs gamma radiation beam at the BIPM BIPM standard GUM standard values uncertainty (1) values uncertainty (1) 100 s i 100 u i 100 s i 100 u i Physical Constants ρ dry air density (2) /kg m ( μ / ρ en ) a,c sc,a (3) W / e J/C (3) g bremsstrahlung loss Correction factors: k s recombination losses k h humidity k st stem scattering k wall wall attenuation and scattering (5) (6) k an axial non-uniformity k rn radial non-uniformity (4) V chamber volume /cm I ionization current / pa Relative standard uncertainty quadratic summation combined uncertainty Relative standard uncertainty neglecting contributions from physical constants and k h quadratic summation combined uncertainty 0.29 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Expressed as one standard deviation s i represents the relative standard uncertainty estimated by statistical methods, type A u i represents the relative standard uncertainty estimated by other means, type B At Pa and K Combined uncertainty for the product of s c, a and W / e For the 20 cm diameter 137 Cs beam. The non-statistical uncertainty for k wall is included in the determination of the effective volume of the standard [6]. See text for Monte Carlo calculated value that has been adopted Reference conditions Air kerma at the BIPM is determined under the conditions given in Tables 7 and 11 of [7]: - the distance from source to reference plane is 1 m, - the field size in air at the reference plane is 10 cm 10 cm for the 60 Co beam and 20 cm diameter for the 137 Cs beam. 4/18

5 Reference values The K & BIPM value is the mean of four measurements made over a period of six months before and one after the comparison and is about 1.4 mgy s 1, 11 mgy s 1 and 17µGy s 1 for the Picker, CISBio and 137 Cs beams, respectively. By convention they are given at the reference date of T 00:00:00 UTC using the half-life value of d, σ = 0.3 d for 60 Co and d, σ = 30 d for 137 Cs [8]. Beam characteristics A comparison of the 60 Co and 137 Cs beams at the GUM and the BIPM is given in Table 4. Table 4. Parameters of the 60 Co and 137 Cs beams at the GUM and the BIPM Nominal Scatter 60 Co beam source Source diameter contribution/ activity at and length Field size * energy fluence 01/01/06 Approximate air kerma rate / (mgy s 1 ) GUM 6 TBq 7 mm 10.4 mm # 21 % 16 cm diameter 0.5 BIPM Picker 20 TBq 20 mm 5.6 mm 14 % 10 cm 10 cm 1.4 BIPM CISBio 130 TBq 20 mm 14 mm 21 % 10 cm 10 cm Cs beam GUM 5 TBq 17.6 mm 13 mm # 25 % 15.5 cm diameter 0.1 BIPM 1 TBq 8.3 mm 13 mm # 30 % 20 cm diameter 0.02 * at 1 m # active dimensions 3. Correction factors for the GUM standard With the exception of k wall, k rn and k s, the correction factors for the GUM standard were determined at the GUM. Attenuation and scattering in the chamber wall (k wall ) and axial non-uniformity (k an ) The correction for k wall has previously been made at the GUM by measuring the ionization chamber response as a function of the wall thickness using build-up caps and then extrapolating linearly to zero wall thickness. The value obtained this way is then multiplied by a calculated value of k cep. This method of extrapolation is understood to underestimate the effect of the chamber walls on attenuation and scatter of the beam but the GUM is not yet in a position to calculate k wall with Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Such a calculation for their primary standard has been made by the BIPM and confirms other values for the wall correction identified in this way for a graphite density of 1.71 g cm 3 of (5) and (8) for 60 Co and 137 Cs beams, respectively [9]. Investigations of Büermann et al [10] strongly support the use of calculated wall and axial non-uniformity corrections and this has been endorsed by the CCRI [11]. Consequently, the GUM has declared that they have adopted the BIPM calculated values for the wall effects of their primary standards. However, there is a difference between the GUM measured value of the graphite density of the build-up caps (1.71 g cm 3 ), taken as being equivalent to the graphite of the chamber itself, and the value determined by the MKEH for the chamber that was constructed in /18

