Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.

org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

ICRU REPORT 57
 ICRU REPORT 57

Conversion Coefficients for

use in Radiological Protection

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Against External Radiation

Issued: 1 August 1998

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIATION

UNITS AND MEASUREMENTS
7910 WOODMONT AVENUE
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20814
U.S.A.
 Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Copyright ~ 1997 ICRP and ICRU

All rights reserved.

(For detailed information on the availability of this and other ICRU Reports, see page 129.)
 ...,til
Contents ~
...,
Q)

~
0
Co)

Foreword ................ .. ......... . ............. .. ......... . v

Preface ..... . . . .................................. ... ......... . vii
Glossary of Terms and Definitions of Quantities . ... ... . .... . . IX

1. Introduction . .................................. .. ......... . 1

2. Quantities Used in Radiological Protection for External
Radiation ........... .. ........ . . .. ........ . .. ... ....... . . 3
2.1 Introduction .. .... . . .... . . .. .. . .... ....... . .......... . .. . 3
2.2 The Evolution of Quantities for Radiological Protection
against External Radiation ..... . ............. . ........ . 3
2.2.1 General .................. . .......... . ........... . 3
2.2.2 Dose equivalent ........... . ..................... . 3

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

2.2.3 The maximum dose equivalent (MADE) ............ . 4
2.2.4 Conversion coefficients ..... ... .... .. .. . ... . . ... . . . 4
2.2.5 Dose equivalent indexes ... . . . ...... .. . . ...... . . . . . 4
2.2.6 Effective dose equivalent . ............. .. ......... . 5
2.2.7 Operational quantities ..... . ........ . ............ . 5
2.2.8 ICRP Publication 51 ..... . .. . ........ . ......... .. . 5
2.2.9 The Paris Statement of the ICRP (ICRP, 1985) ..... . . 5
2.2.10 ICRU Report 40 (ICRU, 1986) ...... . .. .... ....... . . 5
2.2.11 ICRP Publication 60 ................... . ......... . 5
2.2.12 ICRU Reports 47 and 51. ... ............ . ......... . 6
2.2.13 Summary ... .... ....... ...... ....... . . ... ....... . 6
2.3 Absorbed Dose . ... . ..... ....... .... ...... .... .... . ..... . 6
2.3.1 Absorbed dose . .... ...... ... .. . .. . .. ... .. . . . ..... . 6
2.3.2 Absorbed dose distributions . . ....... ... . . ........ . 6
2.3.3 Mean absorbed dose ..... .. . . ......... ... ......... . 6
2.4 Radiation Weighting . .. ...... . . .. ......... .. ............ . 6
2.4.1 General ......... . .......... .. .. . ......... . .. . . .. . 6
2.4.2 Radiation weighting for protection quantities ... . .. . . 7
2.4.3 Radiation weighting factors for electrons
and photons ....................... .. .......... . 7
2.4.4 Radiation weighting factors for neutrons ........... . 7
2.4.5 Radiation weighting for operational quantities ..... . 7
2.4.6 Q(L) - L relationship . ..... . . ......... .. . . .... . .. . 7
2.4.7 Mean quality factor, Q . . .. .. . .......... .... ....... . 8
2.4.8 Stopping power .......... .. ........... .. ......... . 8
2.5 Radiological Protection Quantities ............ . .. . ....... . 9
2.5.1 General . . ... .... ...... ..... ......... .. ....... . .. . 9
2.5.2 Organ absorbed dose ......... .. .. ... ..... ... .. . .. . 9
2.5.3 Equivalent dose .. .. . .. . . .... . ... ... ..... . . ... . .. . 9
2.5.4 Effective dose .. . ................................. . 9
00
2.6 Operational Quantities ....................... .. ......... . 10 m
m
2.6.1 General .............. . ..... . .................... . 10 ....
~
2.6.2 Dose equivalent . .. .... .. .. . . ... .... .. ........... . 10 lQ

1::
2.6.3 Operational quantities for area monitoring . . ....... . 10 0
0-
2.6.4 Operational quantities for individual monitoring ... . 11 ~
;:J
3. Determination of Absorbed Dose Distributions in The p::
Human Body and in Anthropomorphic 8
and Other Models . . .. ........ . . . .... .. ..... . . .. . .. ...... . 13
3.1 Introduction .. .. .. .... ... . .. ....... . ... . ...... .. . . ... .. . . 13
3.2 Radiation Field ... .. . . ............. . ....... . . . . . ....... . . 13
3.3 Models and Phantoms of the Human Body .... .. . . ........ . 15 iii
 Q
.S 3.3.1 Reference man................................... 15
...,
3.3.2 Simple phantoms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
:e'" 3.3.3 Anthropomorphic models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
~
";
'" 3.4 Methods of Calculating Absorbed Dose Distributions. . . . . . .. 16
6 3.4.1 Introduction...................................... 16
...,
Q)
3.4.2 Transport codes: general features and special codes .. 17
:<

"'...,rn"
Q
3.5 Irradiation Geometries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
3.5.1 General..........................................
20
20
'0;
~ 3.5.2 Geometries used with the ICRU sphere. .. .. .. . . . . .. 21
Q
0
3.5.3 Geometries used with the ICRU slab. . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. 21
:.;:l
<.>
...,
Q)
4. Conversion Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
0
&: 4.1 Introduction............................................. 22
"; 4.2 General....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
<.>
'6h
0
4.2.1 Radiation energy spectra and mixed radiation fields.. 22
'0 4.3 Conversion Coefficients for Photons ....................... 22
:e 4.3.1 Introduction...................................... 22
~ '"

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S 4.3.2 Special considerations for photons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Q)
rn 4.3.3 Methods of calculation ............................ 23
,..
;:j
4.3.4 Available data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
<2 4.3.5 Conversion coefficients and analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
...,rn
Q 4.4 Conversion Coefficients for Neutrons. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. 34
.~
<.>
4.4.1 Introduction...................................... 34
IEQ)
0 4.4.2 Special considerations for neutrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
U
Q 4.4.3 Methods of calculation ............................ 35
.S 4.4.4 Available data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
,..
rn
Q)
> 4.4.5 Conversion coefficients and analysis:
Q
0 protection quantities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
U
4.5 Conversion Coefficients for Electrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
4.5.1 Introduction...................................... 46
4.5.2 Special considerations for electrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
4.5.3 Methods of calculation ............................ 47
4.5.4 Available data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
4.5.5 Conversion coefficients and analysis:
protection quantities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
5. Relationships Between Quantities ........................ 57
5.1 Introduction............................................. 57
5.2 Changes in the Protection and Operational Quantities . . . . .. 57
5.2.1 General.......................................... 57
5.2.2 Protection quantities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
5.2.3 Operational quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
5.3 Relationships between the Protection and Operational
Quantities: The Performance ofthe Operational
Quantities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
5.3.1 General.......................................... 64
5.3.2 Area monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
5.3.3 Individual monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68
5.3.4 Summary ........................................ 76
5.4 General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77
ANNEXES-Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
ANNEX 1. FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
ANNEX 2. TABLES ............................................ 105
REFERENCES . ............................................... 122
ICRU Reports ................................................ 129

iv Index ......................................................... 133

 Fore\Vord
Following the 1977 Recommendations ofthe Inter-
national Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP), the International Commission on Radiation
Units and Measurements (ICRU) developed a set of
measurable operational quantities to supplement
those dosimetric quantities that are specified in the
human body by the ICRP, sometimes called protec-
tion quantities. The 1990 ICRP Recommendations
made some changes to the specification of these
protection quantities.
As a result, a Joint Task Group of the ICRP and
the ICRU was established with the principal aim of
determining whether the operational quantities still
represent adequately the protection quantities. The
conclusion is that, with some exceptions that are not
of significance for radiological protection, the opera-
tional quantities continue to achieve their objective.
The report provides an extensive and authoritative
set of data linking field quantities, operational quanti-
ties and protection quantities in a way that will be of
help to those working in radiological protection.
It was agreed that the final report, which has been
approved by both Commissions, would be published
in the Annals of the ICRP and as an ICRU Report.
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
v
 Preface
This report was prepared by a Joint Task Group of The ICRU Sponsors ofthe report were:
the International Commission on Radiological Protec- R. S. Caswell
tion (lCRP) and the International Commission on P. M. DeLuca
Radiation Units and Measurements (lCRU). The
terms of reference of the Joint Task Group are Members of the International Commission on Ra-
discussed in the Introduction (Section 1). diological Protection during the preparation of this
The Joint Task Group had the following member- report:
ship: R. H. Clarke (Chairman) A. Kaul
Full Members C. B. Meinhold D. Li
R. H. Thomas (Chairman) G. Dietze (Vice-Chairman) J. Liniecki
L.VV.Brackenbush G. Drexler D. Beninson H. Matsudaira

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

J-L. Chartier H. G. Menzel H. J. Dunster F. Mettler
M.J. Clark L.A. Ilyin vv. K. Sinclair
Corresponding Members vv. Jacobi H. Smith
R. Griffith B. R. L. Siebert H. P.Jammet (Scientific Secretary)
B. Grosswendt M. Zankl
N. Petoussi-Henss Members of the International Commission on Ra-
The membersip of ICRP Commitee 2 during the diation Units and Measurements during the prepara-
period of the Joint Task Group was: tion of this report:
A. Kaul F. A. Fry M. Roy A. Allisy (Chairman) M.Inokuti
(Chairman) J.Inaba J. vv. Stather A. VVambersie (Vice-Chairman) I. Isherwood
A. Bouville I. A. Likhtarev D. M. Taylor R. S. Caswell (Secretary) H. G. Menzel
X. Chen H. Metivier R. H. Thomas P. M. DeLuca H. G. Paretzke
F. T. Cross H. G. Paretzke K. Doi H. H. Rossi
G. Dietze A. R. Reddy L. Feinendegen G. F. VVhitmore
K. F. Eckerman vv. R. Ney (Assistant Secretary)

vii
 Glossary of TerDlS and
Definitions of Quantities
Absorbed Dose Effective Dose
denoted as D, is the quotient of dE by dm, where dE a summation of the equivalent doses in tissues or
is the mean energy imparted by ionising radiation to organs, each multiplied by the appropriate tissue
matter of mass dm, thus weighting factor. It is given by the expression
dE E = ,LwT·HT
D=- T
dm
where HT is the equivalent dose in tissue or organ, T,
The unit of absorbed dose is joule per kilogram (J
and WT is the tissue weighting factor for tissue, T (see

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

kg-I) and its special name is gray (Gy).
Ambient Dose Equivalent
denoted as H*(d), at a point in a radiation field is
the dose equivalent that would be produced by the
corresponding expanded and aligned field in the
ICRU sphere at a depth, d, on the radius opposing
the direction of the aligned field. The unit of ambient
dose equivalent is joule per kilogram (J kg-I) and its
special name is sievert (Sv).
Table 3). The effective dose can also be expressed as
the sum of the doubly weighted absorbed dose in all
the tissues and organs of the body.
Effective Dose Equivalent
denoted as HE, is the weighted average of the
mean dose equivalents, each weighted by a tissue or
organ weighting factor, thus:
HE = ,LwTHT
T

Directional Dose Equivalent where HT is the mean dose equivalent in tissue, T,

denoted as H'(d,n), at a point in a radiation field,
is the dose equivalent that would be produced by the
corresponding expanded field in the ICRU sphere at
depth, d, on a radius in a specified direction, D. The
unit of directional dose equivalent is joule per kilo-
gram (J kg-I) and its special name is sievert (Sv).
Dose Equivalent
denoted as H, is the product of Q and D at a point
in tissue, where D is the absorbed dose and Q is the
quality factor at that point, thus
H=QD.
The unit of dose equivalent is joule per kilogram (J
kg-I) and its special name is sievert (Sv).
and WT is the tissue weighting factor for tissue, T, as
formerly recommended by the ICRP (see Table 1).
Energy Imparted
denoted as E, by the ionising radiation to matter in
a volume is given by:
E = Rin - Rout + 2,Q
where R in is the radiant energy incident on the
volume, i.e., the sum of all the energies (excluding
rest energies) of all those charged and uncharged
ionising particles that enter the volume; Rout is the
radiant energy emerging from the volume, i.e., the
sum of all the energies (excluding rest energies) of all
those charged and uncharged ionising particles that

Dose Equivalent Indexl , HI TABLE 1. - Tissue weighting factors (ICRP Publication 26)a
maximum dose equivalent within the ICRU sphere Tissue or organ Tissue weighting factor, W'f
centered at the point in space to which the quantity
is assigned. The outer 0.07 mm thick shell is ignored. Gonads 0.25
Bone marrow (red) 0.12
It was also called the unrestricted dose equivalent Lung 0.12
index (see ICRU, 1980) (see also ICRU, 1988 for a Breast 0.15
definition of deep and shallow dose equivalent in- Thyroid 0.03
dex). Bone surfaces 0.03
Remainder 0.30
a ICRP (1977); see paragraph 105 of ICRP Publication 26 for
1 Obsolete quantity; included for completeness. further details of Remainder Tissues. ix
 leave the volume; and IQ is the sum of all changes of
the rest mass energy of nuclei and elementary
particles in any interactions that occur in the vol-
ume. (In the sum, decreases are denoted by ( + ) and
increases are denoted by (- ).) The expectation value
of E, termed the mean energy imparted and denoted E,
is closely related to the definition of the absorbed
dose,D .
Equivalent Dose
denoted as HT,R, is the absorbed dose in an organ or
tissue multiplied by the relevant radiation weight-
ing factor (see Table 2), thus:
HT,R = WR • DT,R
where DT,R is the absorbed dose averaged over the
tissue or organ, T, due to radiation R, and WR is the
radiation weighting factor for radiation, R. When the
radiation field is composed of radiations with differ-
ent values ofwR, the absorbed dose is subdivided into
blocks, each multiplied by its own value of W R and
summed to determine the total equivalent dose, i.e.,
HT = LWR . DT,R
R
The unit of equivalent dose is joule per kilogram (J
kg- l) and its special name is sievert (Sv).
Fluence
denoted as cP, is the quotient of dN by da , where
dN is the number of particles incident on a sphere of
cross-sectional area da, thus:
dN
cP=-
da
TABLE 2. - Values for radiation weighting factors (ICRP
Publication 60)a
Types and energy ra nge of radiation
Photons, all energies
Electrons and muons, all energies b
Neutrons, energy
< 10keV
10-100 keV
> 100 keV to 2 MeV
> 2-20 MeV
> 20 MeV
Protons , other than recoil protons, energy > 2 MeV
Alpha particles, fission fragments , heavy nuclei
a ICRP (1991a).
b Excluding Auger electrons emitted from nuclei bound to DNA,
x for which special micr odosimetric considera tions are needed.
Individual Dose Equivalent, penetrating,
Hp(d)
the dose equivalent in soft tissue below a specified
point on the body at depth, d , which is appropriate
for strongly penetrating radiation.
Individual Dose Equivalent, superficial,
H.(d)
the dose equivalent in soft tissue below a specified
point on the body at a depth, d , which is appropriate
for weakly penetrating radiation (superseded by
personal dose equivalent).
Kerma,K
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
the quotient ofdEtr by dm , where dEt r is the sum of
the initial kinetic energies of all the charged ionising
particles liberated by uncharged ionising particles in
a volume element of mass dm , thus:
dE t r
K=-
dm
The unit of kerma is joule per kilogram (J kg- I) and
its special name is gray (Gy).
Linear Energy Transfer
or linear collision stopping power, L, of a material,
for a charged particle, is the quotient of dE by dl,
where dE is the mean energy lost by the particle,
owing to collisions with electrons, in traversing a
distance dL, thus:
Operational Quantity
a quantity with which, by means of its measure-
ment, compliance with the system of protection may
be demonstrated. Examples of operational quanti-
Radiation ties are ambient dose equivalent, directional dose
we ighting
factor, WR
equivalent and personal dose equivalent.
1
1 Organ Dose
5 for radiation protection purposes. It is the mean
10 absorbed dose, D T , in a specified tissue or organ of
20
10
the human body, T, given by
5
5 DT = (l/mT)imTDdm or E~mT
20
where mT is the mass of tissue or organ, D is the
absorbed dose in the mass element dm, and €T is the
total energy imparted in the tissue or organ.
 Personal Dose Equivalent TABLE 3. - Tissue weighting factors a

Tissue or organ Tissue weighting factor,

denoted as Hp(d), is the dose equivalent in soft WT

tissue at an appropriate depth, d, below a specified Gonads 0.20

point on the body. The unit of personal dose equiva- Bone marrow (red) 0.12
lent is joule per kilogram (J kg-I) and its special Colon 0.12
Lung 0.12
name is sievert (Sv).
Stomach 0.12
Bladder 0.05
Breast 0.05
Protection Quantities
Liver 0.05
dosimetric quantities specified in the human body Oesophagus 0.05
Thyroid 0.05
by the ICRP. Examples of protection quantities are
Skin 0.01
effective dose and equivalent dose. Bone surface 0.01
Remainder 0.05

Quality Factor a See footnotes on Table 2 of ICRP Publication 60 for further

details.

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

a function, Q, of unrestricted linear energy trans-
fer, L, in water. Values of Q(L) as a function of L are
given in ICRP Publication 60 (lCRP, 1991a) by the
following relations:
Q(L) = 1 (L < 10)
Q(L) = 0.32L - 2.2 (10 :s; L :s; 100)
Q(L) = 300/~L (L> 100)
where L is expressed in keV /Lm -1.
The mean quality factor, QT, in a specified tissue or
organ, T, is given by
where DT is the mean absorbed dose to the tissue or
organ, mT is its mass, and Q and D are the quality
factors and the absorbed dose in the mass element
dm, respectively.
Relative Biological Effectiveness, RBEM
the ratio of the absorbed dose of a reference
radiation to the absorbed dose of a given test radia-
tion required to produce the same level of response,
all other conditions being kept constant. The sub-
script M refers to a stochastic effect.
Radiation Weighting Factor
A factor denoted WR, by which the tissue or organ
absorbed dose is multiplied to reflect the higher
RBEM values for neutrons and alpha particles com-
pared with low LET radiations. Table 2 gives the
values of radiation weighting factor used for radiologi-
cal protection purposes as now recommended by
ICRP.
When calculation of the radiation weighting fac-
tors for neutrons requires a continuous function, the
following approximation can be used:
-(In (2En»2]
wR = 5 + 17 exp [ 6
where En is the neutron energy in MeV. There is no
intention to imply any biological meaning to this
relationship. It is simply a tool for calculation.
For radiation types and energy that are not in-
cluded in this table, an approximation of WR can
be obtained by calculation of Q at a depth of 10 mm
in the ICRU sphere:
- f
Q = 151 JLQ(L)D(L)dL
where D(L)dL is the absorbed dose at 10 mm be-
tween linear energy transfer, L, and L + dL; and
Q(L) is the quality factor at 10 mm [paragraphA14,
ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a)].2
Tissue Weighting Factor, WT
a factor by which the equivalent dose to a tissue or
organ is multiplied in order to account for the
relative stochastic detriment resulting from the expo-
sure of different tissues and organs. (See Table 3 for
the tissue weighting factors as now recommended by
ICRP.)
2 The symbol D(L) has historically been used by the ICRP for
the absorbed dose between linear energy transfer, L, and L + dL.
ICRU uses DL for the same quantity. In both instances the more
usual mathematical symbol would be dD/dL.

