4.6 Article

Numerical analysis of the alanine response using Monte Carlo: Correlation with experimental results

Journal

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109824

Keywords

Alanine/electron spin resonance; Dosimetry; Mixed fields; Monte Carlo; Neutrons relative effectiveness; Track structure theory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ICERR project supported by the IAEA aims to provide training and research in advanced nuclear reactor technology. In this project, alanine dosimeters were irradiated in the core of the MINERVE research reactor, and the neutron and gamma dose components were calculated using various codes and theories. The study found that the best agreement between measurements and predictions was obtained using the Cucinotta alanine detector response model.
International centers based on research reactors (ICERR) project supported by IAEA, offers training and research in the application of advanced nuclear reactor technology. In this context of the project, alanine dosimeters were irradiated under mixed neutron/gamma irradiation in the core of the MINERVE research reactor at the CEA Cadarache. The integrated dose of the alanine was measured by electron spin resonance spectrometry with reference to an absorbed dose in water from a 60Co gamma-ray beam. Neutron and gamma dose components were calculated using the MCNP code. The neutron dose and relative effectiveness (REn) for neutrons was evaluated using FLUKA code and Track Structure Theory (TST) formulations of alanine response towards irra-diations with ions produced by neutron interactions with alanine. REn values were found to be between 0.516 and 0.538. The measured dose was compared to the calculation results. The best agreement between the alanine integral measurements and model predictions (0.4%) was obtained by using the Cucinotta alanine detector response model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available