6 (1.75 g cm 3 ). The GUM measured values were confirmed at the BIPM by measurements of the four build-up caps, which indicated they were from the same piece of graphite as the agreement was better than 0.2 %. These measurements imply that the graphite used for the construction of the standard was perhaps not the same as for the build-up caps, as believed at the time. It is important to note that the application of MC calculated correction factors rather than those obtained using the extrapolation method have lead to a relative increase in the air kerma response of the GUM cavity chambers by for 60 Co γ-rays and for 137 Cs γ-rays. These values assume a graphite density of 1.71 g cm 3 ; calculations for a density of 1.75 g cm 3 may increase these values by a further Consequently, the mean calculated value is used by the GUM and the Type B uncertainty for the wall correction is increased to take the density uncertainty into account. Since the date of the comparison, the BIPM has also completed MC calculations for its own primary standards and the new reference values have been approved by the CCRI and adopted [5, 6] Radial non-uniformity of the beam (k rn ) The correction factor k rn, for the radial non-uniformity of the BIPM beams over the crosssection of the GUM standard, has been estimated from measurements carried out at the BIPM. The values are included in Tables 2 and 3 for the 60 Co and 137 Cs beams. Recombination loss (k s ) The air kerma rates at the GUM and the BIPM are significantly different, as shown in Table 4, so the corrections for losses due to recombination, k s, were also measured at the BIPM. The results are presented in Figure 1 and the corrections are consistent with the value of (3) measured at the GUM in their 137 Cs beam. For the recombination measurements, the ratio of the ionization currents with applied voltages of 250 V and 80 V (using both polarities) was measured for four different air kerma rates (using both 60 Co beams and a set of brass filters; this is permissible as recombination is insensitive to the spectrum). Applying the method of Niatel and the notation given in [12], 2 2 I I = 1 + ( n 1) A V + ( n 2 1) m ( g V ) I (2) V V n V where, I v is the uncorrected, measured current at the normally applied voltage, V n is any number, not necessarily an integer A is a constant dependent on the chamber type m 2 is the volume recombination parameter for ionization chambers g is the geometrical factor dependent on the chamber shape The current, I V, is the current as measured by the chamber, not corrected for decay and not normalized for temperature and pressure. Figure 1 illustrates the measurements made for n = 250/80 = The recombination correction k s can be expressed from Figure 1 as k = 1 + k + k I s init vol V (3) 6/18

7 and Table 5 gives the values and uncertainties for k init and k vol. Consequently, a correction factor of (2) for ion recombination at 250 V was applied to the GUM standards in the BIPM reference CISBio beam. The appropriate value in the Picker beam is (2). This former value is used in Table 2. The equivalent value for the 137 Cs beam used in Table 3 is (2). Figure 1. Recombination measurements made at the BIPM for the GUM standard ND ND I 250 / I I 250 / pa Table 5. Results of ion recombination measurements made at the BIPM for the GUM standard GUM Standard ND Initial recombination and diffusion, k init Correction Standard uncertainty Volume recombination coefficient, k vol, / pa k s in the BIPM Picker beam, BIPM value k s in the BIPM CISBio beam, BIPM value k s in the BIPM 137 Cs beam, BIPM value /18

8 Polarity effect (k pol ) The collecting voltage applied to the GUM standard was 250 V using both polarities. The chamber was left for 30 min after each voltage change to allow it to stabilize before each measurement. The polarity effect, determined as the ratio of positive and negative currents, was measured as (1) in the 60 Co beam (k pol = ). This value agrees with the polarity effect measured at the BIPM in At the GUM, only the positive polarity is used normally and the polarity correction factor applied at the GUM implies a polarity effect of No polarity corrections were foreseen in the present comparison at the BIPM as both polarities were used on each occasion. Leakage correction The raw ionization current measured with the GUM standard was corrected for the leakage current. It is important to note that the GUM standard had a leakage current that was related to both the air kerma rate and its recent radiation history when positive polarity was applied to the high-voltage electrode of the chamber. In 1996, no significant leakage was detected in the first series of measurements, which were performed in the low air kerma rate 137 Cs beam, but a similar relative radiation-induced leakage was measured immediately after irradiation in the 60 Co beam in which the air kerma rate was about 100 times greater. In the present comparison, the measurements were performed alternately in the three beams, having started in the old Picker 60 Co reference beam where the relative correction was about For the subsequent measurements in the lower air kerma rate 137 Cs beam, this correction was initially increasing to during the first 3 series; however, as an additional effect was noted in this beam, two further sets of measurements were made after the chamber had been measured in the other beams. This investigation, related to the polarity effect, is described in a later paragraph. 4. Comparison of the air kerma standards for 60 Co and 137 Cs radiation The values of the ionization current measured by the GUM standard and used to determine the air kerma rate in the three BIPM beams are given in Table 6. These values are for both polarities, corrected for leakage and for decay from the measurement date to the reference date in each case of , 0 h UTC. The currents are also normalized to the reference conditions of air temperature K and pressure kpa. Three independent measurements were made with the GUM standard in each beam. Table 6. Ionization currents measured with the GUM standard at the BIPM GUM ND standard; current / pa Mean values 100 s BIPM Picker 60 Co beam < 0.01 BIPM CISBio 60 Co beam < 0.01 BIPM 137 Cs beam < 0.06 relative statistical standard uncertainty of the measurements mean of the measured values for each polarity. 8/18