xi
 Conversion Coefficients for use
in Radiological Protection
Against External Radiation
1.
(1) This report summarises the work of a Joint
Task Group on Dose-Related Quantities for Radiologi-
cal Protection against External Radiation estab-
lished in the latter part of 1991. This group was
appointed by both the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the Interna-
tional Commission on Radiation Units and Measure-
ments (ICRU).
(2) In 1990, the ICRP approved new basic recom-
mendations that replaced those of ICRP Publication
26 (ICRP, 1977) and those contained in Statements
supplementary to that publication (ICRP, 1978, 1980,
1985). The new recommendations, which are pub-
lished in ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a), include
new quantities for use in radiological protection. The
new quantities demand a review of much of the basic
data used in the protection against exposure to
sources of ionising radiations, both internal and
external to the human body. This report is solely
concerned with the implications for external expo-
sure.
(3) As explained in some detail in Section 2, two
sets of quantities are of importance in radiological
protection. For example, dose limits are expressed in
terms of protection quantities and compliance with
these limits is demonstrated by a determination of
the appropriate operational quantity.
(4) One particular aspect of the new ICRP recom-
mendations is that they represent a significant depar-
ture from those in ICRP Publication 26 with respect
to radiation weighting. ICRP Publication 26 pro-
vided quality factors to account for differences in
radiation quality. These quality factors were in-
tended to facilitate the assessment of dose equiva-
lent either by means of measurement or by calcula-
tion using the Q(L) - L relationship.3 The ICRU
used (and still uses) quality factors in the definition
of the operational quantities. In contrast to the
recommendations of ICRP Publication 26, ICRP
Publication 60 specifies the use of the radiation
weighting factors, WR, to derive protection quanti-
ties. The ICRP further suggested that the ICRU
3 Throughout this report, for simplicity L is used to mean Loo,
the linear energy transfer in water.
Introduction
operational quantities, if computed using a revised
Q(L) - L relationship given in ICRP Publication 60,
would be unlikely to underestimate the equivalent
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
dose. (The numerical specifications of the two Q(L) -
L relationships in ICRP Publications 26 and 60 are
different.) One of the important tasks of this report is
to explain the implications and effects of all these
changes.
(5) One ofthe principal objectives of the ICRU is to
develop internationally acceptable recommenda-
tions for quantities and units of radiation and radio-
activity in the radiation protection field. In this
regard, the ICRU carries out its work in close
cooperation with the ICRP.
(6) The charge 4 to the Joint Task Group was to
provide:
• fluence to effective dose and effective dose-
equivalent calculations for a variety of radia-
tions and energies for reference man and for
15-year-old, 5-year-old, and 3-month-old chil-
dren;
• fluence to ambient dose equivalent, directional
dose equivalent, individual dose equivalent (pen-
etrating), and individual dose-equivalent calcula-
tions (superficial);5 and
• a detailed discussion of the relationship between
the two sets of calculations.
(7) The three principal protection quantities cur-
rently recommended for use in radiological protec-
tion are
• the mean absorbed dose in an organ or tissue,
DT;
• the equivalent dose in an organ or tissue, H T ;
and
• the effective dose, E.
(8) These quantities are defined in the Glossary
and discussed in detail in Section 2. The protection
quantities are not directly measurable, but may be
related by calculation to the radiation field in which
the exposure occurs. To form a bridge between the
4 The charge to the Joint Task Group was slightly different from
each Commission. This version combines both sets of charges.
5 In view of subsequent changes in nomenclature, this sentence
would now be written "fluence to ambient dose equivalent,
directional dose equivalent, and personal dose equivalent". 1
 protection quantities and the radiation field, the
ICRU has developed operational quantities for mea-
surement of exposures to external radiations. These
operational quantities were first defined in JCRU
Report 39 (ICRU, 1985), and subsequent changes to
the definitions were made and described in JCRU
Report 47 (ICRU, 1992a). The operational quantities
were developed by the ICRU in response to the needs
set out in JCRP Publication 26 (lCRP, 1977) to
measure the effective dose equivalent, HE' An impor-
tant facet ofthe Task Group's work was to determine
whether these operational quantities are still suit-
able for monitoring the effective dose, E (see Section
5 for discussion).
(9) The operational dose-equivalent quantities de-
fined by the ICRU for physical measurement are:
• the ambient dose equivalent, H*(d);
• the directional dose equivalent, H'(d, D); and
• the personal dose equivalent, Hp(d).
(10) These operational quantities, including other
related quantities used in radiation protection dosim-
etry, are described in JCRU Report 51 (ICRU, 1993b)
(see also Section 2 and the Glossary to this report).
(11) The purpose of this report is to present
conversion coefficients for both sets of quantities
(protection and operational) and to examine their
relationships. Conversion coefficients have been pro-
duced for idealised irradiation geometries, monoen-
ergetic radiations in various anthropomorphic mod-
els (mathematical models), and measurement
phantoms. The data given here are intended to
provide the basis for comparison between the protec-
tion and operational quantities and to examine the
impact ofthe new recommendations on these quanti-
ties. The review of data by the Joint Task Group
provides an authoritative and stable data set for
application to dosimetry in radiological protection.
In addition, the data presented also provide a basis
for the establishment of calibration programmes.
However, it is not intended to discuss this latter topic
in any detail here and the interested reader is
referred to appropriate reports of the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO).
(12) The data in this report revise and supersede
much of the material in JCRP Publication 51 (lCRP,
2
1987) and JCRU Report 43 (ICRU, 1988), which gave
conversion coefficients for the dosimetric quantities
previously recommended in JCRP Publication 26
(lCRP, 1977) and JCRU Report 39 (lCRU, 1985).
(13) A brief synopsis of the four following Sections
that make up this report is as follows:
• Section 2 defines the quantities used in radiologi-
cal protection, followed by a discussion of the
interrelationships between these quantities. Em-
phasis is placed on a description of the theoreti-
cal basis of both the protection quantities and
operational quantities.
• Section 3 provides a brief summary of the meth-
ods used to calculate the quantities needed.
• Section 4 gives the conversion coefficients that
relate either air kerma free-in-air or particle
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
fluence to the protection and operational quanti-
ties. Conversion coefficients are given for organ
absorbed dose, effective dose, ambient dose
equivalent, directional dose equivalent, and per-
sonal dose equivalent as appropriate. These data
are given for monoenergetic photons, neutrons,
and electrons over a limited range of energy and
for several irradiation geometries.
• Section 5 analyses the relationships between the
protection and operational quantities, and dis-
cusses the implications of the recommended
conversion coefficients for radiological protec-
tion. There are two aspects to this analysis:
firstly, the influence ofthe various changes in the
new recommendations of the ICRP on both sets
of quantities is discussed; secondly, the perfor-
mance of the operational quantities in monitor-
ing exposure to external radiation in terms of the
protection quantities, as defined in JCRP Publi-
cation 60, is reviewed. This review is particu-
larly important because the set of operational
quantities, as presently defined, was designed to
monitor the protection quantities recommended
in JCRP Publication 26 and it is necessary to
understand the performance of these opera-
tional quantities in the new regime of JCRP
Publication 60.
 2. Quantities Used In Radiological Protection For External Radiation
2.1. Introduction
(14) Two types of quantities are specifically defined
for use in radiological protection: protection quanti-
ties, which are defined by the ICRP, and operational
quantities, which are defined by the ICRU. The most
recent set of protection quantities recommended in
JCRP Publication 60 (ICRP, 1991a) includes the
effective dose, E, and the tissue or organ equivalent
doses, H T . These quantities are not directly measur-
able but are amenable to calculation if the conditions
of irradiation are known.
(15) The ICRU has defined a set of operational
quantities for area and individual monitoring. These
quantities were developed in response to the ICRP's
recommendations in JCRP Publication 26 (ICRP,
1977) and designed to provide an estimate of the
protection quantities in existence at that time (ICRU,
1985, 1993b) and to serve as calibration quantities
for dosemeters used in monitoring. For area monitor-
ing, the appropriate operational quantities are the
ambient dose equivalent, H*(d), and the directional
dose equivalent, H'(d,n). For individual monitoring,
the personal dose equivalent, H/d), is the appropri-
ate operational quantity. These operational quanti-
ties are defined in the glossary.
(16) The evolution of these protection and opera-
tional quantities has led to a system of correlated
quantities, which is illustrated by the scheme in Fig.
1. A brief history of the development of these quanti-
ties follows in Section 2.2.
(17) Both the protection quantities and opera-
tional quantities can be related to the basic physical
quantities fiuence, cP; air kerma free-in-air,6 Ka; and
the tissue-absorbed dose, D (ICRU, 1980, 1993b).
The physical quantities and operational quantities
are the basis for measuring external radiation. Na-
tional and international standards laboratories main-
tain standards and reference radiation fields that
are specified and described in terms of these quanti-
ties for calibration of instruments and dosemeters.
(18) Conversion coefficients,7 which relate opera-
tional and protection quantities to physical quanti-
ties, are calculated using radiation transport codes
and the appropriate mathematical models. These
transport codes are described in Section 3, and their
specific application is discussed in Section 4.
(19) This report presents calculated data and gives
6 The quantity air kerma free-in-air is often referred to simply
as 'air kerma.' This use may be confusing because it is possible to
have air kerma in materials other than air, e.g., in a water
phantom. Unless the circumstances are clear, it is usually better
to give the full specification.
7 Because conversion coefficients have physical dimensions, this
term is preferred in this report to the term 'conversion factors,'
which has been used in earlier scientific literature.
the numerical relationship between the physical
quantities and the protection and operational quan-
tities. These relationships are given in Section 4 and
its Annexes in the form of tables and figures in which
the conversion coefficients, ElcP, HlcP, E I K a , and
HI K a , linking the protection and operational quanti-
ties to the physical quantities are presented.
2.2. The Evolution of Quantities for
Radiological Protection against
External Radiation
2.2.1. General
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
(20) Some of the earliest radiological protection
quantities were directly expressed in terms of field
quantities. Since the 1950s, following the introduc-
tion of the concept of the critical organ,8 there has
been a need to relate parameters of the radiation
field to the absorbed dose (and other dose-related
quantities) inside the human body to conditions of
radiation exposure. This brief review, which consid-
ers the historical relationship between the protec-
tion and operational quantities, is limited to develop-
ments during the past 35 years. The historical
relationship between the two sets of quantities is
closely intertwined.
(21) The protection quantities have developed
from the concept of dose equivalent through the
effective dose equivalent to the currently recom-
mended effective dose. The operational quantities
have developed from the maximum dose equivalent
(MADE) through the dose-equivalent indexes to the
currently recommended ambient, directional, and
personal dose-equivalent quantities.
2.2.2. Dose equivalent
(22) The dose equivalent was defined in a manner
similar to that of its predecessor (the RBE dose)
following the introduction of the quality factor, Q, to
replace the RBE (ICRP/ICRU, 1963). The dose
equivalent, DE, was expressed in the form
(DE) = D(QF)(DF) . .. 9 (2.1)
where D was the absorbed dose in the tissue of
interest, modified by several 'modifying factors.' This
8 In the 1958 recommendations of the ICRP, the blood-forming
organs, the gonads and the lenses of the eyes were regarded as
critical tissues in the case of whole body exposure (ICRP, 1958).
9 The mathematical symbols in this equation are obsolete. They
are retained because they are used in the reference cited. In
particular, the symbol 'QF' is used for quality factor. Throughout
most of this report the currently used symbols 'Q' and 'Q(L), are
used for quality factor. 3
 Physical quantities
CalC;U]atcd using ~L) and
aD/
simple phantoms sphere or
slab) validated by
measurements
calc;u]ations
Operational quantities
• Ambient dose equivalent, H*(d)
L
• Directional dose equivalent, H' (d,il)
Personal dose equivalent, H,(d) .. ___ Compared by measurement
and calc;u]atlons (us.ing w.., W T ,
and anthropomorphic
phantoms)
Related by calibration
and calculation
Monitored quantities:
Instrument responses!
Fig. 1. Relationship of quantities for radiological protection monitoring purposes.
was an open-ended definition because only two of the
modifying factors were specified: the 'quality factor'
(QF) and the 'dose distribution factor' (DF) (ICRP,
1964). The dose distribution factor and the other
modifying factors mentioned in the definition were
later abandoned.
2.2.3. The maximum dose equivalent (MADE)
(23) The operational quantity corresponding to the
dose equivalent became informally known as MADE
and was later adopted by the ICRU (lCRU, 1971;
Patterson and Thomas, 1973). Protection was af-
forded by determining the distribution of the point
quantity,lO DE, with depth in a phantom and compar-
ing the maximum of the distribution (MADE) with
the prescribed critical organ doses. For low-energy
radiations for which the absorbed dose distribution
is steeply declining within the body, only those
organs near the surface of the body are irradiated.
This technique is conservative.
2.2.4. Conversion coefficients
(24) Conversion coefficients relating the neutron
fluence rate to the maximum dose-equivalent rate
were given for neutrons up to 30 MeV in NCRP
Report No. 20 (NCRP, 1957). The ICRP first recom-
mended fluence-to-dose-equivalent conversion coeffi-
cients for neutrons in JCRP Publication 4 (lCRP,
1964), which extended recommendations up to neu-
tron energies of 1 GeV The recommendations were
10 In practice this quantity is averaged over a small volume of
4 tissue (typically 1 cm 3 ).
• Fluenc:e, t/)
• Kerma,K
Calc;u]atcd using w..' WT,
• Absorbed dose, D and anthropomorphic
~.
Protection quantities
· Organ absorbed dose, DT
· Organ equivalent dose HT
· Effective dose, E
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
also extended in JCRP Publication 15 (lCRP, 1970)
and its supplement, JCRP Publication 21 (ICRP,
1973). JCRP Publication 15 explicitly states: "An
alternative approach to the determination of the
dose equivalent by the use of quality factors and an
assessment of absorbed dose is to convert the par-
ticle fluence incident upon the body directly by the
use of conversion factors." In addition to giving
values ofthe 'mean quality factor,'ll Q, for electrons,
neutrons, photons, and protons over a wide range of
energy, JCRP Publication 21 also recommended con-
version coefficients that were intended to facilitate
estimation of MADE.
2.2.5. Dose equivalent indexes
(25) Many different phantoms were used to calcu-
late MADE, including semi-infinite slabs of tissue-
like material such as water, polystyrene, and the
so-called 'standard tissue' [the precursor of ICRU
tissue, see JCRU Report 33 (lCRU, 1980)). Some
calculations were made in finite phantoms (e.g.,
parallelepipeds, right cylinders, and elliptical cylin-
ders). To standardise the calculation of conversion
coefficients, the ICRU specified the ICRU sphere as
the phantom of choice and MADE in the sphere
became more rigorously defined as the dose-equiva-
II For consistency throughout this report, the term 'mean
quality factor,' Q, is used. Other terms used in the literature are
'average quality factor' and, sometimes, 'effective quality factor.'
The reader should be sure of the context in which these terms are
used: they are often interchangeable but 'effective quality factor'
is used in various ways in the literature.
lent indexes (lCRU, 1976) (see the Glossary to this
report).
2.2.6. Effective dose equivalent
(26) In ICRP Publication 26, the ICRP revised its
basic recommendations and introduced the precur-
sor of the concept of the effective dose equivalent, as
a protection quantity to be used in internal dosim-
etry (lCRP, 1977). In the Stockholm Statement ofthe
ICRP (lCRP, 1978), the effective dose equivalent, HE,
was defined by the equation:
(2.2)
where T represents a tissue or organ of the human
body, HT is the dose equivalent in tissue (T), and WT
is a weighting factor specified by the Commission
(lCRP, 1977).
(27) The intent ofthe effective dose equivalent was
to express non-uniform exposures in terms of their
equivalent whole-body exposure. Originally con-
ceived for internal dosimetry, the concept of the
effective dose equivalent was later also applied to
external radiation exposure.
(28) The dose equivalent indexes initially re-
mained the operational quantities of choice recom-
mended for external radiation exposures in ICRP
Publication 26.
2.2.7. Operational quantities
(29) In 1979, after application of the concept of the
effective dose equivalent was extended to external
radiation exposures, the ICRU established a commit-
tee to study methods of determining dose equiva-
lents from exposure to sources of ionising radiation
outside the human body. On the basis of a review of
the desirable properties of operational quantities,
the committee recommended that the index quanti-
ties be replaced for radiological protection monitor-
ing by two quantities: the ambient dose equivalent,
H*, and the directional dose equivalent, H'. The
committee also recommended adoption of two quan-
tities for individual monitoring: the individual dose
equivalent-penetrating, H p , and the individual dose
equivalent-superficial, Hs. (These quantities are de-
fined in the Glossary to this report.) The ICRU
accepted these recommendations and they are pub-
lished in ICRU Reports 39 and 43 (lCRU, 1985,
1988). A complete and current compilation of all
operational quantities currently recommended by
the ICRU is available in ICRU Report 51 (ICRU,
1993b).
2.2.8. ICRP Publication 51
(30) In parallel with these developments, the ICRP
began preparation of a revised version of ICRP
Publication 21, which was eventually published as
ICRP Publication 51 (lCRP, 1987). This revised
report was intended to adapt the data in ICRP
Publication 21 and its underlying approach to con-
form with the basic radiological protection recommen-
dations issued in ICRP Publication 26 (lCRP, 1977)
and its later modifications (lCRP, 1978, 1980, 1985),
and to take account of developments in the ICRV's
recommendations with respect to the operational
quantities (lCRU, 1980, 1985).
2.2.9. The Paris Statement of the ICRP
(ICRP, 1985)
(31) In response to new information on the RBE for
neutrons, the ICRP issued a Statement in which the
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
Commission recommended in the case of neutrons-
"an increase in Q by a factor of 2. The permitted
approximation for Q for neutrons thus changes from
10 to 20. These changes relate only to neutrons, and
no other changes in Q are recommended at this
time." In the tabulations of conversion coefficients
given in ICRP Publication 51 (lCRP, 1987), this
latter recommendation was interpreted by suggest-
ing that the numerical values of conversion coeffi-
cients be increased by a factor of2.
2.2.10. ICRU Report 40 (ICRU, 1986)
(32) In 1986 the ICRU published, as ICRU Report
40, the recommendations of a Joint Task Group of
the ICRP and the ICRU entitled 'The Quality Factor
in Radiation Protection' (lCRU, 1986). This report
discusses in some detail the role of the quality factor
in radiological protection and its relationship to
RBE, lineal energy, and linear energy transfer.
(33) One of the important recommendations ofthe
report was that a change in the numerical values of
the recommended values of the quality factor for
intermediate and high-LET radiations was indicated
because the then currently recommended values ofQ
did not provide the same degree of protection for all
types of radiation. The Task Group preferred to
specify radiation quality in terms of lineal energy in
a sphere of ICRU tissue (1 /Lm in diameter) and
provided a relationship between lineal energy and
LET. In addition, a numerical relationship between
the quality factor, Q, and lineal energy was proposed.
(34) The recommendations contained in ICRU
Report 40 were considered by the ICRP when it
formulated its new basic recommendations, which
were published as ICRP Publication 60 (lCRP, 1991a).
2.2.11. ICRP Publication 60
(35) ICRP Publication 60 introduced several
changes of consequence for external radiation dosim-
etry. These changes are discussed in detail in this 5
 section and in Sections 3-5 of ICRP Publication 60.
With the publication ofthese revised basic recommen-
dations, a situation similar to that which occurred in
1977 arises and, just as it was necessary to revise
ICRP Publication 21, it is now necessary to revise
ICRP Publication 51 to adapt its data and underly-
ing approach to be in accordance with the basic
radiological protection recommendations now pub-
lished in ICRP Publication 60. This review is doubly
important because the current ICRU operational
quantities were specified to monitor the protection
quantities given in ICRP Publication 26 (and its
subsequent modifications), which in turn are re-
flected in the data of ICRP Publication 51.
2.2.12. ICRU Reports 47 and 51
(36) ICRU Report 51 simplified the quantity for
individual monitoring by replacing the individual
dose-equivalent quantities introduced in ICRU Re-
ports 39 and 43 with the personal dose equivalent
(lCRU, 1993b) (see the Glossary to this report).
ICRU Report 47 suggested that, for the purposes of
dosemeter calibration for electrons and photons un-
der reference conditions (e.g., monodirectional radia-
tion beam with frontal incidence), the dose equiva-
lent in a 30 cm X 30 cm X 15 cm slab of ICRU
tissue-equivalent material provides an adequate ap-
proximation to the backscatter of the human body so
that personal dose equivalent in the human trunk at
a depth of 10 mm may be estimated (lCRU, 1992a).
2.2.13. Summary
(37) During the 14-year span between ICRP Publi-
cations 26 and 60, the ICRU has continued to
develop the dosimetric quantities that were first
introduced in 1985. The underlying conceptual frame-
work of radiation dosimetry embedded in the recom-
mendations of ICRP Publication 60 represents a
considerable departure from those given in ICRP
Publication 26. Furthermore, the significant improve-
ments in the mathematical models, transport codes,
and physical databases used to determine the neces-
sary absorbed dose (and dose-related) distributions
warrant a review of the data in ICRP Publication 51.
2.3. Absorbed Dose
2.3.1. Absorbed dose
(38) The absorbed dose is the quotient ofthe mean
energy imparted by ionising radiation to matter in a
specified volume element divided by the mass of
matter in the volume (see the Glossary in this
report). The quantity is defined with the intention of
providing a physical measure that is correlated with
6 the effects of ionising radiation. For example, it is
defined at a point in the tissues or organs of a human
body or in phantoms (mathematical models) used to
define the operational quantities (lCRU, 1993b).
When averaged over tissues and organs, the ab-
sorbed dose is used to define the protection quanti-
ties (ICRP, 1991a).
2.3.2. Absorbed dose distributions
(39) For all types of external radiation, determina-
tion of both the protection and operational quantities
begins with calculation ofthe absorbed dose distribu-
tion in the computational model of the body or
reference computational model. 12 As described in
some detail in Section 3, such calculations of the
absorbed dose distributions are typically performed
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
using Monte Carlo codes.
2.3.3. Mean absorbed dose
(40) The mean absorbed dose averaged over a
specified tissue or organ, D T , is used to define the
protection quantities (ICRP, 1991a). When the ab-
sorbed dose distribution in the body or phantom is
known, calculation of DT is straightforward and
given by
DT = I/mT i mT
Ddm = I/mT i mT
dE
-d dm
m
(2.3)
where mT is the mass of the tissue or organ and
D = dE/dm is the absorbed dose in the mass element,
dm (ICRU, 1993b).
(41) For a detailed description of the calculation of
the mean absorbed dose in any region, including a
discussion of the validity of some of the approxima-
tions used [e.g., continuous slowing down approxima-
tion (CSDA) and the kerma approximation], see
Section 3.4.2 'General features of the transport
codes.'
2.4. Radiation Weighting
2.4.1. General
(42) In calculation of both the protection and
operational quantities, the absorbed dose distribu-
tions are weighted to account for the biological
effectiveness of either the charged particles deposit-
ing the absorbed dose at the point of interaction in
tissue or (since ICRP Publication 60) of the radia-
tions incident on the body.
(43) The methods of radiation weighting recom-
mended in ICRP Publication 60 represent a signifi-
12 Throughout this report, the term 'model' has been used in
place of the more familiar term 'phantom' except where 'phantom'
has become an integral part of an expression, as in 'MIRD
Phantom' (see ICRU Report 48) (ICRU, 1992b).
cant departure from the recommendations in ICRP
Publication 26, in which the same method of radia-
tion weighting was recommended for both the protec-
tion and the operational quantities, the weighting
factor, called the quality factor, Q, being determined
by the Q(L) - L relationship and the value of L (the
linear energy transfer in water) at the point of
interaction. In ICRP Publication 60, ICRP now speci-
fies a new radiation weighting factor, WR, for the
protection quantities while the method proposed by
the ICRD for the operational quantities remains
unchanged [although specific changes in the Q(L) - L
relationship are made]. The new radiation-weight-
ing factor, WR, is determined by the radiation inci-
dent on the body and is applied to the mean absorbed
dose over the organ or tissue of interest. The quality
factor is still applied to the absorbed dose at the
point of interaction.
2.4.2. Radiation weighting for protection
quantities
(44) For the protection quantities, the ICRP has
defined the radiation-weighting factor, WR, by which
the organ absorbed dose is multiplied to account for
the relative detriment of different types of radiation.
Numerical values ofwR specified in terms of type and
energy for most, but not all, radiations incident on
the body are given in Table 1 in ICRP Publication 60
(and reproduced in the Glossary of this report).
Furthermore, "for radiation types and energy that
are not included in this table, an approximation of
WR can be obtained by calculation of Q at a 10 mm
depth in the ICRD sphere:
-
Q = 151 JrL Q(L)D(L)dL (2.4)
where D(L)dL is the absorbed dose at 10 mm be-
tween linear energy transfer Land L + dL; and Q(L)
is the quality factor of L at 10 mm" (Paragraph A14,
ICRP Publication 60). The symbol D(L)dL has histori-
cally been used by the ICRP for the absorbed dose
between linear energy transfer, L, and L + dL. ICRD
uses DLdL for the same quantity. In both instances,
the more usual mathematical symbol would be
dD / dL whence:
Q = - Ii Q(L) . -dD . dL (2.4a)
DL dL
An important distinction between Q and WR is that,
whereas the former is a direct function of L, the
latter is related to relative biological effectiveness
and is only indirectly related to L.
(45) If the body or a phantom is irradiated by
different types of radiation, each with its own radia-
tion-weightingfactor, the absorbed doses and equiva-
lent doses are usually calculated separately for each
radiation. The contributions from each radiation
component are then added. In the case of neutrons,
the radiation-weighting factor varies with energy
and the computation is made by integration over the
entire energy spectrum.
2.4.3. Radiation weighting factors
for electrons and photons
(46) The radiation-weighting factor, WR, is defined
to be unity for electrons and photons of all energies
(Table 1 of ICRP Publication 60). Consequently, the
equivalent doses are numerically equal to the ab-
sorbed doses at the point ofinterest.
2.4.4. Radiation weighting factors
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
for neutrons
(47) The ICRP-recommended radiation-weighting
factors, WR, as a function of neutron energy (Table 1
of ICRP Publication 60) are reproduced in the Glos-
sary to this report. As an approximation to the
values of WR, the ICRP also recommended the rela-
tionship given in Annex A of ICRP Publication 60 for
convenience in calculation of radiation weighting
factors for neutrons, wR(E n ):
(2.5)
where En is the neutron energy in MeV. The values of
WR given by this equation have been used to evaluate
the reference data for neutrons.
2.4.5. Radiation weighting for operational
quantities
(48) The operational quantities are defined at a
point in tissue or a phantom in terms of the quality
factor, Q, and the absorbed dose, D. The quality
factor, which is to be applied to the absorbed dose
deposited by a charged particle, is obtained by
assuming that the stopping power of the particle in
water is numerically equal to L in the appropriate
Q(L) - L relationship.
2.4.6. Q(L) - L relationship
(49) The quality factor has a functional depen-
dence on the linear energy transfer, L, in water. The
numerical relation between Q(L) and L specified by
the ICRP in Table A-I in Annex A of Publication 60
and shown in Fig. 2 is given by three equations:
Q(L) = 1 (L < 10 keVlJlm) (2.6a)
Q(L) = 0.32L - 2.2 (10:::; L :::; 100 keVlJlm) (2.6b)
Q(L) = 300/,)L (L> 100 keV/Jlm) (2.6c) 7

