PNNL

Abstract

Irradiators utilizing radioactive cesium-137 or cobalt-60 have been used for medical applications for many decades. This includes the irradiation of much of the nation’s blood supply, and radiation biology research. In 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was assigned to evaluate and prevent the misuse of radioactive materials with malicious intentions, with gamma-ray sources being high on the list. Licensees who possessed higher quantities of radioactive material of concern were required to set up increased security controls such as constant surveillance, controlled access, personnel background checks, and other security controls. As a result of introducing such regulations, and problems with disposing of high activity sources, many users of gamma-ray sources started to look into alternative technologies to replace their gamma-ray irradiators – the main alternative being an X-ray irradiator. To make an educated decision on whether a particular type of X-ray irradiator is equivalent to a particular type of cesium-137 irradiator for specific applications, one has to rely on relevant published comparison studies from other researchers, or perform the comparison studies on their own. This publication focuses on the authors’ technical performance comparison of two cesium-137 irradiator models and two X-ray irradiator models, for the purpose of determining whether the X-ray irradiator models could validly replace the cesium-137 irradiator models for certain applications. Utilizing 47 gram and 120 gram tissue-equivalent rodent dosimetry phantoms, our results indicate that, depending upon the user’s dose uncertainty budget and maximum size of specimens to be irradiated, the Model RS2000 160 kVp X-ray irradiator, Model XRAD-160 X-ray irradiator, or Model XRAD-320 X-ray irradiator, could successfully replace a cesium-137 irradiator. It is expected such equivalency could be extrapolated to other irradiated specimens of known sizes and density. Results also reveal that differences in inherent source geometry, field geometry and irradiation geometry can counter some of the influence due to differences in energy spectrum. It is hoped that this publication can be used as a guide for other similar studies, providing investigators guidance on important details that can make the difference between strong and weak comparison conclusions.