9 In Table 6, the first three measurement series made in the 137 Cs beam are shown. The polarity effect of these three measurements was significantly different for each set of measurements and was not the same as in the 60 Co beams. Consequently, two further sets of measurements were made. It became apparent that the current measured when positive polarity was applied is a function of a differential leakage effect. The maximum leakage measured in the 137 Cs beam was only 57 fa but this is a significant proportion (about 10 %) of the measured ionization current for this volume of ionization chamber in this beam. Figure 2 shows the leakage-corrected ionization current (with positive polarity) as a function of the leakage current. Figure 2. Ionization current measurements made at the BIPM as a function of leakage for the GUM standard ND I +250 V / pa leakage current / pa Extrapolating to zero leakage current indicates an ionization current of 641 fa. It should be noted that the current measured when negative polarity is applied remained constant to within , while the current with positive polarity applied had a relative standard deviation of , if no extrapolation is made. As no cause could be identified for this behaviour of the chamber, and the GUM normally measures just a few fa leakage current with a higher activity 137 Cs source, they agreed to investigate the leakage at the GUM laboratory, following the comparison. The results of this investigation showed no significant leakage at the GUM. At the BIPM, the decision was made, in agreement with the GUM, to extrapolate the current (positive polarity) to zero leakage as making a leakage correction actually increased the measurement uncertainty. The current proposed for the comparison was the mean of the negative and the extrapolated positive polarity measurements. An uncertainty for the extrapolated value was deduced from the slope of the fit to the differential leakage measurements. However, in view of this unexplained behaviour, it was decided to use the negative polarity measurements and apply the k pol correction measured in the BIPM 60 Co beam. An uncertainty of was included to account for the unexpected behaviour with positive polarity. 9/18

10 5. Comparison results and discussion The comparison result is given by, R K. = K. GUM / K. BIPM, (4) where K. is the value of the air kerma rate at the BIPM as measured by the GUM and BIPM standards, respectively. The results are given in Table 7 together with their uncertainties. Table 7. Results of the comparisons of the GUM standard for air kerma Beam K & GUM /mgy s 1 K & BIPM /mgy s 1 R K 100 u c 60 Co CISBio Cs * Result of the check in the 60 Co Picker beam 60 Co Picker * result using negative polarity measurements only, with a polarity correction, see text. As some constants (such as air density, W/e, μ en ρ, ḡ, s c,a and k h ) are derived from the same basic data in both laboratories, the uncertainty in R K is due only to the uncertainties in the correction factors, the volumes of the standards, the measured ionization currents and the distance to the source, the values of which are given in the final rows of Tables 2 and 3. The relative standard uncertainty arising from the positioning of each chamber at the BIPM is less than Each air kerma rate value measured using the GUM standard in Table 7 is derived from the mean of each measurement series in Table 6 using the volume in Table 1 and the physical constants and correction factors given in Tables 2 and 3. &K BIPM The value is taken as the mean of the four measurements made around the period of the comparison for each beam. Air kerma rates were verified immediately before the comparison measurements. The &K BIPM values refer to an evacuated path length between source and standard and are given at the reference date of , 0 h UTC, as are those measured using the GUM standard. Since 2003, each NMI has been encouraged by the Consultative Committee for Ionizing Radiation (CCRI) [13] to verify its correction factors and to publish any changes to its national standards that it feels are appropriate so that the results may be included in the BIPM key comparison database (KCDB). All the previous results of air kerma comparisons in 60 Co at the BIPM have been re-evaluated [14], taking into account the effect of changes being made in national standards following the recommendations of the CCRI and of changes to the BIPM standard itself [5]. In May 2007, the CCRI(I) approved an overall change in the BIPM 10/18