- - - - Q(L) ICRP Publi:adoa 26
25 --- Q(L) ICRP Publi:adon 60
~20
~15
5 mTDT
Fig. 2. Quality factor as a function oflinear energy transfer as
recommended in ICRP Publications 26 and 60.
There is a trivial discontinuity atL = 100 keV//Lm,
which needs to be recognised when computer calcula-
tions are made.
(50) Section 2.4.2 discusses the combined inft.uence
on conversion coefficients of changes in the ICRP-
recommended Q(L) - L relationship and in charged-
particle stopping powers. This relationship was used
to calculate the conversion coefficients recommended
in ICRP Publication 51 (lCRP, 1987), and in this
report, for comparison of data for HE and E. The Q -
L relationship recommended in Publication 60 was
used in new calculations of the operational quanti-
ties, H*, H', and H p , given in this report (see Section
5).
2.4.7. Mean quality factor, Q
(51) The quality factor averaged over an absorbed
dose spectrum in L may be obtained by integrating
over the entire spectrum in L:
Q = r
JL
Q(L)' dD. dL/ r dD. dL
dL JL dL
(2.7)
(52) For external irradiation by neutrons, the
value of Q at a point of interest in a tissue phantom
may be determined by separately considering the
neutron and secondary photon contributions to the
absorbed dose, then calculating an absorbed dose
weighted mean of the corresponding quality factors.
The acceptable approximation for the value of Q for
secondary photons is taken to be unity. The value of
the mean neutron quality factors, Qn, is calculated
from:
where En is the neutron energy, kr (En) is the tissue
kerma coefficient for neutrons at energy E, rp(En) is
the neutron ft.uence at the point of interest, and
Qn(En) is the neutron quality factor for a small
8 volume of tissue irradiated by neutrons.
(53) Values of Qn(En) have been calculated as a
function of neutron energy by Schuhmacher and
Siebert (1992).
(54) If a value of the mean quality factor over a
volume (such as a tissue or organ) is required,
dose-weighted averaging over the volume must be
applied and Q is given by:
Q
1
= --
i r de(L)
J, Q(L)--dLdm. (2.9)
mT L dm
2.4.8. Stopping power
(55) The quality factor, Q, is defined as a function
of the unrestricted linear energy transfer, L, in water
(see Glossary). The Q(L) - L relationship has been
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
selected by the ICRP to provide, amongst other
things, values ofQ for neutrons compatible with the
available information about the relative biological
effectiveness of neutrons for biological endpoints
relevant to the induction of stochastic effects in man.
In particular, the choice of the 1990 relationship was
intended to provide a value of Q of about 20 for
neutrons with energies around 1 MeV. The linear
energy transfer is numerically equal to the stopping
power, S, of charged particles in water. Since the
issue of ICRP Publication 51, new values of the
stopping power have been recommended for protons
and alpha particles (lCRU, 1993a). Data are now
available for water in both the liquid and vapour
phases, whereas earlier data were for water only in
the vapour phase. Any significant change in the
values of L would call for a revision of the Q(L) - L
rela tionshi p.
(56) The new values of stopping power in liquid
water have been used with the 1990 Q(L) - L
relationship by the authors whose data have been
summarised in this report, so it was important to
consider the magnitude of the effect on Q of the new
values of L. The effect, shown by two of the curves in
Fig. 3, is a reduction in Q by no more than about 20%
and is not sufficient to make the values of Q incom-
patible with the RBE data. It is therefore not neces-
sary to change the 1990 Q(L) - L relationship.
Figure 3 also shows the 1978 values ofQ for compari-
son. The values of WR are not affected by changes in
stopping power.
(57) For comparison, the radiation-weighting fac-
tor, WR (lCRP, 1991a), is indicated by a solid line and
the approximation to WR is shown by a dashed line.
For a detailed discussion of the inft.uence of the
changes on the stopping power, see Siebert and
Schuhmacher (1995).
(58) In summary, changes in the stopping power
only directly affect the operational quantities. By
virtue of the definition of the protection quantities,
their numerical values are not directly affected.
Nevertheless, the values of WR recommended by the
 20 v H+(lO)/D+(lO), Q(L) and L new
H+(lO)ID+(lO), Q(L) new, L old
If+(lO)ID·(lO), Q(L) and L old
Fig. 3. A summary of the influence of the Q(L) - L IS
w.
relationship and charged-particle stopping power on the
mean quality factor, Q, for the ambient dose equivalent (see
text for further discussion). [The symbols H*(10) and 10
/ ..;
D*(10) are the ambient dose equivalent and ambient
absorbed dose at 10 mm, respectively.J
...
I
.
v'

:';.
5 ..
• v
; vv •• ;
...... ...... . .. . ........
; ; ; HUH,,;,''r
./

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~
1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ l~ l~ 1~ 1~ l~ 1~
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