11 air-kerma in the CISBio reference beam by a factor of The combined relative standard uncertainty on the air-kerma determination is now evaluated as As indicated in [14], the reference beam for air kerma comparisons at the BIPM is the CISBio 60 Co beam since the characterization was completed and the values adopted as the reference in The measurements in the Picker beam were used as a check. The ratio of the air kerma rates determined previously in 1996 by the GUM and BIPM standards in the BIPM Picker 60 Co beam was (28). When the updates to each of the standards are applied retrospectively to these earlier results, the agreement between 1996 and the latest Picker result in Table 7 is within In May 2009, the BIPM presented to the CCRI(I) the re-evaluation of the air kerma standard for the 137 Cs beam, which results in an increase of 3 parts in 10 3 of the reference air kerma value; the change was approved and was adopted in September This change has been included in the comparison result of (29) given in Table 7. In 1996, although no 137 Cs comparison result was reported for the GUM standard, possibly due to lack of agreement at that time over the stopping power ratio that is appropriate for the GUM standard, measurements had been made in the 137 Cs beam at the BIPM. A comparison result of (33) can be deduced from the measurements made in 1996 which becomes using the present correction factors. This agrees within the uncertainties with the 2006 comparison value in Table 7. Several other national laboratories have also made 137 Cs comparisons with the BIPM. It is of note that the air kerma determinations in a 137 Cs beam made by the national metrology institutes have recently undergone re-evaluation to take account of changes to the correction factors in particular. Once all the results have been re-evaluated, they will be the subject of a summary report and the results will be placed in the KCDB under the comparison identifier BIPM.RI(I)-K5 [15]. 5. Degrees of equivalence Comparison of a given NMI with the key comparison reference value Following a decision of the CCRI, the BIPM determination of the dosimetric quantity, here K BIPM (K B ), is taken as the key comparison reference value (KCRV), for each of the CCRI radiation qualities [16]. It follows that for each NMI i having a BIPM comparison result R,i (denoted x i in the KCDB) with combined standard uncertainty u i, the degree of equivalence with respect to the reference value is given by a pair of terms: and the relative difference D i = (K i K Bi )/ K Bi = R Ki 1 (5) the expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of this difference, U i = 2 u i. (6) The results for D i and U i, are expressed in mgy/gy. Table 8 gives the values for D i and U i for each NMI, i taken from the BIPM.RI(I)-K1 values published in the KCDB and this report, using (5) and (6), and forms the basis of the entries in 11/18

12 the KCDB of the CIPM MRA. These data are presented graphically in Figure 3 where the black square indicates a result that dates prior to 1998 although the ARPANSA has made a comparison quite recently. The results of three published regional metrology organization (RMO) comparisons are also included [17, 18, 19]. It is of interest to note that the previous result of the GUM participation in the EUROMET comparison was prior to the update of their primary standard, using Monte Carlo corrections for the wall effects in particular. Although that result agreed with the KCRV within the expanded uncertainties at the time, the agreement using the updated standard has improved, and the uncertainties have also decreased. Comparison of any two NMIs with each other The degree of equivalence between any pair of national measurement standards is expressed in terms of the difference between the two comparison results and the expanded uncertainty of this difference; consequently, it is independent of the choice of key comparison reference value. The degree of equivalence, D ij, between any pair of NMIs, i and j, is thus expressed as the difference D ij = D D i j = R R and the expanded uncertainty (k = 2) of this difference, U ij = 2 u ij, where u 2 ij = u 2 c, i + u 2 c, j i 2 ( f u ) ( f u ) k k k,corr i k j k k,corr and the final two terms are used to take into account correlation between the primary standards, notably that arising from the physical constants and correction factors for similar types of standard. For example a number of national primary standards have a similar shape and size to the GUM standard [14] for which the wall correction factors are strongly correlated. As yet, no correlation has been assumed for the volume estimations of identically shaped standards 2 j (7) (8) The results for D i and U i are given in Table 8 in the format in which they appear in the key comparison database. The values are also given for D ij and U ij although following a decision of the CCRI(I) in 2011, these values no longer appear in the KCDB. Note that the data presented in the table, while correct at the time of publication of the present report, become out-of-date as NMIs make new comparisons. The formal results under the CIPM MRA [20] are those available in the key comparison database. 12/18

13 6. Conclusion The GUM standard for air kerma in 60 Co gamma radiation compared with the present BIPM air kerma standard gives a comparison result of (0.0024). This compares favourably with other primary standards for which the wall correction factor has been calculated using Monte Carlo methods. All the comparison results of the national metrology institutes (NMIs) and designated laboratories are used as the basis of the entries in the KCDB set up under the CIPM MRA to which the comparison result of the GUM has now been added. The 137 Cs air kerma standards of the GUM and the BIPM have been compared for the first time. The result for this comparison, R K ( 137 Cs) = (29), which agrees within the uncertainties with (unpublished) measurements made at the BIPM in The result will be included in the KCDB once all the other NMI results have been updated similarly for the Monte Carlo calculations of the wall effects. 13/18

14 Table 8. Degrees of equivalence with the BIPM.RI(I)-K1 and RMO.RI(I)-K1 comparisons for the GUM participation Key comparison BIPM.RI(I)-K1 MEASURAND : Air kerma The key comparison reference value is the BIPM evaluation of air kerma. The degree of equivalence of each laboratory i with respect to the reference value is given by a pair of terms both expressed in mgy/gy: D i and U i, its expanded uncertainty (k = 2), with U i = 2u i. (See Final Report for the computation of D i ) The degree of equivalence between two laboratories is given by a pair of terms both expressed in mgy/gy: D ij = D i - D j and U ij, its expanded uncertainty (k = 2). The approximation for U ij is explained in the Final Report. Linking an RMO.RI(I)-K1 to BIPM.RI(I)-K1 MEASURAND : Air kerma The value x i is the comparison result for laboratory i participant in RMO.RI(I)-K1 having been normalized to the value of the linking laboratories (see RMO.RI(I) Final reports in the KCDB). The degree of equivalence of each laboratory i participant in the relevant RMO.RI(I)-K1 with respect to the reference value is given by a pair of terms both expressed in mgy/gy: D i and U i, its expanded uncertainty (k = 2). See the appropriate RMO.RI(I)-K1 Final Report for the computation of D i and the approximation used for U i in the Matrix of equivalence. The degree of equivalence between two laboratories i and j, one participant in BIPM.RI(I)-K1 and one in RMO.RI(I)-K1, or both participant in an RMO.RI(I)-K1, is given by a pair of terms both expressed in mgy/gy: D ij = D i - D j and U ij, its expanded uncertainty (k = 2). The approximation for U ij is given in the relevant RMO.RI(I)-K1 Final Report [17, 18, 19]. 14/18

15 Table 8 continued. Degrees of equivalence with the BIPM.RI(I)-K1 and SIM.RI(I)-K1, COOMET.RI(I) and EUROMET.RI(I) comparisons for the GUM participation Lab i D i U i D ij U Lab i ij D i U i D ij U ij / (mgy/gy) / (mgy/gy) / (mgy/gy) / (mgy/gy) ARPANSA CIEMAT DMDM CMI NMIJ SSM NIM STUK LNE-LNHB NRPA ENEA SMU VSL IAEA MKEH HIRCL GUM BIM NPL ITN NRC PTB BEV METAS VNIIM NIST KRISS LNMRI ININ CNEA BELGIM CPHR RMTC BIPM.RI(I)-K1 SIM.RI(I)-K1 (2002) COOMET.RI(I)-K1 (2006) EUROMET.RI(I)-K1 (2005 to 2008) All national metrology institute acronyms are available in the KCDB. 15/18

16 Figure 3. Graph of degrees of equivalence with the KCRV 35 BIPM.RI(I)-K1, SIM.RI(I)-K1 (2002), COOMET.RI(I)-K1 (2006) and EUROMET.RI(I)-K1 (2005 to 2008) Degrees of equivalence with the KCRV for air kerma in 60 Co Di / (mgy / Gy) ARPANSA DMDM NMIJ NIM LNE-LNHB ENEA VSL MKEH GUM NPL NRC BEV VNIIM KRISS ININ BelGIM CPHR RMTC CIEMAT CMI SSM STUK NRPA SMU IAEA HIRCL BIM ITN PTB METAS NIST LNMRI CNEA BIPM.RI(I)-K1 SIM.RI(I)-K1 COOMET.RI(I)-K1 EUROMET.RI(I)-K1 16/18