ICRP for neutrons do indirectly depend upon many
parameters, including the unrestricted linear energy
transfer. Figure 3 shows that values ofQ estimated
from eqn (2.4) and the currently recommended Q(L) -
L relationship are in fair agreement (see also Para-
graph A14 in Annex A of ICRP Publication 60). It is
desirable to continuously evaluate recommended
values of radiation weighting factors and quality
factors in their relation to both physical and radiobio-
logical data so as to provide adequate protection and
better consistency between the protection and opera-
tional quantities. For a discussion see Dietze and
Siebert (1994), Siebert (1994a,b) and Siebert et al.
(1995).
2.5. Radiological Protection Quantities
2.5.1. General
(59) Protection quantities were recommended and
defined by the ICRP in Publication 60 for radiologi-
cal protection purposes. These quantities include the
organ absorbed dose, the equivalent dose in an organ
or tissue and the effective dose.
2.5.2. Organ absorbed dose
(60) The mean absorbed dose, D T , in a specified
tissue or organ of the human body, T, is given by
(2.10)
where mT is the mass ofthe tissue or organ, and D is
the absorbed dose in the mass element dm. A more
precise definition is given in Paragraph (40).
2.5.3. Equivalent dose
(61) To determine the total equivalent dose, H T , in
a tissue or organ, T, irradiated in a radiation field
consisting of several radiations with different values
of WR, the absorbed dose must be subdivided in
blocks, multiplied by its own value ofwR and summed
over the different radiations, R, i.e.,
(2.11)
where DT,R is the average absorbed dose from radia-
tion, R, in tissue T.
2.5.4. Effective dose
(62) The effective dose, E, is the sum of the
weighted equivalent doses in all the tissues and
organs ofthe body. It is given by the expression:
(2.12)
where HT is the equivalent dose in tissue or organ T
and WT is the weighting factor for tissue T.
(63) For the purpose of radiological protection
calculations, the human body is defined in ICRP
Publication 60 by 12 designated tissues and organs,
and the remainder, which consists of 10 additional
tissues or organs. Recommended weighting factors,
which apply to a human adult population for these
tissues or organs, are given in ICRP Publication 60
and are also in the Glossary to this report.
(64) The data presented in this report were calcu-
lated with a remainder, defined as it was in ICRP
Publication 60, consisting of 10 tissues and organs.
The ICRP revised its specification of the remainder
to include only nine organs (lCRP, 1995a). The upper
large intestine was removed from the list of remain-
der tissues and organs because it is already included
amongst the designated tissues and organs as the
colon. In ICRP Publication 71 (ICRP, 1995b) the
Commission added the extrathoracic airways to the
remainder. The value of the remainder equivalent 9
 dose is not much affected by this change and the
impact on the effective dose is negligible.
Conventions for calculating effective dose
(65) There are significant differences in the pub-
lished scientific literature in the way in which the
value ofthe effective dose is calculated. For a consis-
tent approach in the analysis of various data sets to
determine the effective dose conversion coefficients
(see Section 4.1) from published tissue and organ
equivalent dose data, conventions with respect to
summation of tissue and organ doses and the evalua-
tion of the remainder dose were used in this report.
Tissue and organ dose summation
procedure
(66) The effective dose was calculated using tissue
and organ dose equivalent data available for female
and male mathematical models and application of
the following formula:
E = WbreastHbreast,female + to determine the degree to which the operational
~ WT [HT,male + HT,female]
~ (2.13)
T*bread 2 cusses the conclusions ofthis study. For area monitor-
where the symbols have their usual significance.
Equation (2.13) was originally derived for calcula-
tion of the effective dose equivalent, HE (Kramer and
Drexler, 1982) and modified to include the new
tissues and revised tissue-weighting factors recom-
mended in ICRP Publication 60 for calculation of the
effective dose, E,
(67) In those cases where published data did not
give separate organ dose data for female and male
models, eqn (2.12) was used directly in evaluation of
the data given in this report.
(68) The definitions of equivalent dose (in a single
tissue or organ) and effective dose (in the whole
body) are not confined to any particular set of values
of the weighting factors WR and WT, so care is needed
to avoid ambiguity. When the ICRP uses equivalent
dose and effective dose, it will be implicit that these
contain the values of radiation and tissue weighting
factors recommended at the relevant time. If values
of weighting factors other than those recommended
by the ICRP are used, this fact should be clearly
stated and the values should be explicitly given
when the quantities are introduced.
Remainder dose evaluation
(69) The complete specification of the remainder
dose incorporates footnote 3 of Table 2 (ICRP Publi-
cation 60) and mass weighting ofthe contributions of
the individual organs that make up the remainder
10 (ICRP, 1991b). Analyses show that in the case of
external exposure and for the irradiation geometries
discussed in this report, a simplified procedure may
be adopted in which footnote 3 is not invoked and the
arithmetic average (not mass-average) of the indi-
vidual remainder organ dose contributions is com-
puted (Hollnagel et al., 1994; Zankl and Drexler,
1995). This simplified procedure was adopted for the
data reported here; the influence on the value of the
effective dose is very small (a few percent).
2.6. Operational Quantities
2.6.1. General
(70) The operational quantities defined by the
ICRU (ICRU, 1985, 1988, 1992a, 1993b) are related
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
to the ICRP protection quantities, and are intended
to provide a reasonable estimate of the protection
quantities in assessing compliance with the limits.
These operational quantities were designed to meet
the needs of the recommendations in ICRP Publica-
tion 26.
(71) One important function of the Task Group was
quantities still provide reasonable estimates of the
newly specified protection quantities. Section 5 dis-
ing, the operational quantities are the ambient dose
equivalent, H*(d), and the directional dose equiva-
lent, H'(d,D). For individual monitoring, the per-
sonal dose equivalent, Hp(d), defined in the body, is
the operational quantity.
2.6.2. Dose equivalent
(72) The dose equivalent, H, at a point is given by
H = J, Q(L) . dD
L dL
. dL (2.14)
where Q(L) is the quality factor for particles with
linear energy transfer, L, and dD/dL . dL is the
absorbed dose between linear energy transfer, L, and
L + dL at the point.
2.6.3. Operational quantities for area
monitoring
Expanded and aligned fields
(73) For the operational quantities-ambient dose
equivalent, H*(d), and directional dose equivalent,
H'(d, D)-the ICRU has introduced the concepts of
alignment and expansion of the radiation field. An
expanded radiation field is defined as a hypothetical
field where the fluence and its angular and energy
distributions have the same value throughout the
volume of interest as that in the actual field at the
point of reference. An expanded and aligned radia-
tion field is a hypothetical field where the fluence
and its energy distribution are the same as an
expanded field, but the fluence is unidirectional.
Ambient dose equivalent
(74) The ambient dose equivalent, H*(d), at a point
in a radiation field is the dose equivalent that would
be produced by the corresponding expanded and
aligned field in the ICRU sphere at a depth, d, on the
radius opposing the direction of the aligned field.
The recommended value of dis 10 mm for penetrat-
ing radiation and 0.07 mm for low-penetrating radia-
tion.
Directional dose equivalent
(75) The directional dose equivalent, H'(d,D), at a
point in a radiation field is the dose equivalent that
would be produced by the corresponding expanded
field in the ICRU sphere at a depth, d, on a radius in
a specified direction, n. The recommended value of d
for penetrating radiation is 10 mm and for low-
penentrating radiation it is 0.07 mm.
(76) Any statement on the directional dose equiva-
lent should include specification of the reference
depth, d, and the direction, n. To simplify notation, d
should be expressed in millimetres. This reference
system can often be related to the radiation field. In
the particular case of a unidirectional field, the
direction can be specified in terms of the angle, a,
between the radius opposing the incident field and
the specified radius (see Fig. 4). When a = 0°, the
quantity H'(d, 0°) may be written as H'(d) and is
equal to H*(d).
(77) The angle a may be related to the irradiation
geometries described in Section 3.5. For the AP
geometry a = 0°; for the LAT geometry a = 90°, and
for the PAgeometry a = 180°.
2.6.4. Operational quantities for individual
monitoring
Personal dose equivalent
(78) Instead ofthe two quantities (individual dose
equivalent, penetrating; and individual dose equiva-
lent, superficial) defined in ICRU Report 39 (ICRU,
1985), a simplified concept called the personal dose
equivalent, Hp(d), was recommended in ICRU Re-
ports 47 and 51 (ICRU, 1992a, 1993b).
(79) Personal dose equivalent is defined in the
human body and, because of scattering and interac-
tion of radiation in the body (which depend on the
material composition and geometry), Hp(d) can vary
Specified direction
0/ Unidirectional
field
Point of _--:-..,..:.+.•
measurement
H'(d.cr)
Specified direction
normal to surface
0/ Unidirectional
field
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
Phantom or body
Fig. 4. Definition of the angle Ci for H'(d, Ci) and Hp(d, Ci).
both between individuals and between locations on
any given individual. The personal dose equivalent
is thus a multi-valued quantity (Wagner, 1987).
(80) So that single-valued conversion coefficients
may be calculated, it is first necessary to specify a
particular location on the human body. Second, in
order to facilitate such calculations and dosemeter
calibrations, it is desirable that anthropomorphic
phantoms of various parts ofthe body be specified. In
general, with one exception, such phantoms have not
yet been specified by the ICRU.
(81) The one exception to this general rule is for
the human trunk. The ability to interpret the read-
ings of dose meters worn on the human trunk in
terms of the protection quantities is of the greatest
interest for monitoring external radiation exposure.
For the purposes of dosemeter calibration, phantoms
have been specified that are often taken to be
surrogates for the human torso. These simplified
tissue-substitute phantoms are the ICRU tissue-
equivalent sphere (30 cm diameter) and the 30 cm X
30 cm X 15 cm ICRU slab (lCRU Reports 47, 48 and
51, ICRU, 1992a,b; 1993b). Section 4 reviews and
summarises the data that are currently available for
Hp,slab and Hp,sphere'
(82) Until calculations in the human trunk for
various irradiation geometries and radiation ener-
gies are available, it is not possible to estimate
precisely how calculations of the conversion coeffi- 11
 cient in the slab or sphere phantoms replicate the
personal dose equivalent in the body but the errors
involved are thought to be small.
(83) In the interim, general conclusions about the
relationship between Hp(d), and E may be inferred
from available phantom and organ dose data. Com-
parisons may be made with average doses to small
organs located near the surface of the body. For
12
example, the thymus and testes are of a suitable size
and at a suitable depth for the purposes of inferring
the results of more precise calculations. This matter
is discussed in more detail in Section 5.
(84) The practical realisation of the personal dose
equivalent requires agreement on an expedient met-
rological procedure (Wagner, 1987). See Sections 4
and 5 for a discussion of this procedure.
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
 3. Determination of Absorbed Dose Distributions In The Human Body
and In Anthropomorphic and Other Models
3.1. Introduction
(85) The two sets of quantities used in radiological
protection for exposure by sources of radiation out-
side the body are protection quantities and opera-
tional quantities (see Section 2 for discussion). The
operational quantities used in measurement were
designed to provide a reasonable estimate of the
appropriate protection quantity under normal work-
ing conditions. For external irradiation of the body,
this may be simply expressed by the goal that the
ratio of the value of the appropriate protection
quantity (Hprot ) to the measurement of the opera-
tional quantity (Hop) is usually less than unity.
Under this condition, the operational quantity pro-
vides an overestimate of the protection quantity,
(3.1)
Thus, it is necessary to relate these two types of
quantity. Under known conditions of irradiation, the
values of both quantities may, in principle, be calcu-
lated.
(86) This section and the following sections sum-
marise how the basic calculations (absorbed dose
distributions 13 ) necessary for this comparison may
be carried out. Calculations for the operational quan-
tities may be confirmed by measurement.
(87) To compare the values of the protection quan-
tities and operational quantities caused by external
exposure of the human body to ionising radiation, it
is necessary to know the distribution ofthe absorbed
dose throughout the actual human body or computa-
tional model. From this known distribution of the
absorbed dose, the quantities, which are related to
absorbed dose, may be calculated.
(88) Calculation of the absorbed dose distributions
requires knowledge and understanding of the radia-
tion environment;
• a detailed phantom (model) ofthe human body;
• knowledge of the geometrical conditions under
which the body is irradiated; and
• a method of calculating the radiation interac-
tions in the tissues of the body and transport of
the radiation through the body.
(89) The absorbed dose distribution and dose-
related quantities in a human body or computational
model are dependent on the energy spectrum and
angular distribution of the incident radiation and
the orientation of the body in the radiation field. The
absorbed dose distribution is also dependent on the
13 Absorbed dose distributions weighted by WR are used as the
basis for calculations of HT and E but dose equivalent distribu-
tions are obtained by weighting by Q.
characteristics of the human body that are them-
selves subject to considerable variations between
individuals depending on sex, age, body weight, and
height. Thus, determination ofthe absorbed dose is a
complex problem that can be approximately resolved
by experimental and calculational approaches. In
practice, large uncertainties in estimation of the
absorbed dose distributions may arise due to a lack
of detailed knowledge of the radiation field.
(90) The experimental approach requires construc-
tion of a realistic phantom of the human body using
tissue-equivalent material and an extensive measure-
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
ment programme. Accurate measurements require
considerable effort and resources, particularly for
radiations with a quality factor or a radiation-
weighting factor greater than 1. The resources re-
quired for such an experimental programme are
generally beyond all but the largest laboratories.
Consequently, the number of systematic experimen-
tal determinations of the absorbed dose described in
the scientific literature is limited.
(91) Considerable effort is required for calculations
of the absorbed dose distribution in mathematical
computational models. However, modern computing
methods (particularly Monte Carlo techniques) have
the advantage in that they can deal with complex
irradiation conditions and provide absorbed dose
distributions in a wide variety of radiation fields. In
addition to statistical uncertainties inherent in such
calculations, other uncertainties may arise from
several sources (e.g., the data used to simulate
radiation interactions with tissue; differences in
anatomical modelling; and the inherent variation in
human anatomy).
(92) For the purpose of radiological protection,
great precision or accuracy is not required in these
calculations. However, to detect possible bias, it is
most important to compare the results obtained by
several types of calculations, particularly those made
in differing computational models and by different
computational techniques. Such comparisons re-
quire appropriate precision in the calculation, even if
this precision is not strictly needed for radiological
protection.
3.2. Radiation Field
(93) A radiation field can be defined by the direc-
tional and energy distributions of all types of par-
ticles of which it is composed. Reference radiation
fields are specified in terms offield quantities, which 13
 are normally air kerma free-in-air14 for photons and
fluence for neutrons. The units of these field quanti-
ties may be realised by primary standards or refer-
ence instruments at Standards Laboratories. Most of
the data in this report were calculated for monoener-
getic radiations. The external incident radiation
field specified is that which would have existed had
the phantom not been present.
(94) The radiation fields of practical interest in
radiological protection are complex in character and
determinations of organ dose may be complicated
and uncertain. One common source of uncertainty is
non-uniformity of the radiation field in which people
are exposed. Non-uniformity of the dose distribution
over volumes as large as a human being is likely
under conditions of occupational exposure and is
almost certain in medical exposure. Radiation fields
consisting of only monoenergetic, unidirectional ra-
diations of one type of radiation are rare. Radiation
fields with radiation energies distributed over a wide
energy range are referred to as 'broad energy spec-
tra.' Furthermore, the radiation fields of practical
importance in radiological protection often consist of
more than one type of radiation; these are referred to
as 'mixed fields.' To apply the data given in this
report (for monoenergetic radiations) to mixed radia-
tion fields and/or broad spectra, it is necessary to
calculate the desired quantities averaged over the
radiation spectra.
(95) In all cases, assumptions made about charged
particle buildup within the model (or phantom) will
influence the value of the absorbed dose calculated at
any depth. The depth in the model at which charged
particle equilibrium is achieved depends upon the
energy and type of the incident radiation. Most
calculations are performed assuming that charged
particle equilibrium exists at the point of interest
and by applying the kerma approximation. The
kerma approximation assumes that, at the point of
interest in the phantom, all secondary radiations
and, particularly, charged particles are in equilib-
rium with the primary radiation and, consequently,
the absorbed dose is equal to the tissue kerma less
any energy removed by uncharged radiation
(bremsstrahlung or neutrons). With the additional
assumption of radiation equilibrium, these losses
will be zero. With the exception of neutrons above 20
MeV, the kerma approximation was used in all the
radiation transport calculations in anthropomorphic
phantoms given in this report. This approximation
greatly reduces the complexity of radiation transport
calculations, but it is important to be aware of its
limitations.
(96) Several authors have examined the accuracy
of the kerma approximation. For photons, the ap-
14 In further text throughout this section, the quantity air
14 kerma free-in-air is usually referred to simply as 'air kerma.'
proximation is valid for energies up to about 3 MeV
(Dimbylow and Francis, 1983, 1984; Drexler et al.,
1989a; Ferrari and Pelliccioni, 1994b; and Hollnagel
et al., 1984). For neutrons, the approximation is
valid for energies up to 5 MeV at a depth of 0.07 mm
and for energies up to about 20 MeV at depths of 3
and 10 mm CHollnagel et al., 1984). It may be
concluded that, with the exception of the skin, the
kerma approximation is valid for calculation of or-
gan doses up to neutron energies of about 20 MeV.
The skin contributes only about 1 % of the effective
dose and use of the kerma approximation to calcu-
late E appears to be justified.
(97) In the case of photon irradiation, the kerma
approximation assumes that secondary electrons are
in equilibrium with primary photons at the point of
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
interest in the phantom, and that the dose equiva-
lent is therefore equal to tissue kerma minus
bremsstrahlung radiation losses. This is a good
approximation for photons up to 3 MeV. At higher
photon energies, the equilibrium becomes increas-
ingly incomplete and, although secondary electrons
do originate in air and accompany the incident
photon beam-somewhat compensating for this lack
of equilibrium-the assumption of charged-particle
equilibrium is no longer valid.
(98) Early calculations showed that the inclusion
of the dose equivalent produced by photons scatter-
ing in the surrounding air, which subsequently inter-
act with the sphere, contributes about 2% ofthe dose
equivalent at a depth of 10 mm (Dimbylow and
Francis, 1983; Hollnagel et al., 1984). Calculations
were also carried out in vacuo (Dimbylow and Fran-
cis, 1984).
(99) This topic has been revisited more recently by
Ferrari and Pelliccioni (1994a), who question whether
assumptions about interactions with air are strictly
compatible with the definition of the ambient dose
equivalent in an aligned field. These authors sug-
gested that calculations should always be performed
in vacuo because, in practice, incident radiation
(after being scattered in air) can be neither aligned
nor expanded. The authors further suggested that,
at photon energies above 3 MeV, the quantity ambi-
ent dose equivalent as defined in fCRU Report 39
cannot be used for operational radiation protection
purposes. However, the Commissions take the view
that the secondary charged products (particularly
electrons) resulting from interactions in air between
the radiation source and detector (point of interest)
must be determined and allowed for in any proper
calibration procedure.
(100) Thus, for photons with energies above about
3 MeV, it is necessary to take account of the air-
scattered radiation that depends strongly on the
geometry of source and recipient. This may be done
by using build-up layers of appropriately selected
thickness. Calculated conversion coefficients assume
that secondary charged-particle equilibrium exists
at the point in the radiation field where a measure-
ment is made.
3.3. Models and Phantoms of the
Human Body
3.3.1. Reference man
(101) Guides for the design of human body models
and phantoms used in radiological protection may be
found in ICRP Publication 23 (ICRP, 1975) and
ICRU Report 48 (ICRU, 1992b). These reports pro-
vide a comprehensive review of the human anatomi-
cal, physiological, and metabolic characteristics and
recommend 'typical' or 'reference' values.
3.3.2. Simple phantoms
(102) It is not possible to produce either a math-
ematical model phantom or a physical phantom that
can precisely simulate the human body, but it is
possible to provide phantoms or models that can
serve as approximate surrogates. Simpler phantoms
are constructed using tissue substitutes, idealised
organ volumes, and special cavities in which the
dosemeters may be located to make in situ measure-
ments. For example, there are phantoms with den-
sity-adjusted lungs and bone structures [for a descrip-
tion, see ICRP Publication 51 (ICRP, 1987)]. Water
phantoms are also adopted, particularly in medical
physics, for determination of dose distributions in
patients. Solid homogeneous phantoms in tissue
substitutes are widely used for measurements of
absorbed dose distributions for photons and neu-
trons.
(103) Spherical and slab phantoms are convenient,
simple approximations to the human body. A spheri-
cal model that is 30 cm in diameter and composed of
ICRU (soft) tissue-equivalent material is used in the
definition of the operational quantities (see Section
2). Both spherical and slab phantoms are discussed
in more detail later, see the subsection below entitled
'Standard and reference models and phantoms for
operational measurements.'
3.3.3. Anthropomorphic models
MIRD phantom
(104) The Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD)
Committee phantom (the original model) is a hetero-
geneous mathematical representation of the human
body that was first designed to calculate absorbed
doses from internal radiation (Snyder et al., 1969,
1978). This model has been modified over several
years to enable its use in calculation of absorbed
doses from external radiation.
(105) The MIRD phantom is analytically defined
in sections: an elliptical cylinder represents the
arms, torso, and hips; truncated elliptical cones
represent the legs; and an elliptical cylinder repre-
sents the head and neck. The arms are not separated
from the torso. In the earlier version of the model, no
separation is assumed for the legs, but they are
separated in the 1978 version. No models have been
adopted for small organs (e.g., nose, ears, feet, and
fingers), for which few data exist regarding their risk
to radiation-induced cancer. Other organs are repre-
sented by simple geometric approximations that are
consistent with the actual shape of the organs. To
minimise computer effort, the mathematical expres-
sions used to simulate an organ's size and shape are
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
kept as simple as possible.
(106) The MIRD phantom incorporates different
densities for the various body tissues. The three
distinct types of tissues identified are skeletal tis-
sues, the lungs, and soft tissue. The model's skin is
represented by a 2 mm layer of soft tissue covering
the whole body. The skeletal tissue includes the
active bone marrow (red), and all skeletal compo-
nents are homogeneously distributed in the skel-
eton. For the lungs and soft tissue, the most impor-
tant components of human tissues are hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, with trace amounts of
other elements. The skeletal tissues contain signifi-
cant proportions of calcium and phosphorus. The
lungs are slightly different from soft tissue because
they contain air and almost no fatty tissue. The
densities of the skeleton, lungs, and soft tissue are
approximately 1.5, 0.3, and 1.0 g cm -3, respectively.
Age- and sex-specific models
(107) Over the past 10-15 years, the models used
in calculation of the absorbed dose distributions
have become increasingly realistic. Recent impor-
tant improvements in the MIRD phantom have been
the introduction of male and female models and the
development of child and infant models for absorbed
dose calculations. The original MIRD phantom was
hermaphrodite and included the gonads of both
sexes, and female breasts.
(108) Sex-specific adult models have been devel-
oped to reflect the genuine differences in organ size
and tissues. Cristy (1980) has designed models for
adults and children represented by body sizes corre-
sponding to the ages of 0, 1, 5, 10, and 15 years. The
most recent version of these models was published
by Cristy and Eckerman (1987). Adult sex-specific
models (ADAM and EVA) have also been developed
by Kramer et al. (1982). These models, whose body
and organ dimensions are similar to those used in
ICRP Publication 23 (ICRP, 1975), are closely re-
lated to the MIRD phantom. 15
 (109) By contrast, the most recent developments
(CHILD and BABY) belong to a new generation of
models compiled from computer tomographic (CT)
data of real patients (Zankl et al., 1988; Veit et al.,
1989). The CHILD model is based on CT data for a
7-year-old child, and the BABY on data for an
8-week-old baby. These models are specified by a
large number of volume elements (voxels)-approxi-
mately 20 and 3 mm 3 in volume, respectively.
(110) It is important to point out the improvement
in more recent paediatric models over the earlier
models. Whereas the first paediatric models devel-
oped at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) are
merely scaled-down versions ofthe adult, later modi-
fications take advantage of the knowledge ofpaediat-
ric anatomy and human growth. In the newest
paediatric models, the organs are 'lifelike.' Cristy's
models, which date from 1980, combine the data on
human organ size available at ORNL and are correct
with respect to organ size. These models were used
by Yamaguchi (1992, 1994b,c). In the tomographic
models developed by Zankl and co-workers, the
organs are reconstructed from CT data for a baby
and child and replicate as accurately as possible the
shapes identified on the CT images.
Conformity with ICRP specifications
(111) In ICRP Publication 60, the number of
organs specified was increased compared to that
specified in ICRP Publication 26. Not all the organs
and tissues currently specified by the ICRP were
initially modelled in ADAM, EVA, and MIRD-5.
There has been an evolution in the modelling in an
attempt to satisfy the ICRP specifications. Several
groups have developed models that differ somewhat
from one another in their precise detail.
(112) One example of such development has been
the addition of the oesophagus to the models. This
organ has been represented by a hollow circular
cylinder, which extends from the superior surface of
the trunk vertically downwards to the level of the
base of the lungs (thoracic region); together with an
inclined solid circular cylinder (abdominal region),
which extends from the base ofthe thoracic region to
a point 1 cm below the fundus of the stomach (Lewis
and Ellis, 1979; Hollnagel, 1992). Yamaguchi (1994b)
also modelled the oesophagus in two parts (an ellipti-
cal tube descending along the spine from the neck to
the diaphragm and an inclined tube linking the end
of the elliptical tube to the upper part of the stom-
ach), whereas Zankl et al. (1992) modelled it as one
single elliptical cylinder ranging in height from
within the neck down to the level of the top of the
stomach.
(113) A further example illustrating how these
models may differ is in the description of the distribu-
16 tion of muscle tissue, which is not explicitly repre-
sen ted in most mathematical human models. Hollna-
gel (1992, 1994a) represented the muscle tissue by
three regions, one situated in the trunk and the
others located in the arms and legs, whereas Yamagu-
chi (1994b) and Zankl and Drexler (1995) repre-
sented the muscle tissue as occupying one volume in
the torso that is not associated with any other organ.
(114) A detailed analysis of the differences of the
various models used in the calculations described
and their influence on the scatter of results is beyond
the scope of this report (see Sections 4.3.4 and 4.4.4).
Standard and reference models and phantoms
for operational measurements
(115) Radiation transport calculations have been
carried out for a wide variety of radiation types and
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
energies in homogeneous models of different shapes,
including spheres, slabs, cubes, and elliptical cylin-
ders. The ICRU has defined operational quantities in
a spherical tissue-equivalent model (ICRU, 1985,
1988), at specified locations. Calculations allowed for
comparison between these quantities and the protec-
tion quantities in anthropomorphic phantoms. Vari-
ous tissue substitutes are available for fabrication of
corresponding physical phantoms, including tissue-
equivalent material, water, and perspex.
(116) Since 1985, the ICRU sphere model has been
used to define operational quantities for area moni-
toring. For individual monitoring, the operational
quantities have been defined in soft tissue in the
human body and are intended to be measured using
individual dosemeters. But to facilitate the calibra-
tion of these dosemeters, the dose equivalent at an
appropriate depth, d, either in the ICRU sphere or in
a 30 cm X 30 cm X 15 cm slab ICRU tissue-
substitute phantom, has been taken to correspond to
the quantity Hp(d) in the human torso. The quanti-
ties calculated in the sphere or slab are designated
by the symbols Hp,sphere or Hp,slab in this report (see
Section 2.6.4).
(117) For several practical reasons, the use of slab
phantoms with compositions other than ICRU tissue
substitute has been recommended for the purpose of
calibration. Perspex- and water-slab phantoms have
been recommended by the ICRU and ISO, respec-
tively (ICRU, 1992b; ISO, 1992, 1993, 1995a,b),
because backscattering conditions are similar to
those from the tissue-substitute slab. Calibration of
personal dose meters usually has been performed on
the front surface ofthese slab phantoms.
3.4. Methods of Calculating Absorbed Dose
Distributions
3.4.1. Introduction
(118) A detailed description of the methods used to
calculate the absorbed dose distribution and dose-
related quantities in phantoms is beyond the scope of
this report. Only a brief review is given here because
extensive reviews exist in the scientific literature
[see, for example, ICRP Publication 51 (lCRP, 1987)
and NCRP Report No. 108 (NCRP, 1991)]. Sections
4.3.4, 4.4.4 and 4.5.4 give additional details and a
summary of the methods used to obtain the data in
this report.
(119) In the Monte Carlo method, the values of
energy, direction, and path length are randomly
chosen from probability distributions. The particle
history is then established through the medium of
the phantom as the particle undergoes various inter-
actions and ends when the particle becomes ab-
sorbed, leaves the region of interest, or no longer has
significant energy.
3.4.2. Transport codes: general features and
special codes
General features of the transport codes
(120) The general Monte Carlo technique provides
a computational framework for the description of an
analogue technique for the solution of radiation
transport problems. By this 'classical analogue tech-
nique,' all the individual interaction processes of
each particle history are followed. It is possible with
this technique to consider tracking the interactions
of individual particles in their passage through
matter and to obtain absorbed dose distributions by
tracing many particle histories. But even with the
availability of high-speed digital computers and gen-
eral Monte Carlo codes (which also facilitate the
calculation of radiation transport in complex geom-
etries), this approach makes heavy demands on
computer time. Variance reduction techniques are
used to reduce this demand (Spanier and Gelbard,
1969; Lux and Koblinger, 1991).
(121) Several adaptations of the general Monte
Carlo technique have been developed to allow for
different interactions of charged and uncharged par-
ticles. In addition, approximations to the description
of some ofthe atomic and nuclear processes [e.g., the
continuous slowing-down approximation (CSDA)] or
the kerma approximation may have been used.
(122) The mean absorbed dose in a defined volume
of material may be computed from the incident and
emerging energies from the volume by dividing this
'energy imparted' (see ICRU Report 51 for a full
definition) by the mass ofthe volume of material.
(123) For calculation of mean organ doses, the
dimension ofthe volumes considered is in most cases
sufficiently large that use of the kerma approxima-
tion is acceptable for photon energies up to 3 MeV
and for neutrons up to 20 MeV. For photons, Drexler
et al. (1989a) found agreement within 5% for organ
doses calculated with the kerma approximation and
by modelling the energy deposition by secondary
electrons with a simplified CSDA. For neutrons, the
validity of the kerma approximation is restricted by
the range of recoil protons, which in water is about
1.2 mm for 10 MeV and 4.3 mm for 20 MeV protons.
At these energies, however, errors may result from
use of the kerma approximation near interfaces
between tissues of widely differing composition and
density (e.g., at bone surfaces) and in calculation of
operational quantities at shallow depths.
(124) In the case of infinitesimally small regions,
such as those that occur in the definition of the
operational quantities, numerical methods are used
to calculate the limiting value of the quantity. In
calculating the energy fiuence entering the volume,
it is necessary to include all types of particles
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
resulting from secondary and tertiary processes,I5 in
addition to the primary radiation. For external irra-
diation by photons at the energies considered in this
report, the secondaries of concern will be photons
and electrons. For neutron irradiation, the secondar-
ies of concern are protons and heavier charged
particles, photons, and electrons. At high energies,
all radiations produce a complex radiation field by
electromagnetic and hadronic cascades (Bertini, 1969;
Kalinovskii et aI., 1989).
(125) Calculation of the transport of charged radia-
tions is both complex and time-consuming. Fortu-
nately, for those radiations and energies considered
in this report, the transport of charged particles may
be facilitated by means of the CSDA, which assumes
that the slowing down of electrons is a smooth
process as a function of energy, yielding the concepts
of projected ranges and stopping power.
(126) Provided that the range of the charged
secondaries is small with respect to the extension of
the volume considered, one may evaluate the ab-
sorbed dose by means of the kerma approximation,
i.e., by multiplying the incident fiuence by the appro-
priate kerma coefficients. I6 The kerma approxima-
tion is always justified if charged-particle equilib-
rium exists.
(127) The dose to the bone surface (a very thin
(- 10 pm), soft tissue layer enveloping the bones) is,
in practice, replaced by the mean dose in bone. Thus,
the dose enhancement occurring at the bone surface
due to an increased production of secondary elec-
trons in bone vis a vis soft tissue is of reduced
significance. For photon energies below approxi-
mately 300 keV, the effect of this replacement is
15 For brevity, these are referred to as 'secondary radiations' or
'secondaries.'
16 To be consistent throughout this report, the term 'kerma
coefficient' is used rather than the more familiar term 'kerma
factor.' This convention wa s adopted to reserve the description of
'factor' for quantities that h a ve no physical dimensions (see
Section 4). 17
 more than compensated for by the fact that the
absorbed dose in bone is much higher than that in
soft tissue (due to the higher attenuation coefficient
of bone) and is still a conservative estimate for the
enhanced dose to the adjacent soft tissue layer
(Drexler, 1968). Above 300 keV, the attenuation
coefficients of bone and soft tissue differ by not more
than 5% and approximate secondary electron equilib-
rium is established. For neutrons up to 20 MeV, dose
calculations have always been performed applying
the kerma approximation. Because of the short
range of the recoil protons and heavier charged
particles, the errors in the absorbed dose data re-
main small.
(128) Electrons undergo many more interactions
along their path than do uncharged particles such as
photons or neutrons. Electron interactions may be
described in terms of stopping power, range and
range-straggling. This description enables the com-
putation-time for electron transport calculations to
be reduced using the 'condensed history' (or 'path-
segment') concept. In this technique, the particle
paths are divided into path segments, along which
many elastic and inelastic Coulomb collisions occur.
This allows for treatment of the combined effects of
many collisions occurring along each path segment,
without having to sample a very large number of
individual interactions. Energy losses are accounted
for using the CSDA and energy-loss-straggling distri-
butions; angular scattering is accounted for using
multiple-scattering distributions. For a basic discus-
sion of these topics see Berger (1963) and Andreo
(1991).
(129) During the last decade, several codes used to
calculate the transport of electrons and photons in
matter have been made available, many of which are
continually being improved. Although some differ-
ences are apparent in the electron transport algo-
rithms ofthese codes (e.g., in the detailed treatment
of energy losses by primary electrons and the produc-
tion of bremsstrahlung photons and knock-on elec-
trons), the estimates of the absorbed dose obtained
are generally in good agreement (see Section 4.3.3).
Descriptions of various transport codes
(130) DEEP (Yamaguchi, 1991) is a computer code
(see Section 4.3.3), which incorporates the Monte
Carlo code MORSE-CG (Emmett, 1975) (see below,
Paragraph 140). DEEP has the capability to calcu-
late effective dose and the equivalent dose to 60
tissues of an adult modified-MIRD-phantom for pho-
tons in the energy range 6.2 keV to 12 MeV. In the
calculations of absorbed dose, kerma coefficients are
generated from the data of Storm and Israel (1970)
and Hubbell (1982).
(131) EGS4 Code. The electron-gamma shower
18 (EGS4) code has been continually improved ever
since its first operation (Ford and Nelson, 1978). The
following briefly describes the two recent versions:
EGS4(*) Code. The general-purpose EGS4 code
has been used in the version described by Nelson et
al. (1985). In this code, Moliere multiscattering
theory is used and a simple treatment of the photon
transport is applied (Moliere, 1948). More details of
the operation of this code can be found in Hirayama
(1994).
EGS4(**) Code. An improved version of the
EGS4(*) code has been tested and implemented (Ma,
1992). The main modifications to this version are as
follows:
• provision for a new algorithm, which enables
better treatment of low-energy electron trans-
port;
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
• use of correlated sampling, yielding better effi-
ciency and accuracy of calculation in many cases;
• implementation of the code on parallel comput-
ers; and
use of a photon-interaction forcing method.
(132) ETRAN (electron transport) is a 'condensed-
history' type Monte Carlo code (Seltzer, 1991) in
which the collision energy losses in each short path
segment are sampled from a Landau distribution,
which incorporates Blunck-Leiseegang binding cor-
rections, in conjunction with the stopping powers
given in ICRU Report 37 (ICRU, 1984). The sam-
pling of angular deflections obeys the Goudsmit-
Saunderson multiple-scattering distribution based
on the screened Mott single-scattering cross sec-
tions, recently revised to match recent transport
cross sections (Berger and Wang, 1987). Radiative
energy losses are sampled along each path segment
according to bremsstrahlung cross sections (Seltzer
and Berger, 1986) and knock-on electron production
is treated through the Muller theory. Conventional
analogue Monte Carlo techniques are used to follow
the bremsstrahlung histories and photon interac-
tions are sampled on the basis of cross-section data
given in Berger and Hubbell (1987). ETRAN is able
to treat the transport of electron-photon cascades
with energies from the Ge V region down to 1 keV. In
order to extend the field of application of ETRAN to
complex three-dimensional geometries, several
ETRAN-based codes have been successively devel-
oped: ZTRAN, ZEBRA, SANDYL, ACCEPT. These
codes have been reorganised in the Integrated Tiger
Series (ITS). The most recent version is Version 3.0
(Halbleib et al., 1992). ITS Version 1.0 has recently
been incorporated into the neutron/photon transport
code MCNP (Briesmeister, 1993), now referred to as
MCNP-4A.
(133) FANEUT is a Monte Carlo code specially
developed for calculation of the characteristics of the
absorbed dose from neutrons and secondary photons
in tissue-equivalent materials (Kurochkin, 1994). A
one-dimensional geometry that can treat slabs and
 spheres is used, and the anisotropy and kinematics
of elastic neutron scattering are approximated by a
fifth-order Legendre polynomial expansion. Inelastic
scattering is treated using group cross sections. For
thermal neutrons, a gas model combined with experi-
mental cross-section data for hydrogen in water is
used (Biskpchuk et ai., 1987).
(134) GSF-National Research Center for Environ-
ment and Health Code. The GSF code was originally
designed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under
the name ALGAM (Warner and Craig, 1968) and
further developed at the GSF (Kramer, 1979; Veit et
ai., 1989). This code computes the dose deposited by
photons from an external or internal source in
various sections of a different media phantom ap-
proximating the human body. The phantom could be
either MIRD-type, voxel type, or simple sphere or
slab. The code is based on the fractional photon
technique. Energy is deposited at the point ofinterac-
tion (kerma approximation) for the MIRD-type phan-
toms, and a correction for secondary electron effects
in the skeleton is applied.
(135) HADRON, a Monte Carlo code designed to
calculate hadron-cascade transport in complex hy-
drogenous media (Golovachik et ai., 1989), is based
on the cascade-exciton model of inelastic nuclear
interactions. The yields of n, p, 7T± , 7T at the cascade
O
stage of the inelastic interaction and the yields of n,
p, D, T, 3He, a, and recoil nuclei at the de-excitation
stage are taken into account. The hadron-hydrogen
cross section used is obtained by intranuclear cas-
cade calculations.
(136) HL-PH Code. Basic information on this
Monte Carlo neutron transport code created by
Hollnagel may be found in Hollnagel (1990). This
code treats neutrons and photons, and uses standard
Monte Carlo methods (with some variance-reduction
techniques) and combinatorial geometry. The cross
sections are based on ENDFIBIV or later versions.
The phantoms modelled by the code are identical to
those used by Kramer et ai. (1982) and Williams et
ai. (1985a).
(137) JEUNESSE is a computer code used by
Yamaguchi (see Section 4.3.3) that incorporates the
Monte Carlo code MORSE-CG (Emmett, 1975) (see
below, Paragraph 140). JEUNESSE incorporates the
age-specific phantoms designed by Cristy and calcu-
lates organ equivalent doses and effective doses in
models corresponding to 0-, 1-, 5-, 10- and 15-year
olds, and adults (see also DEEP).
(138) LAHET Code (Los Alamos high-energy trans-
port code). This code system is a modified version of
the high-energy transport code (HETC), which was
originally developed at Oak Ridge Laboratories and
subsequently modified at Los Alamos. Basic details
of the code may be found in Prael and Lichtenstein
(1989). The geometric capability incorporated in the
code is that of the MCNP code. The high-energy
particle cross sections needed to perform transport
calculations are produced by the code itself using
intranuclear cascade calculations combined with
evaporation models having a 'pre-equilibrium inter-
mediate stage.' The code permits the transport of
neutrons, photons, and light nuclei up to 4He.
(139) MCNP Code. The general-purpose code,
which was developed at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, can be used in complicated three-
dimensional configurations for problems of radiation
transport. Continuous improvements have been made
to this code. The new versions facilitate electron
transport calculations.
MCNPE-BO Code. The MCNPE-BO code con-
sists of the MCNP-version 3A code (Briesmeister,
1986), which was modified to include the transport of
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
electrons (Guaraldi and Padoani, 1994a,b). Moliere
multiscattering theory was implemented, with addi-
tional correction tables intended to improve the
stability of the results for low-energy electrons (Fer-
rari and Guaraldi, 1992; Gualdrini and Padoani,
nd).17
MCNP4 Code. This latest version of the MCNP
code (Briesmeister, 1991) permits calculation of the
transport of photons, neutrons, and electrons in very
complex geometries. Goudsmit-Saunderson multi-
scattering theory is applied (Goudsmit and Saunder-
son, 1940; Landau, 1944), and detailed treatment of
electron-scattering physics permits the transport of
electrons down to 1 keV.
(140) MORSE-CG Code. The MORSE code (Em-
mett, 1975), one of the first Monte Carlo transport
codes to be widely distributed, incorporates a reason-
ably comfortable combinatorial geometry capacity.
To shorten running time, this code uses group cross
sections but with one disadvantage: it limits the
capability to treat problems in which detailed struc-
ture in the cross sections (such as resonances) is
important. Furthermore, preparation of group cross
sections with a sufficient number of thermal groups
is not a trivial task. This is particularly true when
radiation transport is calculated in complex materi-
als (e.g., anthropomorphic phantoms) and when it is
necessary to compute separate group cross-section
sets for significantly different tissues such as muscle
or bone (see also DEEP and JEUNESSE).
(141) PTBIBG Code. Information on the Monte
Carlo transport code created by Grosswendt may be
found in a series of publications (Grosswendt and
Roos, 1986; Grosswendt, 1993, 1994a). This code
uses the condensed history model described by Berger
(1963) and applied in previously mentioned codes.
Developments by Nahum (1976) and Andreo and
17 Throughout the text, the symbol 'nd' stands for 'not dated' and
indicates that the material ha s been made available to the Task
Group during its preparation and prior to publication. 19
 Brahme (1984) are incorporated in the latest version
of the code. Using Moliere multiscattering theory
and Landau energy-Ioss-straggling distribution, the
energy degradation is treated within the framework
of the CSDA and combined with other corrections
and approximations described by Rohrlich and Carl-
son (1954) and Sternheimer et al. (1984). To obtain
adequate spatial detail of the electron depth-dose
curve, the phantom material is subdivided into
planar slices, each having a thickness of 0.05 r o,
where ro is the CSDA range for the primary electron
energy. This is a very similar technique to that used
with the ETRAN code (Seltzer, 1991). Near the
phantom surface where the dose gradient is large, an
accurate description of the energy deposition is
obtained by modelling thinner additional slices, thus
enabling a more accurate determination of the flu-
ence to dose conversion coefficients.
(142) SAM-CE Code. Basic information on this
neutron transport code, which uses combinatorial
geometry and a variety of special variance-reduction
methods, is given by Lichtenstein et al. (1979). In
recent years, this code has been increasingly re-
placed by the MCNP and/or LAHET code, both of
which are maintained and distributed by the Radia-
tion Shielding Information Center at Oak Ridge.
3.5. Irradiation Geometries
3.5.1. General
(143) Because the number of conceivable geom-
etries in which the human body might be irradiated
is virtually limitless, it has become conventional to
limit, somewhat arbitrarily, the number of irradia-
tion geometries for which calculations are per-
formed. In general, calculations are carried out
assuming whole-body irradiation by broad unidirec-
tional or plane-parallel beams. Following is a descrip-
tion of some typical irradiation geometries, which
are shown schematically in Fig. 5.
Antero-posterior geometry (AP). The irradia-
tion geometry in which the ionising radiation is
incident on the front of the body in a direction
orthogonal to the long axis of the body.
Postero-anterior geometry (PA). The irradia-
tion geometry in which the ionising radiation is
incident on the back of the body in a direction
orthogonal to the long axis of the body.
Lateral geometry (LAT). The irradiation geom-
etry in which the ionising radiation is incident from
either side of the body in a direction orthogonal to
the long axis of the body. When it is necessary to be
more specific, the following symbols are used: RLAT
(from the right side to the left side of the body) or
LLAT (from the left side to the right side ofthe body).
In this report, results of the calculations are pre-
20 sented separately for the LLAT and RLAT geom-
AP PA
ISO
j I
~
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
LAT
Fig. 5. Some irradiation geometries of an anthropomorphic
phantom.
etries when warranted. Where there are only small
differences in the absorbed dose between these two
geometries, data are presented as an average of the
RLAT and LLAT values.
Rotational geometry (ROT). The geometry in
which the body is irradiated by a parallel beam of
ionising radiation, from a direction orthogonal to the
long axis ofthe body, which rotates at a uniform rate
around the long axis. Alternatively, this geometry
may be defined by rotating the body at a uniform rate
about its long axis, while irradiating the body by a
broad beam of ionising radiation from a stationary
source located on an axis at right angles to the long
axis of the body.
Isotropic geometry (ISO). Defined by a radia-
tion field in which the particle fluence per unit of
solid angle is independent of direction.
(144) Although the geometries defined above are
idealised, they may be taken as approximations to
actual conditions of exposure. Thus, for example, the
AP, PA, and LAT geometries are considered to ap-
proximate radiation fields produced by single sources
and particular body orientations. In contrast, the
ROT geometry is seen as an approximation to irradia-
tion from a widely dispersed planar source (e.g., as
would be likely from environmental contamination).
This approximation results in radiation incident at
right angles to the long axis of a person standing or
walking about in the field. The ROT geometry may
also approximate that of a person who moves ran-
domly in the radiation field of a single source irradi-
ating at right angles to the long axis ofthe body. The
ISO geometry would be approximated by a body
suspended in a large cloud of radioactive gas. This
geometry is often assumed for irradiation by natural
radionuclides in homes or the environment, or by
atmospheric releases of radionuclides into the envi-
ronment.
(145) Irradiation geometries that more accurately
describe practical situations, other than those previ-
ously described, may be defined. These may include
irradiation by broad unidirectional or plane-parallel
beams that are not perpendicular to the long axis of
the body, beams that may be either divergent or
convergent, and beams that are non-uniformly dis-
tributed across the body.
3.5.2. Geometries used with the ICRU sphere
(146) In calculations of dose distributions in the
ICRU sphere phantom, the five (six if both lateral
geometries are counted) idealised irradiation geom-
etries described in Section 3.5.1 are generally used.
(147) In practice, because of the definition of the
directional dose equivalent, H'(d,{l), dose equiva-
lents at depths, d, along the principal axis are
calculated for various angles incident between 0°
and 90° to the principal axis of the sphere. (For a
discussion ofthe correlation between the value ofthe
angle ex and the irradiation geometry see Section
2.6.3).
3.5.3. Geometries used with the ICRU slab
(148) In calculations of dose distributions in the
ICRU slab phantom, a large number of incident
radiation geometries can be assumed by varying the
angle of incidence at the face of the slab. Calcula-
tions have been made for photons, neutrons, and
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
electrons for radiation incident on the slab at various
angles between 0° and 90°. It is also possible to
define the ROT and ISO geometries for the slab in a
similar manner as defined for the ICRU sphere
phantom (see Section 2.6.3).
21
 4. Conversion Coefficients
4.1 Introduction
(149) A 'conversion coefficient' links the protection
and operational quantities to physical quantities
characterising the radiation field. In practice, the
physical quantities that are usually calculated or
used are the tissue-absorbed dose (D T ), air kerma
free-in-air (Ka ), and particle fluence (4)). Thus, for
example, the effective dose, E, may be related to the
fluence of particles by a conversion coefficient.
(150) The data reviewed by the Joint Task Group
were either available in the scientific literature or
generated by members of the Joint Task Group and
their colleagues. This section summarises the conver-
sion coefficient data reviewed and recommends refer-
ence sets of conversion coefficients whose use will
provide for a consistent approach to the interpreta-
tion of measurements in radiological protection.
4.2 General
(151) The two major purposes of this report are to
present data that permit a general understanding of
the relationships between the protection and opera-
tional quantities, and to determine whether the
latter are adequate predictors of the former for
purposes of radiological protection in practical cir-
cumstances (e.g., in mixed radiation fields and for
broad energy spectra).
(152) The particular values of the quantities pre-
sented in this section depend upon a large number of
parameters. An exhaustive discussion of all the
published data is beyond the scope of this report but
representative data have been selected to illuminate
general principles. Extensive references to the origi-
nalliterature make it possible for those interested to
examine specific details. Based on the analysis of all
the data available to the Joint Task Group, recom-
mended reference data sets are given.
(153) Data were reviewed for photons with ener-
gies up to 10 MeV, for neutrons 18 with energies up to
180 MeV, and for electrons with energies up to 45
MeV (see Tables 4-6). Calculations for photons,
neutrons, and electrons with higher energies or for
other radiations that incorporate the new recommen-
dations of ICRP in Publication 60 are either sparse
or have not yet been performed.
(154) Modifications to existing transport codes,
and their supporting databases, will be necessary to
extend calculations to energies higher than those
18 The neutron data above 30 MeV are limited. Seven groups of
authors provided organ dose and effective dose data for neutron
energies up to 20 MeV. Five groups of authors have published
calculations of operational quantities but of these only two sets
22 extend above 30 MeV.
discussed in this report. These needed modifications
include
• re-evaluation of cross-section data for higher
energies and compilation in a format compatible
with the codes;
• calculation of the energy transported by second-
ary charged particles within the irradiated tis-
sue.
4.2.1 Radiation energy spectra and mixed
radiation fields
(155) The reference conversion coefficients given
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
in this report were calculated for irradiation by
monoenergetic radiation. In practice, monoenergetic
radiation fields are rare and generally the energies
ofthe constituent particles extend over a wide range.
Even in standards laboratories, the reference fields
used for type tests and calibrations are often only
quasi-monoenergetic. The mean or effective conver-
sion coefficients for broad spectra must be deter-
mined by integration over the entire radiation en-
ergy spectrum.
(156) Furthermore, the radiation fields of practical
importance in radiological protection usually consist
of more than one type of radiation because of the
secondary radiations produced by the interaction of
the primary radiation. This is always true for neu-
trons at any energy and is true for most other
radiations at high energies.
(157) For mixed radiation fields, the separate
contributions from all components of the radiation
field must be summed to determine the overall
conversion coefficients. For each component of the
radiation field, the mean conversion coefficient for
that component must be determined by integration
over the entire radiation energy spectrum. These
calculations may be readily carried out by means of
the conversion coefficients for monoenergetic radia-
tions presented in this section.
4.3. Conversion Coefficients for Photons
4.3.1. Introduction
(158) This section provides reference conversion
coefficients from air kerma free-in-air and from
photon fluence to both protection quantities and
operational quantities. The protection quantities
considered are the tissue or organ 19 absorbed dose,
19 The expression 'tissue or organ' is often abbreviated to 'organ'
in this Section.
 TABLE 4. - Summary of calculations of the conversion coefficients for protection quantities for photons ...,'"
.:
.~
Codes!databases! Protection Energies No. of u
anthropomorphic quantities Irrad iation or energy energy IEQ)
Authors models calculated (DT , E ) geometries ra nge points 0
U
Yamaguchi (1991); Monte Carlo code: E and values of DT cal- Horizontally and verti- 45 keV, 90 keV and 1.25 3 .:0
Yamaguchi and DEEP (Yamaguchi, culated for selected cally varying angles MeV '0...0
Q)
Yoshizawa (1991, 1991) organs
1992) Physical data:
.:>0
U
Hubbell (1982)
Model:
MIRD (hermaphrodite)
Yamaguchi (1994b) Monte Carlo code: Both E and DT calcu- AP 17 keV to 8.5 MeV 12
JEUNESSE (Ya magu- lated PA
chi,1992 ) RLAT
Physical data: ROT
Hubbell (1982) ISO
Models:
0, 1,5, 10, 15 year old;
Adult (hermaphro-

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

dite); (Cristy, 1980)
Reece et al. (1993) Monte Carlo code: No values for E : values AP 80 keV, 300 keV, 1 MeV 3
MCNP of DT calculated for PA
Physical data: nil selected organs LLAT
Models: RLAT
MIRD (male & female)
Zankl et al. (1992, 1997, Monte Carlo code: Both E and DT calcu- AP 10 keV to 10 MeV 17
nd (a,b]) GSF Code (Kra mer et lated PA
al., 1982) LLAT
Physical data: RLAT
DLC99IHUGO (ENDF/ ROT
B-V (Roussin et al., ISO
1983)] Horizontally and verti-
Models: cally varying angles
ADAM and EVA (adult models and
(Kramer et al., 1982); selected energies
BABY/CHILD (Veit et only)
al., 1989)

D T , and the effective dose, E. The operational quanti-
ties given are ambient dose equivalent, H * (d ), the
directional dose equivalent, H'(d) , and the personal
dose equivalent, Hp(d). The conversion coefficients
provided are for irradiation by monoenergetic pho-
tons incident upon calculational models or phantoms
of interest and for several irradiation geometries.
The general methods used to calculate these conver-
sion coefficients are described in Section 3.
4.3.2. Special considerations for photons
(159) In this report, most of the conversion coeffi-
cients for photons are presented in terms of the
quotient of a protection or operational quantity to air
kerma free-in-air expressed in units of either (Gyl
Gy) or (Sv/Gy). Purists may object to the manner in
which the units of the conversion coefficients are
expressed since the unit (Gy/Gy) or (Sv/Gy) is strictly
dimensionless. Nevertheless, the Commissions
thought it would be helpful if the dimensions were
expressed in this way to add clarity to the text and
data provided. For photons, the numerical value of
the radiation weighting factor is one (WR = 1) and
the organ absorbed dose per unit air kerma (Gy/Gy)
is numerically equal to the organ equivalent dose per
unit air kerma (Sv/Gy). Thus, the conversion coeffi-
cients are presented in terms of the organ absorbed
dose per unit air kerma (Gy/Gy) for photons. The
conversion coefficients for the effective dose and
operational quantities are given in units of (Sv/Gy).
In addition, so that the conversion coefficients for
photons may also be presented in a manner consis-
tent with those for neutrons and electrons (i.e., in
terms of particle fiuence), and to provide as complete
a database as possible for a variety of calculational
purposes, the data can be transformed into conver-
sion coefficients per unit photon fiuence using the
information in Table A.1 of Annex 2.
4.3.3. Methods of calculation
Computer codes
(160) General features ofthe transport codes used
for photon calculations are discussed in Section 23
 TABLE 5. -Summary of calculation of the conversion coefficients for protection quantities for neutrons
Codes/databases! Protection quantities Energy No. of energy
Authors models calculated (DT , H T , E ) Geometries range points

Morstin et at. (1992) Monte Carlo code: All AP Thermal to 20 MeV 33

MCNP PA
Neutron cross sections: LLAT
ENDFIB-IV (calculated) RLAT
Model:
EVA
Nabelssi and Hertel (1993b) Monte Carlo code: All AP 10 MeV to 19 MeV 14
MCNP PA
Neutron cross sections: LLAT
ENDFIB-V & RMCCS-MCNP RLAT
Kenna coefficients: ROT
Caswell et al. (1980)
Model:
PNL (male, female)
Leuthold et at. (1992) Monte Carlo code: All AP 10 eV to 13.5 MeV 14

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

SAM-CE PA
.S Neutron cross sections: LAT
ENDFIB-IV ROT
Kenna coefficients:
ICRU 26 (1977)
Model:
ADAM and EVA
Leuthold et al. (nd) Monte Carlo code: All AP Thermal to 20 MeV 19
MCNP PA
Neutron cross sections: LLAT
ENDFIB-IV RLAT
Kerma coefficients: ROT
White et al. (1992) ISO
Model:
ADAM and EVA
Yamaguchi (1993, 1994c-d) Monte Carlo code: All AP Thermal to 18.3 MeV 16
JENDL-3 PA
Kenna coefficients: RLAT
Caswell et al. (1980) ROT
Model: ISO
MIRD
Stewartetal. (1993) Monte Carlo code: All AP 1 keV to 20 MeV 17
MCNP PA
Neutron cross sections: LAT
ENDFIB-F
Kenna coefficients:
Caswell et al. (1980)
Model:
PNL (male, female)
Hollnagel (1990, 1992, 1994a) Monte Carlo code: All AP Thermal to 20 MeV 32
HL-PH PA
Neutron cross sections: LAT
ENDFIB-IV ROT
Kerma coefficients: ISO
Caswell et al. (1980 )
Model:
ADAM and EVA

3.4.2. Several different codes were used to calculate
the data reported here. Zankl et al. (1992, 1997, nd)
used a Monte Carlo code written by Kramer et al.
(1982) for the calculation of organ equivalent doses
and effective doses for adults and for two pediatric
models. Yamaguchi and Yoshizawa (1991, 1992) and
Yamaguchi (1991) used the DEEP Monte Carlo code
to calculate the effective dose for adult models. These
24 latter authors also used the computer code
JEUNESSE (Yamaguchi, 1992) to calculate 'age-
dependent' effective doses (Yamaguchi, 1994b). Both
DEEP and JEUNESSE incorporate the Monte Carlo
code MORSE-CG (Emmett, 1975). Reece et al. (1993)
used the MCNP computer code (Briesmeister, 1986)
to calculate organ equivalent dose conversion coeffi-
cients. Aspects of the use of the kerma approxima-
tion and its limitations in these calculations are
discussed in detail in Section 3.4.2.
 TABLE 6. -Summary of calculations of the conversion coefficients for operational quantities for neutrons
Operational quantities calculated Energy No. of energy
Authors Codes/databases H*(lO) H'(10,()() range points

Sannikov and Savitskaya (1993, nd) Monte Carlo code: Yes No No Thermal to 5 GeV 21
HADRON; FANEUT
Neutron cross sections:
HADRON
Kerma coefficients:
Caswell et al. (1980)
Nabelssi and Hertel (1993a, 1994) Monte Carlo code: Yes No No 1 keV to 180 MeV 30
HMCNP
Neutron cross sections:
ENDF/B-IV and RMCCS-MCNP
Kerma coefficients:
rCRU 26 (1977)
Leuthold et al. (nd) Monte Carlo code: Yes No No Thermal to 30 MeV 32
HL-KUQU
Neutron cross sections:

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

ENDF/B-IV
Kerma coefficients:
Caswell et al. (1980)
Hollnagel (1994b) Monte Carlo code: Yes 0°:5 Ci :5 180° 0° :5 Ci :5 75° Thermal to 19 MeV 33
HL-KUQU
Neutron cross sections:
ENDF/B-IV
Kerma coefficients:
Caswell et al. (1980)
Schuhmacher et al. (1994); Monte Carlo code: Yes 0°:5 Ci :5 90° 0°:5 Ci :5 90° Thermal to 20 MeV 61
Siebert and Schuhmacher MCNP
(1994); Siebert et al. (nd) Neutron cross sections:
ENDF/B-V
Kerma coefficients:
Caswell et al. (1980)