17 References [1] Allisy-Roberts P. J., Boutillon M., Referowski Z., Paz N., 1997, Comparison of the standards of air kerma of the GUM and the BIPM for 60 Co γ rays, 1997, Rapport BIPM-97/2. [2] Boutillon M., Niatel M.-TA., 1973, Study of a graphite cavity chamber for absolute measurements of 60 Co gamma rays, Metrologia, 9, [3] Boutillon M., Allisy-Roberts P.J., 1996, Measurement of air kerma and ambient dose equivalent in a 137 Cs beam, Rapport BIPM-96/7, 12 pp. [4] BIPM, Constantes physiques pour les étalons de mesure de rayonnement, BIPM Com.Cons. Etalons Mes. Ray. Ionizants, Section (I), 1985, 11, p. R45 (Paris: Offilib). [5] Burns D.T., Allisy P.J., Kessler C., 2007, Re-evaluation of the BIPM international standard for air kerma in 60 Co gamma radiation, Metrologia, 2007, 44(6), L53-L56. [6] Kessler C., Burns D.T., Allisy-Roberts P.J., Re-evaluation of the BIPM standard for air kerma in 137 Cs gamma radiation, Metrologia, 2009, 46(5), L24-L25. [7] Allisy-Roberts P.J., Burns D.T., Kessler C., 2009, Measuring conditions used for the calibration of National Ionometric standards at the BIPM, Rapport BIPM-2009/04, 20 pp. [8] Bé M.-M., Chisté V, Dulieu C., Browne E., Baglin C., Chechev V., Kuzmenco N., Helmer R., Kondev F., MacMahon D., Lee K.B., 2006, Table of Radionuclides (Vol. 3 A = 3 to 244) Monographie BIPM-5. [9] Rogers, D.W.O., Treurniet, J., Monte Carlo calculated wall and axial non-uniformity corrections for primary standards of air kerma, 1999, NRCC Report PIRS-663, 31 pp. [10] Büermann L., Kramer H.-M. And Csete I., Results supporting calculated wall correction factors for cavity chambers, 2003, Phys. Med. Biol., 48, [11] Comité Consultatif des Rayonnements Ionisants, 1999, The estimation of k att, k sc k CEP and their uncertainties, CCRI, 16, [12] Boutillon M., 1998, Volume recombination parameter in ionization chambers, Phys. Med. Biol., 1998, 43, [13] Comité Consultatif des Rayonnements Ionisants, 2004, Corrections to air kerma standards, 18th meeting (2003), [14] Allisy-Roberts P.J., Burns D.T., Kessler C., 2007, Summary of the BIPM.RI(I)-K1 comparison for air kerma in 60 Co gamma radiation, Metrologia, 2007, 44, Tech. Suppl., [15] Allisy P.J., Burns D.F., Kessler, C., Summary report of the BIPM.RI(I)-K5 137 Cs dosimetry comparisons, Metrologia, 2009, 46, Tech. Suppl., 06XXX (in preparation) [16] Allisy P.J., Burns D.R., Andreo P., 2009, International framework of traceability for radiation dosimetry quantities, Metrologia, 2009, 46(2), S1-S8 [17] Ross C.K., Shortt K., Saravi M., Meghzifene A., Tovar V.M., Barbosa R.A., da Silva C.N., Carrizales L., Seltzer S.M., 2008, Final report of the SIM 60 Co air-kerma comparison SIM.RI(I)-K1, Metrologia, 2008, 45, Tech. Suppl., /18

18 [18] Büermann L, Oborin A V, Dobrovosky J, Milevsky V S, Walwyn Salas G, Lapenas A, 2009, COOMET.RI(I)-K1 comparison of national measurement standards of air kerma for 60 Co γ radiation, Metrologia 2009, 46, Tech. Suppl [19] Csete I, Leiton A G, Sochor V, Lapenas A, Grindborg J-E, Jokelainen I, Bjerke H, Dobrovodsky J, Megzifene A, Hourdakis C J, Ivanov R Vekic B, Kokocinski J, Cardoso J, Buermann L, Tiefenboeck W, Stucki G, van Dijk E, Toni M P, Minniti R, McCaffrey J P, Silva C N M, Kharitonov I, Webb D, Saravi M, Delaunay F, 2010, Report on EUROMET.RI(I)-K1 and EUROMET.RI(I)-K4 (EUROMET project no. 813): Comparison of air kerma and absorbed dose to water measurements of 60 Co radiation beams for radiotherapy, Metrologia, 2010, 47, Tech. Suppl., [20] CIPM MRA: Mutual recognition of national measurement standards and of calibration and measurement certificates issued by national metrology institutes, International Committee for Weights and Measures, 1999, 45 pp. 18/18