Models and phantoms
(161) For calculations corresponding to adults,
Zankl et al. (1992, 1997, nd) used male and female
adult mathematical models (Kramer et al., 1982)
derived from the MIRD phantom (Snyder et al.,
1969, 1978). Reece and co-workers (1993) also used a
modified MIRD phantom to obtain their data while
Yamaguchi and Yoshizawa (1991, 1992) and Yamagu-
chi (1994a) used a hermaphrodite modified adult
MIRD phantom for their calculations of angular
dependence ofthe effective dose.
(162) For the investigation of the age dependence
of conversion coefficients for the effective dose
Yamaguchi (1994b) used hermaphrodite 0-, 1-, 5-,
10-, and 15-year-old child and adult anthropomor-
phic mathematical models of different body sizes
designed by Cristy (1980). Zankl and her colleagues
(nd) used tomographic models of an 8-week-old baby
and a 7-year-old child based on whole-body com-
puted tomographic data of actual children (Zankl et
al., 1988; Veit et al., 1989).
Physical data
(163) Zankl et al. (1992, nd) used photon cross-
section data from the DLC-99/HUGO package
(Knight and Roussin, 1983; Roussin et al., 1983).
Yamaguchi and Yoshizawa (1991,1992) and Yamagu-
chi (1994a) used kerma coefficients from Hubbell
(1982).
Summary
(164) Table 4 summarises the computer codes,
physical databases, anthropomorphic models, and
irradiation geometries used by each group of au-
thors.
4.3.4. Available data
Protection quantities
(165) The Joint Task Group reviewed organ dose
data calculated by three groups of authors. These
three groups were Reece at Texas A and M Univer-
sity (Reece et al., 1993), Yamaguchi and his collabora-
tors at JAERI (Yamaguchi and Yoshizawa, 1991,
1992; Yamaguchi, 1994a,b), and Zankl and co-
workers at GSF (Zankl et al., 1992, 1997, nd). Organ
equivalent doses and effective doses for monoener-
getic photons incident in broad parallel beams or
incident isotopically on human models were pro- 25
 vided (see Table 4). The irradiation geometries for
which calculations were made were antero-posterior
(AP); postero-anterior (PA); left and right lateral
(LLAT and RLAT) and the average of left and right
lateral incidence (LAT); a 360 0 rotation about the
model's longitudinal axis (ROT) and irradiation by a
radiation field in which the particle fluence per unit
solid angle is independent of direction (ISO) (see
Section 3). Some of the authors presented data for
additional angles of photon incidence (Yamaguchi
and Yoshizawa, 1992; Zankl et al., 1997) and for
human models of different sizes (ages), (Yamaguchi,
1994b; Zankl et al., nd.
Operational quantities
large organs (e.g., lungs, liver, stomach). For organs
or tissues distributed throughout the body (skin,
bone-surface, bone-marrow) the coefficients of varia-
tion were less than 1%. For smaller organs (e.g.,
testes, ovaries, thyroid), the coefficients of variances
tended to be higher but only exceeded 15% at low
energies (below approximately 30 keY) where the
conversion coefficients are very small and thus the
significance of this statistical uncertainty (for ex-
ample, in its impact on the uncertainty in the
estimate of effective dose) is low.
(168) It is difficult to estimate the uncertainties
introduced by the simplifications of the modelling of
the radiation transport, when compared to the physi-
cal phenomena occurring in reality. Comparisons of
measured and calculated doses in phantoms and

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

(166) No new data for the operational quantities
are presented in this report but data for the ambient
dose equivalent, directional dose equivalent, and
personal dose equivalent are taken from ICRU Re-
port 47 (lCRU, 1992a) and ISO Report DIS /4037-3
(ISO, nd) (see Paragraphs 188-196). No data are
available for Hp(d) in the body, but conversion coeffi-
cients for Hp,slab and Hp,thymus are used as surrogates
for Hp in the human torso (see Paragraph 322).
Analysis of the variability of the data
(167) The statistical uncertainties of the calcu-
lated organ equivalent dose conversion coefficients
depend strongly on the photon energy, the size of the
model, the location of individual organs and their
volume. At photon energies above 17 keY the coeffi-
cients of variation were generally less than 2.5% for
models of simple geometry (e.g., the ICRU sphere or
slab phantoms) and in an Alderson-Rando phantom
indicate that these deviations are generally below
5-10%, and that they do not exceed 15% (Selbach et
al., 1985; Williams et al., 1985b; Grosswendt, 1989;
Veit et al., 1992). This conclusion is to some extent
also confirmed by the fact that the data analysed for
this report, which were calculated using indepen-
dent, different Monte Carlo codes and databases, in
most cases agreed to within the statistical uncertain-
ties given by the authors. As an example of the
agreement between the data from different authors,
Fig. 6 compares calculations of conversion coeffi-
cients for effective dose by Yamaguchi (1994b) and
Zankl et al. (1997). When it was possible to compare
data between several authors, there was general
agreement within the statistical uncertainties cited
(organ equivalent dose conversion coefficients for

..
::l
as

"0
11.1

<Xl .::...."
0> 0
0>
,...; ....
"
....
1:-- '-l

.
..,
10

0
Q..

~
0p:::
::2
0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 6. Comparison of effective dose conversion coefficients for photons. Ratio of data from Yamaguchi (1994b) to data from Zankl et al.
26 (1997) is shown as a function of photon energy for five irradiation geometries.
adults from Reece et al. , 1993 and Zankl et al., 1997, set of organ equivalent dose data is shown graphi-
and effective dose conversion coefficients for adults cally in Annex 1 and compiled in tables in Annex 2.
from Yamaguchi and Yoshizawa, 1992, Yamaguchi, (171) The calculation of effective dose from the
1993, 1994b, and Zankl et al., 1992, 1997). Differ- data for the individual organ equivalent doses has
ences (up to about 20%) between the effective dose been described in Section 2.5.3.
conversion coefficients for adults from the data of (172) The reference values for conversion coeffi-
Yamaguchi and Zankl and co-workers are mainly cients for organ equivalent dose given in the Annexes
due to the different human models used in the are taken from the work ofZankl et al. (1997). Where
calculations and occur at low photon energies. comparisons are made between the data calculated
Whereas Yamaguchi used a hermaphrodite model, by Zankl and co-workers, and the data of other authors,
the data of Zankl and co-workers were calculated good agreement is observed (see Paragraph 167).
using female and male models. The smaller body size (173) Tables A2-A16 in Annex 2 give the refer-
of the female model resulted in higher organ dose ence conversion coefficients recommended by the
conversion coefficients, particularly at low photon Commissions for those specific organs for which the
energies. ICRP recommends tissue weighting factors [i.e., the
bladder; bone (red marrow); bone (surface); breast;

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

colon; gonads (ovaries, testes, and the average value);
4.3.5. Conversion coefficients and analysis liver; lung; oesophagus; remainder; skin; stomach
and thyroid]. Table A13 in Annex 2 gives the refer-
Protection quantities: organ ence conversion coefficients for the remainder that
are calculated from data for those separate organs
and tissue doses and tissues (adrenals; brain; kidney; muscle; pan-
(169) In the analysis of the various sets of organ- creas; small intestine; spleen; upper large intestine;
dose data, principal attention was devoted to those thymus; and uterus) that make up the remainder as
organs and tissues, including those that make up the defined in ICRP Publication 60 (see Section 2.5).
'remainder', by which ICRP specifies effective dose With two exceptions (the thymus and the uterus),
and for which weighting factors are specified in separate tabulated data are not given for the organs
ICRP Publication 60. of the remainder but these may be obtained from the
(170) Figure 7 shows organ equivalent doses for a work ofZankl et al. (1997) if required.
few selected organs. The curves show organ equiva-
lent doses per unit air kerma free-in-air (Sv/Gy) in
Protection quantities: effective dose
AP irradiation geometry as a function of photon
energy for the colon, female breast, lenses of the (174) Table A17 summarises the reference conver-
eyes, lungs, red bone marrow and skin. A complete sion coefficients for the effective dose per unit air

skin
breast
...... .
·. ....
red bone marrow
os
e~ 1.5
:
:' /
-,'. ...:;..
colon
lungs

.
.:.:
~
:/' /.' ..... ".;.;..
.' ............... '-..,.,.,. eye lenses

...'c
;
I·:.
/: .'/ ". .........
"". ......... ""'"........-.
::I I .... . . . .. ..:..::.-..:.:::::.:. ':: ::.:-::.:.:: ':.:..:.-:.::.. .::.....
t
Q.
1.0
I
I
; ---
- - ;-:.. ....
~----------
Cl
------
..
ID
o
"'"
cCl
II ,
" I/
iii 0.5
I i I
> I .7 /
'S
tr
Cl
/ ;;-
.!'
C

o
..
os
bII
:i'
//
0 °;'" , "
/

0 . 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 7. Organ equivalent doses for selected organs inAP irradiation geometry as a function of photon energy. 27
 kerma evaluated from the organ data provided in
Annex 2. The results are shown graphically in Fig. 8.
(175) In the selection of reference data sets for
effective dose, the same procedure adopted in the
case for organ doses was used. Reference conversion
coefficients for the effective dose values were taken
from those authors providing the most comprehen-
sive data set for the respective parameters under
consideration. This procedure resulted in the selec-
tion of data from Zankl et al. (1992, 1997) for energy
dependence, Yamaguchi and Yoshizawa (1992) for
angular dependence, and Yamaguchi (1994b) for age
dependence. The data from Yamaguchi (1994a) and
Zankl et al. (1997) for the adult models are in good
agreement (Fig. 6). The data for various ages
(Yamaguchi, 1994b; Zankl et al., nd) show the best
agreement for the LAT and ROT geometries with
complex manner by several parameters, including
the photon interaction cross sections in tissue, the
location of the organs in the body, the tissue weight-
ing factors for the individual organs that contribute
to the effective dose, and the irradiation geometry.
(178) The energy dependence of conversion coeffi-
cients for the individual organs is determined by the
energy variation of photon interaction cross section
and the location of the organ in the body. Above 10
keV, the photoelectric cross section decreases with
energy and the conversion coefficients correspond-
ingly increase due to the increasing predominance of
Compton scattering. The peak in the conversion
coefficients seen between 80 and 100 keY, particu-
larly in the AP and PA geometries (Fig. 8; see also
Figs. A.1-A.19 in Annex 2), is due to the large
proportion of large-angle scatters occurring in this

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

somewhat larger differences, but still good agree-
ment, for the AP and PA geometries. The differences
between the data sets observed for the ISO geometry
are probably due to different modelling of this geom-
etry.
(176) The data-selection procedure described above
is believed not to introduce any inconsistency in the
reference data because, when it was possible to
compare those data common to several authors,
there was general agreement within the statistical
uncertainties cited by the authors (see also Para-
graph 168).
Energy dependence of effective dose
(177) The energy dependence of conversion coeffi-
cients for the effective dose (Fig. 8) is determined in a
energy region. This peak is especially evident for
superficially located organs where backscattering is
important but less pronounced for deeper lying
organs. For these latter organs, the deeper penetra-
tion of radiations with increasing energy is of greater
importance.
(179) At energies above 100 keY, the conversion
coefficients for the superficial organs show a decline
while those for the deeper organs show a small
increase. Between 100 keY and 1 MeV, the total
photon interaction cross section in tissue does not
change significantly with energy. At energies above
1 MeV, the pair-production cross section increases
slowly with photon energy for the low atomic num-
bers typical of the constituents of tissue. At photon
energies below 10 MeV, pair production is of little

1.5
,......"
>-
~
>
ell
---
~.

~
CIS
1.0
..........

./> . . . . . ::~:::::.: .........................::::.:::::.:.::::~.,..-...-..

E
4.l
...
.:.I
'a;
.... - ... _ ... -... ..-- ::::-~.~.,;::;:;.-=
....
'2
...:::s
: /
I ".-.........
......... --- - - - --
! / ,," - - - - - - - - - :.: ..........
--- -;:;'-.::",.-
-:. -:::~---:-.-.
00
a> 4.l
Q.
If / ,'/ .... -._._._._.-._.-.
a>
,....; 4.l 0.5 :!/ ,,,
r:
It:>
<I)
0 DI/
"0 AP
t:0 4.l ::1 "
PA
0- >
.::: il'; LLAT
Q) :/' I;
~
~ • l' RLAT
.~'L?
~ ,d./ ROT

-
tl.l
C,.)
0.0
~ . ISO

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Photon energy (Me V)
Fig. 8. Reference conversion coefficients for effective dose for photons in various irradiation geometries on an adult anthropomorphic
28 computational model. Numerical data are given in TableA.17.
importance in determining the conversion coeffi-
cients.
(180) The different forms ofthe energy variation of
conversion coefficients for effective dose with irradia-
tion geometry reflect the different locations of organs
with respect to the incoming photon beam and the
value of their weighting factors. The 'back-scatter
peak' is most evident in the AP irradiation geometry
because those organs with a large weighting factor
are anteriorly located. In the LAT irradiation geom-
etry, the 'back-scatter peak' virtually disappears
because all the organs are more or less 'deep-lying'
from this aspect.
Angular dependence of effective dose
angles oriented from the left side than for those from
the right side.
(182) These effects occur because many of the
organs that are dominant in determining the magni-
tude of the effective dose are located towards the
front of the body. When the body is irradiated in
geometries other than the AP, these frontal organs
are shielded by thicker layers of tissue than is the
case for photon incidence from the front of the body
(see the data for the bladder, Fig. A.1; breast, Fig.
A.4; colon, Fig. A.5; gonads, Fig. A.8; liver, Fig. A.9;
stomach, Fig. A. 14; and thyroid, Fig.A.15 in Annex 1).
(183) There is an inherent asymmetry that occurs
with respect to irradiation from the left- or right-side
of the body because the specification of the effective
dose includes several unpaired organs that are not

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

(181) Conversion coefficients for the effective dose
from air kerma are strongly dependent upon the
direction of the photon incidence. This is illustrated
in Figs. 9 and 10, which present conversion coeffi-
cients for three photon energies and a variety of
incident angles. For horizontally varying incidence
(see Fig. 9), the conversion coefficients are highest
for the anterior and anteriorly oblique angles, de-
creasing for lateral incidence and increasing again
for posterior and posteriorly oblique incidence. The
conversion coefficients are also higher for incident
symmetrically located with respect to the vertical
midline of the body (see the data for the colon, Fig.
A.5; liver, Fig. A.9; oesophagus, Fig. A. 11; and stom-
ach, Fig. A.14 in Annex 1).
(184) For vertically varying incidence (see Fig. 10),
the conversion coefficients are again highest for
anterior and anteriorly oblique angles with a steep
decrease towards irradiation from overhead or the
ground-again showing an increase for posterior
and posteriorly oblique incidence. The reasons for
these variations are the same as those previously

left side
...... ....
.'. 1.25 MeV
. 90 keV
.......... '
, : ' '0 45 keV

•.••.•.•..l:E> ..•...•••:;._..:~: __
: ..... ... " .....
.: ..... .......
, \
'.
...

:''?\-.:>\\\
:>..,.": \ ;
\
\
\
\
'.
...
".
:
bock
\ :
front
'1:5
I :
I :
I ;
I :'
I
I
".....
' .-
..
~ -.~
.:...:'
-- '

'. .'
'0.:" ;"
.'
·······.1.5
right side
Fig. 9. The angular variation of effective dose for photons: effective dose per unit air kerma in free air, E / K., for monoenergetic parallel
photon beams incident at various angles on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. The direction of incidence is orthogonal to the
longitudinal axis of the body. 29
 top
.. ·······,..5 ......
1.25 MeV

.......... :.... 90 keV

45 keV

. .....1:0 .....
., ..... :.,:....
" "
.......
". ,."
.,
: .....,
'.' ,,
:
:/ "" ,
it \ ':
I \ :
,; \ :
front
/1i5
I :
I :
I !
I :
/

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

",- -.':'

.:.(
--
·····1·.0
"

"
' ..:
········.1.5 ... ....
bottom
Fig. 10. The angular variation of effective dose for photons: effective dose per unit air kerma in free air, E / K., for monoenergetic
parallel photon beams incident at various angles on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. The direction of incidence is
orthogonal to the transverse axis of the body.

mentioned but enhanced because in this case, the
shielding effect of the body is more pronounced.
Age dependence of effective dose
(185) Yamaguchi (1994b) and Zankl et al. (nd) have
calculated the variation of effective doses with age
(strictly, body size). Selected data from Yamaguchi
(1994b) are shown in Figs 11 and 12 for the AP and
ISO geometries. The largest variation of the effective
dose with age was found for the LAT and ISO
geometries.
(186) Conversion coefficients for effective dose to
air kerma decrease generally with increasing age. In
the ROT geometry, for example, conversion coeffi-
cients for 115 keV photons range from 1.10 to 0.91 Sv
Gy-l, respectively, for phantoms simulating ages
from newborn to the adult. The conversion coeffi-
cients for 510-keV photons range from 1.01 to 0.84
Sv Gy- l. The principal reason for this decrease is the
increasing amount of overlying tissue shielding the
organs from the incident radiation with increasing
body size.
Relative contribution of specific organs
and tissues to effective dose
(187) Figures 13-16 summarise the relative contri-
30 butions of specific tissues and organs (for all organs
and tissues for which the ICRP specifies tissue
weighting factors) to the effective dose. In Figs.
13-15, the ratio wTHT/E is plotted as a function of
photon energy for the body irradiated in the AP, PA,
and ROT geometries. It is evident that at very low
energies (between 10 and 20 keV) those organs at, or
close to, the surface of the body (with respect to the
direction of photon incidence) dominate the contribu-
tion to E. Above 20 keV, the relative contributions of
the superficial organs decrease and those of deeper-
lying organs accordingly increase. At photon ener-
gies above approximately 1 MeV, the relative contri-
butions of each organ approach the numerical values
of its respective tissue weighting factor, WT, because
at these higher photon energies the organ dose
conversion coefficients, D~Ka, all tend to the value 1
Gy/Gy (see Figs. A. I-A. 15 in Annex 1). Figure 16
presents similar data in a somewhat different man-
ner and shows the change in the relative contribu-
tions of organ doses to the effective dose at photon
energies of 30 and 200 keV.
Operational quantities
(188) Conversion coefficients for the operational
quantities ambient dose equivalent, H*(d), and direc-
tional dose equivalent, H'(d), have been calculated
by several groups using Monte Carlo methods (see
 !l
J:i
III
·8
~o
Co)
J:i
o
.~
III
>
J:i
o
Co)

o year
1 year
5 years
10 years
15 years

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

adult

0.0~ __~__~~~~u-__~__~~~~u-__~__~~~~~
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 11. Effective dose per unit air kerma free-in-air, E / Ka, for incident photons in AP irradiation geometry on anthropomorphic
computational models of various ages.

Section 3.4.2). Within their estimated uncertainties, Ambient dose equivalent

the coefficients calculated by these authors are in
good agreement (Cross, 1989). The values of the
reference conversion coefficients for H*(10), H'(O.07)
and H'(10) now recommended by both the ICRU and
ICRP do not differ significantly from those previ-
ously recommended in ICRP Publication 51 (ICRP,
1987) (see chapter 5).
(189) The conversion coefficients for the ambient
dose equivalent, H*(10), given in this report are
taken directly from ICRU Report 47 (ICRU, 1992a)
and are based on earlier evaluations of extant pub-
lished data by Wagner et al. (1985) and Grosswendt
et al. (1988). Comparisons with the conversion coeffi-

......
>-
1.2
Q
>
til
'-' 1.0
~ .
tll
«S
§ O.B
~

....
..104

·a..
~

0.6

...='
~
Co.
~ 0.4
o year
'"0
"0 1 year
~ 5 years
.::: 10 years
u 0.2 15 years
....
~
Ul
adult

0.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (Me V)
Fig. 12. Effective dose per unit air kerma free-in-air E / K for incident photons in isotropic (ISO) irradiation geometry on
anthropomorphic computational models of various ages. ' a, 31
 1.0000
".
.. :':.......... ". '"
.................................................................................. .
. . -x.,-:,"""--
~
I'. I
-:.=~~.;;-.::=·::;-:;..~~-:--= ..:::.·.7-:::~~.~~~:"'I
_ ... - ... - ... - ..
-'0 ./,/ "'--:- ......... - - - - - - - - - - ..
I f.• .' , _ -:~::.=..::::.::".:-_-:-.:-_:.::~~::..~...:.::-..:;.:.."!'":.:=::.n ....·... ~..'--·-
I / ''/'/ ; .?, ........... _ ... . ..... .
. /"
I I l~~:~?
"
"",,i
_· ,.
,.t....... " ...............-:-:-~
I "
.. ___~':..:''.:,:'',:, :".:. :':':":':'':':'':':'':':':':':.:....:,:...:,:...:... ::-..:-:.:.:..~..;'..:".:.:.....................1
gonad!!
1
~ colon
~' i lungs
, I ; red marrow
I }I slomach
I I I bladder
,! I breasl
I' I ' liver
,i I oesophagus
,i I remainder
I iI lhyroid
bone surface

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

. I
II skin
0.0001 LL_---'_-'--'-..L...J....L-I....L..1._ _........--'---'--'-.L-I-...........L-:--_-'-_L--I..-L-'-.o.....LJ:-':
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Pholon energy (MeV)
Fig. 13. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose for incident photons in AP irradiation geometry on an adult
anthropomorphic computational model.

cients given in ICRP Publication 51 (lCRP, 1987) K a , for photon energies between 30 keV and 10 MeV
show that the three composite sets of data for H*(10) (lCRD, 1992a; Wagner et al., 1985). Values derived
are in good agreement and differ by less than 2% for from this formula are reproduced in Table A.21 of
photon energies up to 3 MeV and about 5% at 10 Annex 2 for those photon energies. Below 30 keV, the
MeV. values given in Table A.21 are based on the data
(190) Given this good agreement, the ICRD adopted given in ICRU Report 47 (lCRD, 1992a; see also
an empirical analytical function for calculation ofthe Grosswendt et al., nd; Hubbell and Seltzer, 1995).
numerical values of the conversion coefficient, H*(10)/ (191) When precise interpretation is required, it is

~!
.... ........... -.&, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
oj
111
0
'1:1 -------------
t:
4l

.....~
U
4l
---
4l

....0
111 gonads
s:: colon
0
co
(j)
:;::: lunls
(j) ;:I red marrow
..... ,Q
slomach
t'-"
If:>
:5s:: bladder
breast
~ 0
u liver
0
~ oesophagus
4l
~ .....~III remainder
~
....
C) - 4l
CI:
thyroid
bone surface
skin
0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 14. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose for incident photons in PA irradiation geometry on an adult
32 anthropomorphic computational model.
 ~
Q)
'0
~o
......
..................................................................................... U
~
,S
...
00
Q)

~
o
U

............................ , .
gonads
colon
I
lungs
red marrow
I stomach
I bladder
I breast

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

I liver
I oesophagus
remainder
thyroid
bone surface
skin
0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 15. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose for incident photons in ROT irradiation geometry on an adult
anthropomorphic computational model.

recommended that interpolation between the values
of the conversion coefficients given in Table A.21 be
carried out using a 4-point (cubic) Lagrangian inter-
polation formula on a linear-log scale. For interpola-
tions of the angular distribution factors given in
Tables A. 22-A. 25 ofAnnex 2, a 4-point (cubic) Lagran-
gian interpolation formula on a linear-linear scale is
recommended.
Directional dose equivalent
(192) The main source of the reference conversion
coefficients recommended by the Commissions for
the directional dose equivalent, H'(d,fl) are the data
of Dimbylow and Francis (1989) and those in ICRU
Report 47 (see Section 2.6.3).
(193) Values of conversion coefficients for the
directional dose equivalent at depths of 0.07 and 10
mm in the ICRU sphere, H'(0.07,00) and H'(10,00),
are given in Tables A.22 and A.23 of Annex 2 [see
Paragraphs (189)-(191), 'Ambient dose equivalent,'
for a discussion of interpolation between the data in
Tables]. Variations of the conversion coefficient,
H'(d,ex)/$, as a function of photon energy and of the
angle, ex, between the radius opposing the incident
field and the principal axis of the ICRU sphere can
be studied through the angular dependence factors,
R(d,ex), defined by:
R(d, ex) = [H'(d, ex)/$]/[H'(d, 0°)/$]
and values of R(d,ex) are also included in these tables
for values of ex from 0° to 180°. These angular
dependence factors are derived from the data of
Dimbylow and Francis (1989) and those in ICRU
Report 47.
(194) Operational quantities at these two depths
(0.07 and 10 mm) are used for monitoring weakly
and strongly penetrating radiation, respectively. Val-
ues are not given for H'(3,ex) because this quantity is
not widely used in the routine practice for the
monitoring of photons. If the tissues at intermediate
depths (e.g., the lens of the eye) are likely to be
irradiated, they usually are protected by shielding
(e.g., protective spectacles for the eye) and measure-
ments of H'(O.07) and H*(10) will normally provide
adequate information for protection in photon radia-
tion fields.
Personal dose equivalent
(195) A discussion of the quantity personal dose
equivalent is given in Section 2.6.4. At present, no
calculated values for Hp(d) in the human body are
available. However, ICRU Report 47 has recom-
mended conversion coefficients for Hp,slab in the ICRU
slab based on calculations by Grosswendt (1990).
Data from Till et ai. (1995) and revised data from
Grosswendt et ai. (nd) were used in the preparation
of Tables A.24 and A.25 of Annex 2, which also
contain conversion coefficients from air kerma as
well as angular-dependence factors for H p(10,ex) and
(4.1)
H p(0.07,ex) for angles between 0° and 75°.
(196) The personal dose equivalent at depths of
0.07 and 10 mm in tissue slab phantoms has been 33
 I E=30 keY I quantities and operational quantities. The protec-
tion quantities given here are the organ absorbed
dose, DT , and the effective dose, E. The operational
quantities provided are ambient dose equivalent,
H*(d), and personal dose equivalent, Hp(d). The
0.216 conversion coefficients given are for irradiation by
0.263
Others monoenergetic neutrons incident in several geom-
etries on the phantoms of interest. The general
methods used to calculate these conversion coeffi-
cients are described in Section 3.
0.072
Colon 4.4.2 Special considerations for neutrons
(198) Conversion coefficients given in this report
0.139 are for irradiation by incident monoenergetic neu-
Stomach trons. In practice, exposure to monoenergetic neu-
trons rarely occurs. The energy of neutrons in radia-

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.109 0.115 tion fields usually extends over a wide range-in
Thyroid Breast some instances by as much as 10 orders of magni-
tude in energy. Furthermore, most so-called 'neutron
fields' are mixed radiation fields, almost always
associated with photons and sometimes other radia-
tions. If the conversion coefficients for such fields are
to be evaluated, appropriate averaging of coefficients
I E=200 keY I for monoenergetic particles over the relevant spectra
must be carried out (see Section 4.2.1).
(199) Within a body, neutrons undergo many inter-
actions by which they lose energy until they are
0.139 finally absorbed in or escape from the body. Many
different types of secondary particle may be pro-
0.325 duced during this slowing-down process. The ener-
gies (and consequently the LETs) ofthese secondary
0.128 particles are distributed over a wide range. The
Testes distribution of absorbed dose in terms of LET (and
therefore quality factor) at a given position in the
phantom is determined by many variables of which
the most important are the interaction cross sec-
tions, secondary-particle energy spectra, and trans-
0.121 port of the secondary particles from the point of
0.08 Colon interaction to that position. Thus, the deposition of
Red bone energy at any point in a body resulting from external
0.094 0.113
marrow irradiation by neutrons is a complex process and is
Ovaries Lung strongly energy-dependent.
Fig. 16. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective (200) The production of secondary photons by
dose, E, for photons with 30 and 200 keV energy inAP irradiation
neutron interactions is of particular importance
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model.
because of the considerable penetration of these
photons in tissue. In particular, the 2.2 MeV photons
chosen because operational quantities at these two that are emitted during capture ofthermalised neu-
depths are used for monitoring weakly and strongly trons in hydrogen via the 1H(n;y )2D reaction playa
penetrating radiation. Angular dependence factors significant role in the deposition of energy in the
are given for <X values up to 75°. human body and are, as a result of Compton scatter-
ing, the source of secondary photons of above about 1
MeV in energy in a body irradiated by neutrons. For
4.4 Conversion Coefficients for Neutrons
neutrons of incident energy up to about 1 MeV,
secondary photons deposit the major fraction of the
4.4.1. Introduction
absorbed dose deep in the body. At a depth of 10 mm
(197) This section provides reference conversion in the body, photons contribute 90% of the absorbed
34 coefficients from neutron fluence to both protection dose from irradiation by thermal- and intermediate-
energy neutrons; at neutron energies above 10 keV
the contribution to absorbed dose from photons falls
sharply and is less than 20% at 1 MeV (Dietze and
Siebert, 1994).
(201) As the incident energy of the neutrons in-
creases, other radiations play an increasingly impor-
tant part in the deposition of energy. At the incident
neutron energies considered in this report, protons
are, after photons, the next most important source of
absorbed dose in human tissue. At thermal neutron
energies, the reaction 14N(n,p)14C (which produces
protons of about 600 keV) contributes the greater
part of the absorbed dose from protons. At energies
above about 1 keV, the energy deposited by recoil
protons from elastic scattering on hydrogen becomes
important, while at energies above a few MeV the
production of charged particles by nuclear reactions
[(n,D), (n,T), (n,a), etc.] increasingly becomes an
important mechanism for the deposition of energy.
(202) At neutron energies below 20 MeV, the
absorbed dose is calculated by means of the kerma
approximation, but at higher energies, secondary
charged-particle equilibrium is not always achieved
and the transport of secondary charged particles
must be considered (the range of20 MeV protons in
tissue is about 4 mm). The kerma approximation and
its limitations are discussed in detail in Section
3.4.2.
(203) The definition of the protection quantities in
ICRP Publication 60 recommended significant
changes with respect to radiation quality weighting.
In calculations of these quantities, the use of a
quality factor related to LET [the Q(L) - L relation-
ship] was replaced by the radiation weighting factor,
WR, which is determined only by the radiation inci-
dent on the body (Le., not by the radiation at the
point of interest) but is applied to the mean absorbed
dose in the relevant tissue. Use of the Q(L) - L
relationship was, except in some exceptional circum-
stances when it may be used in the calculation of
protection quantities, reserved for calculation of the
operational quantities (see Section 2.4.2 for further
discussion).
4.4.3. Methods of calculation
Computer codes
(204) General features of the transport codes used
for photon calculations are discussed in Section
3.4.2. Several different codes were used to calculate
the data reported here. The Joint Task Group evalu-
ated data from nine groups of authors. The computer
codes used by each group in the calculation of
protection and operational quantities are listed in
Tables 5 and 6, with brief descriptions of the codes
given in Section 3.4.2. Several so-called 'standard'
Monte Carlo codes were used: LAHET; MCNP;
MORSE-CG and SAM-CE. In addition, special codes
developed and operated at JAERI (Yamaguchi, 1993)
and PTB (Hollnagel, 1990) were used.
(205) The MCNP code was used by six groups of
authors. When coupled with the ENDFIB neutron
cross-section data files, this transport code was
limited to calculations for neutron energies below 20
MeV. However, by extending the cross-section data
files, Leuthold and Schrauber (1992) were able to
perform calculations for energies up to 30 MeV with
the MCNP code. The codes MORSE, SAM-CE, and
the customised codes of Hollnagel were also limited
to 20 MeV by the cross-section data (see Table 5).
(206) Nabelssi and Hertel (1993a,b, 1994) used the
LAHET code for neutron energies up to 180 MeV.
This code can be applied to calculations of the
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
transport of high-energy particles. For calculations
up to incident neutron energies of 5 GeV in the ICRU
sphere, Sannikov and Savitskaya (1993, nd) used the
HADRON code.
(207) The kerma approximation was used by all
authors for energies below 20 MeV (Le., charged
particles were not transported from the interaction
point) (see Section 3.4.1, for a discussion of the
kerma approximation). Of the transport codes listed
in Tables 5 and 6, only LAHET and HADRON treat
the transport of energetic charged particles away
from the point of interaction. In their calculations,
Nabelssi and Hertel (1993a, 1994) and Sannikov and
Savitskaya (1993, nd) transported charged particles
down to 20 MeV and then used the kerma approxima-
tion.
(208) Special considerations apply to the calcula-
tion of energy deposition by thermal neutrons. Ther-
mal neutron-scattering is strongly dependent on the
molecular binding of hydrogen (e.g., water or polycar-
bonate) and the chemical composition ofthe material
in which the scattering takes place. Furthermore, in
the thermal region, the energy distribution of neu-
trons is important because both the tissue kerma
coefficient and the IH(n;y)2D and 14N(n,p)14C reac-
tion cross sections vary inversely with neutron veloc-
ity. The value of the calculated mean kerma coeffi-
cient for thermal neutrons and the secondary photon
fluence therefore depend on hydrogen-binding and
the precision with which the thermal energy distribu-
tion is described (i.e., on the number and width ofthe
energy groups selected in the low-energy range).
(209) The number of energy groups (often referred
to colloquially as energy-bins) used by the various
groups of authors differed widely. For example,
Yamaguchi (1993) used only one thermal energy
group while Leuthold et ai. (1992) used 20 energy
groups for neutrons below 1 eV. A summary is given
in Tables 5 and 6. The choice of number and width of
energy groups significantly influences the values of
the conversion coefficients calculated by the various 35
 groups of authors (Schuhmacher et al., 1994). The
differences between the calculations are greatest for
deep-lying organs and at neutron energies below 1
ke V when the neutron degradation process and the
contribution of secondary photons are most impor-
tant (see Section 4.4.4).
Models and phantoms
(210) Most of the calculations of protection quanti-
ties reviewed were made with adult models. Limited
data were available for children. Calculations were
performed for the adult phantom using either a
hermaphrodite MIRD-5 phantom or modified MIRD-
based phantoms (ADAM and EVA) with sex-specific
differences (Kramer et al., 1982). The operational
quantities were calculated in the models specified for
the operational quantities, the ICRU sphere and
slab phantoms, both of which are made of ICRU-
tissue substitute. Tables 5 and 6 summarise the
models used by the various groups.
(211) Most of the authors used sex-specific phan-
toms based on the ADAM and EVA models in their
calculations. Some made calculations for a number
of organs and tissues different from those specified in
ICRP Publication 60 and in the Kramer-Drexler
equation [eqn (2.13)] (Kramer and Drexler, 1982).
The number of organs included ranged from 20
(Leuthold et al., nd) to as many as 60 (Yamaguchi,
1993). Two groups used hermaphrodite phantoms
that included both male and female organs and
tissues [the MIRD-5 phantom (Snyder et al., 1978)
and Cristy's adult model (Cristy, 1980)]. A discussion
of the evolution and development of these models
and phantoms to accommodate the prescriptions of
the ICRP may be found in Section 3.3.3.
(212) Calculations were made in phantoms of
different size, representing different ages, based on
Cristy's models (Yamaguchi, 1994d).
Physical data
(213) Several different databases containing physi-
cal data were used by the various groups of authors.
The principal sources of neutron cross sections were
the already available data files: ENDFIB-IV (NNCSC,
1974); ENDFIB-V (Garber, 1979) and JENDL-3 (Shi-
bata et al., 1990). Neutron kerma coefficients were
either calculated directly from cross-section data
(Morstin et al., 1992) or taken from the tables of
values published in ICRU Report 26 (lCRU, 1977),
from Caswell et al. (1980), or from White et al.
(1992). These neutron cross-section databases were
generally in good agreement for neutron energies
below about 10 MeV but some differences in the data
for cross sections and kerma coefficients became
evident at higher energies. For calculations at neu-
36 tron energies above 30 MeV using the LAHET code,
very few experimental cross-section data were avail-
able in the physical databases and the needed cross
sections used were derived from theoretical calcula-
tions by applying intranuclear cascade and evapora-
tion models.
(214) Two recent changes in the Commissions'
recommendations (discussed in Section 4.4.2) influ-
ence the values of the operational quantities. In the
first place, a new Q(L)-L relationship was intro-
duced in ICRP Publication 60. Secondly, the applica-
tion of the new stopping-power data published in
ICRU Report 49 (ICRU, 1993a) for protons and alpha
particles in liquid water results in a decrease in Q for
neutrons of up to 25%, depending on neutron energy.
These two effects are in opposition but their net
influence is an increase in the value ofQ for neutrons
of up to 40%.
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
(215) For two reasons, the increase in the mean
quality factors, which should be applied to the
absorbed dose in phantoms, is much smaller than
the extreme increases in the values Qn(E) indicated
for monoenergetic neutrons. The absorbed dose in
the body results from the sum of the three contribu-
tions from unscattered neutrons, scattered neutrons
and secondary photons. Firstly, the secondary pho-
tons have a mean quality factor, Q, which is taken to
be 1 and, because photons make a significant contri-
bution to the absorbed dose, the mean quality factor
for the mixed radiation will be correspondingly re-
duced. Secondly, the mean quality factor for the
neutrons, Qn, must be calculated by averaging over
the corresponding neutron spectrum. The net in-
crease in Qn will be smaller than the extreme
increases in Qn. Both effects result in a smaller
overall increase in the mean quality factors inside a
body than might at first sight be expected from the
increases in the values ofQn(E) indicated for monoen-
ergetic neutrons.
4.4.4 Available data
Protection quantities
(216) The Joint Task Group reviewed organ dose
data from the calculations of seven groups of authors
(see Table 5). These authors provided data sets of
conversion coefficients for organ absorbed doses and
effective doses under various whole-body irradiation
geometries. The data were available for the irradia-
tion geometries: antero-posterior (AP); postero-
anterior (PA); left and right lateral (LLAT and
RLAT) [simply lateral (LAT) if the organ is posi-
tioned symmetrically with respect to the vertical
axis of the body]; rotational (ROT); and isotropic
(ISO) (see Section 3.5). All available organ-dose data
were considered for this report and, with very few
exceptions, included in the final evaluation of the
reference conversion coefficients (see Section 4.4.5).
Figure 17 shows organ absorbed doses for a few
selected organs as a function of neutron energy. The
curves show absorbed dose per unit fiuence, DT/c!J in
units of pGy cm2 , for the colon, female breast, lung,
red bone marrow, testes and skin of an anthropomor-
phic model irradiated in AP geometry. A complete set
of evaluated organ absorbed dose and effective dose
data are presented graphically in Annex 1 and
tabulated in Annex 2.
(217) With only a predictable few exceptions, there
are no significant differences between the organ-dose
data obtained from calculations with the hermaphro-
dite model compared to those with the male or
female model. The exceptions are for the breast and
the gonads (for all irradiation geometries) and for
the lungs under the AP irradiation (shielding by the
female breast).
Operational quantities
(218) Conversion coefficients for the operational
quantity ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), have been
calculated by five groups. In addition, two of the
groups performed calculations for H'(10,a) and
H p ,slab(10) using a slab phantom (see Table 6). Values
of the ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and personal
dose equivalent, H p ,slab(10,a), as evaluated by the
Joint Task Group are presented graphically as a
function of neutron energy in Annex 1 and tabulated
in Annex 2.
Analysis of the variability of the data:
protection quantities-organ absorbed dose
(219) The organ-dose data sets from seven groups
of authors (Table 5) permit some conclusions to be
drawn on the scatter both within each of, and
102
10·1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10.9 10-3
Fig. 17. Organ absorbed dose conversion coefficients for selected organs in AP irradiation geometry, as a function of neutron energy, for
an anthropomorphic computational model.
between, the various data sets. The statistical uncer-
tainties in the calculated conversion coefficients for
the organ absorbed doses were estimated by their
authors to be typically much less than 10%. How-
ever, comparisons of organ absorbed dose data pro-
duced by separate groups revealed that the scatter of
the data between the different authors is, in some
cases, much higher than the estimated statistical
uncertainty. In the worst cases, this scatter is more
than a factor of 2 although, in most cases, it is much
lower. This suggests the possibility of some undiscov-
ered sources of systematic uncertainty in the data.
(220) Figures 18 and 19 show two selected ex-
amples ofthe variability ofthe calculated organ-dose
data. Individual data points calculated by different
authors are plotted as a function of neutron energy,
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
with the solid line indicating evaluated conversion
coefficients. Figure 18 gives an example for the
female liver of the satisfactory agreements between
the data of different authors. Figure 19 gives an
example for the male colon where there are greater
variations in the data of different authors. A set of
figures demonstrating the variability of the organ-
dose data is given in Figs. A.36-A.55 in Annex 1.
Data are shown for organs near the surface of the
body (testes, Fig. A.43); for organs near the midline
ofthe body (ovaries, Fig. A.42; lungs, Fig. A.49); for a
case where individual data sets are in good agree-
ment (liver, Figs. A.44-A.48); and for a case where
individual data sets scatter is more pronounced
(stomach, Figs. A.51-A.54). Figure A.50 shows an
example for calculations of the remainder absorbed
dose.
(221) A detailed and rigorous analysis of possible
systematic errors leading to an explanation for this
scattering of organ-dose data is difficult and beyond
the scope of this report. It is possible, however, to
offer some qualitative explanations: the variations
breast
lungs
colon
red bone marrow
testes
skin
10.7 10-6 10.5 10-4 10.3 10.2 10.1 100 101 ]02
Neutron energy (MeV)
37
 1()l - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
M
..-. " GSF-2
University of Texas
S
Col
o JAERI
AGH&KFA
» 10'

-
c"
Co

10-' 10-· 10-' 10-6 10-5 to" 10-3 10-2 10-' 10' 10' t()l
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. 18. Variability between Institutes of organ absorbed dose conversion coefficients exemplified by dose to the female liver as a

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

function of energy for neutrons incident upon an anthropomorphic model in RLAT irradiation geometry_ The solid line shows the evaluated
best fit to the data_

between individual data points of the many data sets Protection quantities-effective dose
may arise from differences in the various anthropo-
(223) The quantity effective dose is robust against
morphic models, transport codes and physical data-
changes in individual organ doses. Thus, for some
bases used by the authors.
(222) Modelling of the many organs and tissues in specific organs there are quite large differences
the body differs in the various codes. At neutron between the calculated organ doses from various
energies above 1 MeV, the organ absorbed doses authors, but there is nevertheless good agreement in
generally agree to within 30%. Differences between the values of the quantity effective dose calculated.
individual data points are most pronounced at neu- Figure 20 shows one particular example of the
tron energies below 100 keY and for the deeper comparison of estimates of E obtained by different
organs (e.g., stomach and colon) in which secondary authors. A complete set of such comparisons for
photons contribute a significant fraction of the total irradiation in AP, PA, RLAT, LLAT, ROT and ISO
absorbed dose (see Figs. A.37-A.41 and A.51-A.54). geometries is given in Figs. A. 56-A. 61 of Annex 1.
The large differences between the data for the oe- These figures for E may be compared with the set of
sophagus are probably due to different modelling of similar comparisons for individual organ absorbed
the organ, which was not included in the original dose data, also in Annex 1, where graphs for the bone
MIRD phantom. marrow, colon, liver, lungs, ovaries, remainder, stom-

- - - Evaluation
o
GSF-I
" GSF-2
M
..-. o University of Texas
10' o JAERI
S
Col
AGH&KFA
>.
PNL
<Xl
Ol
Ol
......
r:--
-
c"
C.

I§;' 10'
000
000
v
o 0 0
v

~
to 0
~

~
0
~
Q) -- "
0 ,,0

~
10-'

-
C,.) S~~-L~~~~~L.~~~~~~-L~-L~~~~
10-' 10-· HI" lit' 10-5 10"
Neutron energy (MeV)
10-3 10.2 10-' 10' 10' t()l

Fig. 19. Variability between Institutes of organ absorbed dose conversion coefficients exemplified by dose to the male colon as a function
of energy for neutrons incident upon an anthropomorphic model in RLAT irradiation geometry. The solid line shows the evaluated best fit to
38 the data.
 10' ...,rn
I':
Q)
- - - Evaluation '8
v GSF-I is
Q)
GSF-2 0

M
- ey 10'
D
0
UniAustin
JAERI
AGH&KFA
PNL
Co.)
I':
0
'Cil
....Q)
>
> • PTB I':

-
0
~ Co.)
c.

~ 10' • 0 • o·

-
til

10·~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LU

1~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 20. Variability between Institutes of effective dose conversion coefficients as a function of energy for neutrons incident in AP
irradiation geometry on a human adult anthropomorphic computational model. The solid line shows the evaluated best fit to the data.

ach, testes, thyroid (Figs. A.36-A.55) are given for a symbols) and the best fit evaluated by the Joint Task
variety of irradiation geometries of sex-specific adult Group (shown by a solid line). The variations be-
anthropomorphic computational models. As may tween the individual data points may be more easily
readily be seen, the corresponding variability of the seen in Fig. 21 where the ratios of original data for
data sets for the effective dose from the various H *( lO)!CPto the best-fit value is given as a function of
authors is much smaller than that for some of the neutron energy. The variations between the data
individual organ doses. points are generally less than ±10%.

Operational quantities 4.4.5. Conversion coefficients and analysis:

protection quantities
(224) Variations between the data for the opera-
tional quantities from these groups are lower than
Organ and tissue doses
those for the organ absorbed doses. As an example,
Figs. 21 and 31 compare data calculated by several (225) The organ absorbed dose data sets for 13
groups for the fluence to ambient dose equivalent organs and tissues (including the 'remainder') and
conversion coefficient, H*(10)ICP. Figure 31 shows the six irradiation geometries for the seven authors were
individual calculations by five groups (identified by assessed (see the summary in Table 5). All these

.••... _.... 1.0

GSF
o IHEP
v PTS-!
PTS-2 v
o University of Texas •
......

~:s
-<
.-.. I

o .....
....."

*
::t:
0.7S ......:'""'""""'""":......"'-7~"-:-.......'-:'-'......"7'".......~~:'""'""""'""":........"'-::'-~"-:-'-.......'-::'"'
10-9 10~ 10-7 10"' 10.5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10'\ 10° 10· 102
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. 21. Variability between Institutes of ambient dose equivalent conversion coefficients, H *(10 )l<P. The ratio of original data for the
conversion coefficients provided by various authors, to the best fit evaluated by the Joint Task Group, is given as a function of neutron
energy. 39
 available data (a total of about 900 data sets) were
considered for this report and, with few exceptions,
included in the analysis. Details of the selection
criteria for inclusion ofthe data for analysis and the
evaluation procedure have been described by Siebert
and co-workers (nd). In a few instances, it was
necessary to exclude the data for a single organ from
one group of authors. In one case, for example, the
oesophagus was not actually modelled in the code
but a surrogate organ used (Stewart et al., 1993). As
another example, the thermal neutron data (Yamagu-
chi, 1993) were also excluded because in the Yamagu-
chi code a single neutron group in the thermal region
was used and chemical binding of hydrogen was not
taken into account. This resulted in much higher
doses than those obtained by all the other authors
(see Section 4.4.3). In a few other cases, data for one
particular organ and/or a single irradiation geom-
etry were excluded because the data deviated strongly
from all other data sets.
(226) As a basis for the reference conversion
coefficients, a set of 'best estimates' ofthe conversion
coefficients for absorbed dose per unit fiuence was
derived for each of those organs for which weighting
factors were given in ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP,
1991a). In most cases, the organ doses were calcu-
lated in sex-specific models and values of organ dose
for the two sexes were averaged. In the data analy-
sis, the average values of organ doses calculated in
sex-specific modes were combined with those calcu-
lated in unisex phantoms.
(227) The data points from each group of authors
were combined into one data set for each organ as a
function of neutron energy, resulting in one com-
bined data set for each organ and for each gender.
Every point in a given data set was given the same
weight in the analysis. A least-squares spline fit was
used to derive the organ absorbed dose as a single-
valued, smooth function of incident neutron energy.
This function was then used to evaluate data at
specified neutron energies. The evaluated functions
for each organ are shown as a function of neutron
energy in Figs. A.20-A.34 of Annex 1. For most
organs, the data averaged over both sexes are given.
Data for the sex-specific organs, female breast and
ovaries, and the testes, are also provided.
(228) Tables A.26-A.40 present the evaluated con-
version coefficients for those specific organs [i.e., the
bladder; bone (red-marrow); bone (surface); breast;
colon; gonads (ovaries, testes, and the average value);
liver; lungs; oesophagus; remainder; skin; stomach;
and thyroid] for which the ICRP recommends tissue-
or organ-weighting factors. For most organs, only
one data set for the LAT irradiation geometry is
given. For those organs that are asymmetrically
located in the trunk (e.g., colon, liver and stomach),
separate data are given for the LLAT and RLAT
40 irradiation geometries because there are consider-
able differences between the two lateral conversion
coefficients.
(229) Table A.37 gives conversion coefficients for
the remainder. These values were evaluated from
the remainder data given by the various authors,
and are based on data for those separate organs and
tissues that make up the remainder (adrenals, brain,
kidney, muscle, pancreas, small intestine, spleen,
upper large intestine, thymus, and uterus). All au-
thors calculated their remainder data by averaging
the organ and tissue doses with equal weighting:
mass-averaging and the specific rule known as 'foot-
note 3' were not applied (for further discussion see
Section 2.5.4).
(230) Data are given for neutron energies from
thermal up to 180 MeV. If precise data are needed at
energies other than those listed in the tables, it is
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
recommended that interpolation be carried out using
a 4-point (cubic) Lagrangian interpolation formula
on a log-log scale.
Effective dose
(231) The effective dose data were determined
from evaluated organ absorbed dose data. The conver-
sion coefficients for the organ equivalent doses,
HT/iJJ, were obtained by multiplying D~iJJ by the
corresponding radiation-weighting factor for neu-
trons of the incident neutron energy.20 Table A.41
summarises the recommended conversion coeffi-
cients for the effective dose per unit fiuence for
whole-body irradiation by neutrons from thermal
energies up to 180 MeV in the AP, PA, LAT, ROT, and
ISO irradiation geometries. Ifprecise data are needed
at energies other than those listed in Table A.41, it is
recommended that interpolation be carried out using
a 4-point (cubic) Lagrangian interpolation formula
on a log-log scale.
(232) Figure 22 shows the values of the conversion
coefficients plotted as a function of neutron energy
for the various irradiation geometries.
Energy dependence of effective dose
(233) The dependence ofthe organ dose conversion
factors upon neutron energy is determined, to some
degree, by the depth of the organ in the body but
there are general similarities in the trends for all
organs. An increase in the conversion coefficients is
observed from thermal energies to about 1 eV; from 1
eV to about 10 keV, the coefficients are almost
independent of energy. At energies between 10 keY
and about 1 MeV a sharp increase in the coefficients
may be seen. The onset of this increase depends on
the depth of the organ in the body; in broad terms,
20 The expression 'tissue or organ' is often abbreviated to 'organ'
in this section.
 ..,"'
a
Q)
AP 'u
PA !:EQ)
R-LAT o
L·LAT Co)
ROT §
ISO '0;
....Q)
>
§
Co)

1~~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 22. Reference conversion coefficients for effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in various irradiation
geometries on adult anthropomorphic computational models and averaged for both sexes. These reference data are also given in TableA.4l.

the deeper the organ the higher the energy of the
onset (see Fig. 17). In the energy range 10 keV to 1
MeV, proton recoils and other charged secondary
particles from neutron interactions begin to make a
significant contribution to the absorbed dose. At
incident energies greater than 10 MeV, the absorbed
dose at locations near the irradiated surface of the
body decreases because energy is transported from
the point of interaction by charged secondary par-
ticles whose ionisation ranges increase with energy.
(234) Because several organs of importance in
determining the value of the effective dose (i.e., those
organs with the larger tissue weighting factors) are
located near the front of the body, the energy depen-
dence of the effective dose for AP irradiation geom-
etry at high energies is different from that of other
irradiation geometries. Above 10 MeV, the effective dose
continues to increase with neutron energy for the PA,
LAT, ROT, and ISO irradiation geometries, but for AP
irradiation geometry the effective dose actually shows a
small decrease (see Figs. A.56-A.61 inAnnex 1).
(235) As an example of this effect, Fig. 23 shows the
absorbed dose in the testes (a shallow, frontally located
organ) as a function of energy in both AP and PA
geometries. In AP geometry, it may be seen that for
neutron energies above about 1 MeV, the absorbed dose
in the testes, and therefore the significance in its contri-
bution to effective dose, decreases. At energies below 10
MeV, in the other geometries (LAT, ROT, ISO), the
contribution of the absorbed dose to the testes is of less
significance to E (see Fig. 23 and Figs. 25-29).
Angular dependence of effective dose
(236) The angular dependence of conversion coeffi-
cients for the effective dose is complex because it is

Testes (AP) ..-r.I'...

Testes (PA)
Ovaries (AP)
Ovaries (PA)

10·1~~-L~~~~~~~~~~'-~~~~~~~~~
10.9 10-8 10" 10-6 10.5 10-4 10.3 10.1 10.1 10° 10 1 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. 23. Comparison of the absorbed dose in the gonads in AP and PA irradiation geometries as a function of energy for neutrons
incident on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. 41
 determined, as is the energy dependence, to some
degree, by the location of those organs of the human
body with high tissue weighting factors. Neverthe-
less, some generalisations are possible: at energies
above 50 MeV, the angular dependence is small
because the incident neutrons penetrate deeply into
human tissue. At lower energies, irradiation in AP
geometry always results in the highest effective
dose, while the LAT irradiation geometry gives the
lowest values. This general observation may be
explained because the inner organs of the body are
shielded by outer layers of muscle and other tissues
ofthe trunk and arms.
Age dependence of the effective dose
(237) Figure 24 shows calculations of effective dose
in AP geometry for anthropomorphic computational
models representing children of various ages com-
pared with the adult. At neutron energies below
about 10 keV, the effective dose decreases with
decreasing body size, while at higher energies this
trend is reversed. At lower energies, secondary pho-
tons from thermal neutron capture make the largest
contribution to the effective dose (the larger the
volume of tissue the more efficient the thermalisa-
tion process) but at energies above 10 keV, reduction
in the absorbed dose in the inner organs (due to
shielding of the surrounding outer trunk) becomes
increasingly important: the smaller the body the
lower the shielding. As the energy increases above
about 10 MeV, the shielding effect of the outer trunk
is negligible or even reversed.
Relative contribution of specific organs
and tissues to the effective dose
(238) Figures 25-30 summarise the relative contri-
butions of specific tissues and organs to the effective
10-9
'"E0
> A
(/)
Q) 10- 10
00 0
c:
~ Q)
~
..... OJ
r;::
.--
>D Gl ····c····
C.
1:: Q)
11
0 <II 10-
~
OJ
0
"C ----------~-{]-- ____ o-____ ~- _____ ~--~,'O
0:: Q)
>
~ U
Ql
;::
8 W
10- 12
10- 8
Fig. 24. Effective dose as a function of energy and age, for neutrons incident on anthropomorphic computational models, representing
42 children of different size (corresponding to age) in AP irradiation geometry.
dose. Six figures are presented, one for each of the
irradiation geometries AP, PA, RLAT, LLAT, ROT,
and ISO. Each of the six figures have two alternative
modes of representation of the data. In the first
(upper) mode, the ratio wTHTIE is plotted as a
function of neutron energy. Data are shown for those
five organs with the highest weighting factors. In the
second (lower) mode, pie charts show the relative
importance of various organs at selected energies.
(239) In AP irradiation geometry the gonads are
the largest 'single' contributor to the effective dose
(as much as 28% of the value of E at an energy of
about 500 keV). In the PA or LAT irradiation geom-
etries, the dominance of the contribution of the
gonads is less pronounced and the relative contribu-
tions of the various organs to the effective dose is-to
some extent-determined by their location within
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
the body. Figures 25-30 show that, for irradiation in the
ROT and ISO geometries, the relative contribution of
each organ is roughly equal to its corresponding organ-
weighting factor-almost independently of energy.
Conversion coefficients for operational
quantities: ambient dose equivalent
(240) Conversion coefficients from neutron fluence to
ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), have been reported by
Leuthold et al. (1992), Schuhmacher and Siebert (1992),
Sannikov and Savitskaya (1993, nd), Hollnagel (1994b),
Nabelssi and Hertel (1994), Siebert and Schuhmacher
(1994) and Siebert et ai. (nd) (see Table 6). The values
calculated by these authors generally agree to within
10% (see Figs. 21 and 31).
(241) Schuhmacher et ai. (1994) have reported a
sensitivity study of the influence of several param-
eters on the numerical values of conversion coeffi-
cients and found that the parameters to which the
conversion coefficients are most sensitive are the
Q(L) - L relationship selected; the stopping powers
~
l5-YR
+ 10-YR
v 5-YR
)(
I
)(1
2
10
Neutron energy (MeV)
 Gonads
0.2 Bone marrow
Colon
- -- --- ........

------- ........ --,,'-~

/;-;;:;;~··,7·
_... _----- __
_---- ------------- ---.. . "
0.1 ... - _-
... ...
.- -
... ... .. ..._ .-"-'- ,
. .><~=~>"'.. . ... / ~. '

Lung
Stomach

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)

25meV 1 keY
Olhen 33.1"1.

Tesles

TeSles~~~~ ~~
Bone morrow Slomach
Bone marrow
Colon

300 keY 180 MeV

Othen 35.8%

Colon

Fig. 25. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in AP irradiation
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model (mean of data from ADAM and EVA).

of charged particles; the values ofkerma coefficients
applied, and the number of energy bins selected in
the low-neutron-energy region.
(242) A set of reference conversion coefficients,
H*(10)lcP, as a function of neutron energy in the
range from thermal to 180 MeV was determined by
fitting the data from all the authors with no further
weighting by a least-squares spline fit. Details of the
evaluation procedure are published by Siebert and
co-workers (nd). The primary data and the spline-fit
data are shown in Fig. 31. Figure 21 shows a plot of the
ratio of calculated values of H *(lO) to the 'best value' or
'recommended value' obtained by a spline fit, including
variations in the data between the different authors.
(243) Table A.42 summarises the values of the
recommended reference conversion coefficients. If
precise data are needed at energies other than those
given in this table, it is recommended that interpola-
tion be carried out using a 4-point (cubic) Lagran-
gian interpolation formula on a log-log scale.
(244) At energies between 20 and 180 MeV, the
conversion coefficients are based on data from Na-
belssi and Hertel (1994) and Sannikov and
Savitskaya (1993, nd). These data are consistent
with other data at energies below 20 MeV but the
accuracy of the coefficients at higher energies is
subject to the increasing uncertainty of the neutron
cross sections with energy. 43
 Gonads
Bone marrow
Colon
Lung

0.2
Stomach
....•......••...........~-------- ./'
"/-->' "
/ .: .~\.
.................................. .I '..::\.
_' .. -"'-... - ... - .. - . _" ._' - _. __ . __ ,.f \, "
---------------------- ---------- .... ' ... .."".....-\(",
" --",-" ?' ....,\'
0.1 - -- ------- ' ..... //

I
./ ......... ~

" /

OLL_~~~~L-_u_~ __ ~~~~L_~~~_ _~~

l~ l~ l~ l~ l~ l~ l~ l~ 1~ l~ l~ 1~

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)

25meV 1 keV

Testes

Bone marrow Stomach Bone marrow

Colon

1 MeV 180 MeV

Olhen 34.0%

Colon Colon
Fig. 26. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in PA irradiation
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model (mean of data from ADAM and EVA).

Directional dose equivalent
(245) Values of the directional dose equivalent,
H'(d,D), are of practical utility for area monitoring,
particularly for photon or electron radiation fields
but are of limited interest in neutron monitoring.
(246) Neutrons of all energies penetrate deeply
into human tissue and as a practical matter, data for
H'(0.07,ex) and H'(3,ex) are not needed. In practice,
the limitation of E provides adequate protection for
the lens ofthe eye. Values of H'(lO,OO)fct> are equal to
H*(lO)/4> and values for H'(lO,ex)/4> with ex *- 0° are
not needed for area monitoring in neutron fields. For
44 all these reasons, no values of the conversion coeffi·
cients for directional dose equivalent for neutrons
are given in this report.
Personal dose equivalent
(247) A discussion of the quantity personal dose
equivalent is given in Section 2.6.4. At the present
time, data for Hp(d) calculated in the human body
are sparse. Hollnagel has reported some preliminary
calculations of Hp(lO) at a location in front of the
lung and also explored the use of Hp,testes and
Hp,thymus' Until complete calculations have been made,
conversion coefficients for Hp,slab are available and
 Gonads
Bone marrow
Colon
Lung
Stomach
0.2

... - "'-"'-" '-" '- "'-- "'- "- ' - -

.. ... -....
.',,:-..._ /I
~"" ...... "'~.
/"-.-
0.1 /
,,"{
--------------------------" /// /
_----- , I
....-:;.-:.:: - - - - - - - - - - - ................... J" /

---../

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)

25meV Othen 43.3% 1 keVOthers 40.9"1.

Stomach ach

Colon

Othen 1 MeV 180 MeV

Testes
-":::'===>1111111

1'!11t~~Iii1ir-Stom.ch
Ovaries Bone marrow ,lomach

Bone marrow
Fig. 27. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in RLAT irradiation
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model (mean of data from ADAM and EVA).

values of Hp,orgam where the organ is carefully se-
lected, may be used as surrogates for Hp,torso (see the
discussion in Section 5.3.3).
(248) ICRU Report 47 suggests that, for the pur-
poses of dosemeter calibration under reference condi-
tions (e.g., monodirectional neutron beam with fron-
tal incidence), the dose equivalent in a 30 X 30 x 15
cm slab ofICRU tissue-equivalent material provides
an adequate approximation to the backscatter of the
human body so that H p (10) may be estimated. Siebert
and Schuhmacher (1994) have reported values of
H p ,slab(10,a)lcP that are summarised in Table A.42 in
Annex 2 and shown in Fig. 32.
(249) Conversion coefficients are calculated for a
range of angles of radiation incidence (a = 0°, 15°,
30°,45°,60°, and 75°) on an ICRU slab phantom and
in the neutron energy range from thermal to 20 MeV
(see Fig. 32). These data span the practical range of
angles, where the slab phantom may be used as a
reference phantom for the calibration of individual
dosemeters. Figure 33 shows the ratio of the per-
sonal dose equivalent in the ICRU slab, Hp,slab (10,a)
to Hp,slab (10,0°) for the same range of angles.
(250) It has been suggested that the ICRU sphere
be used as a phantom for use in calibration of
individual dosemeters (ICRU, 1985). Although accept- 45
 Gonads
Bone marrow
Colon
Lung
Stomach
0.2

......... ...
..... .......
.-' - ,.- . _ ., - -' - -"'-' ::';:.~.::.:.:~-=-..
' .....
0.1
--=-~--=--;=- ----- --=.--...=- =.:--=--=-=

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)

25meV

Stomach

Lung

1 MeV Othen 39.0% 20 MeV

Stomach

Fig. 28. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in LLAT irradiation
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model (mean of data from ADAM and EVA).

able in principle, the ICRU phantoms with a flat
front surface are of greater practical utility. In this
report, no data for H'(lO,a)ICP with the ICRU sphere
are given for neutrons.
4.5. Conversion Coefficients for Electrons
4.5.1. Introduction
(251) This section principally discusses conversion
coefficients linking fluence to the operational quanti-
ties because data for organ absorbed doses are
sparse for electrons. Some limited data for the
46 conversion coefficients are available for organ ab-
sorbed doses in a few selected organs, and for
effective dose (Schultz and Zoetelief, 1996, nd). For
the operational quantities, the discussion is focused
on providing reference values of conversion coeffi-
cients for the directional dose equivalent, H'(d,a),
which, in the case of irradiation by electrons of
energy in the range considered here, is also an
adequate numerical approximation to the personal
dose equivalent, Hp(d).
4.5.2. Special considerations for electrons
(252) Irradiation of the skin, the lens of the eye,
and other superficial organs is of principal concern in
 Gonads
Bone marrow
Colon
Lung
Stomach
0.2

0.1

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)

25meV 1 keY
31.6% Othen 31.2%

Stomach Stomach

1 MeV 180 MeV

Othen 36.80;.

Stomach

Colon Colon

Fig. 29. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in ROT irradiation
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model (mean of data from ADAM and EVA).

radiological protection for electron energies below 10 4.5.3. Methods of calculation

MeV because the electron range is small. The range
of electrons in tissue increases from about 50 p,m at
60 keY to about 50 mm at 10 MeV. There is therefore
a need to determine the absorbed dose in volumes
having very small thicknesses and located at shallow
depths in the body. Suitable models must be con-
structed (see Section 4.5.3). Simplified models (phan-
toms) of the body, such as the slab or the ICRU
sphere, are satisfactorily representative of the irra-
diation conditions involved in radiological protec-
tion.
Computer codes
(253) Several different codes were used to calcu-
late the data reported here and brief descriptions of
these codes are given in Section 3.4.2. For calcula-
tion of the protection quantities, Schultz and Zoete-
lief (1996, nd) used the MCNP-4 code to determine
organ absorbed doses. The MCNP-4 code was also
used by Padoani (1993) for calculation of the opera-
tional quantities. Operational quantities were also 47
 Gonads
Bone marrow
Colon
Lung
Stomach
0.2

0.1

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)

25meV 1 keY
Ollt.n 32.5%

Stomach Stomach

CoJon Colon Lmg

1 MeV 20 MeV
Olh.n 35.4% Oth.n 33.0%

Testes
~~~

Bone marrow

Colon Colon

Fig. 30. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of energy for neutrons incident in ISO irradiation
geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model (mean of data from ADAM and EVA).

calculated by Hirayama (1994), Petoussi et al. (1993) ,
Petoussi-Henss et al. (1994), Ferrari and Pellicioni
(1994b) and Ma (1995) using the EGS4 code; by
Gualdrini et al. (1994) using the MCNP-BO code
(Guaraldi and Padoani, 1994a,b) and by Grosswendt
(1993, 1994a) using the PTB-BG code.
Models and phantoms
(254) Calculations of conversion coefficients for
organ absorbed doses and effective dose were made
using the male and female MIRD phantoms (Schultz
48 and Zoetelief, 1996, nd).
(255) For the calculation of dose to the skin, the
above authors used a model of the skin, which
consisted of three layers: a surface layer (0.07 mm
thick), which is insensitive to radiation; a second
sensitive layer 1.93 mm thick and, finally, a third 20
mm thick layer of tissue.
(256) Schultz and Zoetelief (1996) also calculated
the dose to the lens of the eye by considering an
electron beam, of radius 80 mm, impinging on the
face of a MIRD phantom. By concentrating the
electron tracks to the small volume ofthe lens of the
eye, the statistical precision of the calculation of
absorbed dose was much improved.
 - - Cubic Lagrange interpolation

-
GSF
c IHEP
N v PTB-\
E
rrJ
Co
..
CJ 102 o
PTB-2
University of Texas

'-"

Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.31. Reference conversion coefficients from several Institutes for ambient dose equivalent for neutrons.

(257) The 'skin dose' is calculated in the sensitive
part (second layer) and this must be considered
when comparing the skin dose with other organ
doses (particularly the lens of the eye) and with the
appropriate operational quantities.
(258) Calculations for the operational quantities
were generally carried out in slab phantoms consist-
ing of ICRU tissue-equivalent material at the three
depths (0.07, 3 and 10 mm) recommended by the
ICRU. Petoussi et ai. (1993), Petoussi-Henss et ai.
(1994), Grosswendt (1994b) and Ferrari and Pellic-
cioni (1994b) also made calculations in the ICRU
sphere.
Physical data
(259) Databases and general theories of sampling
the particle histories in electron and photon trans-
port are described in Section 3.4.2 (see also ICRU,
1996). Most of the authors depended upon condensed
history models for their calculations. Multiple scat-
tering was treated using either Moliere multiple-
scattering or Goudsmit-Saunderson multiple-scatter-
ing theory. Landau energy-loss straggling was used
by one group of authors. Table 7 summarises the
computer codes, physical data bases, anthropomor-
phic models, phantoms and irradiation geometries
used by each group of authors.
4.5.4. Available data
(260) Recent calculations in the MIRD phantoms
(ADAM and EVA) by Schultz and Zoetelief(1996, nd)
have given data for the organ absorbed dose, HE and
E, for irradiation inAP geometry. A complete evalua-
tion of calculated values of the dose equivalent to
fluence ratios, H'(d,ex)/iP or Hp(d,ex)/iP, for electrons
in the energy range of 50 keV to 10 MeV is presented
in PTB Report DOS-24 (Grosswendt and Chartier,
1994; see also Chartier et ai., 1996). This report uses
basic data published by Grosswendt (1993, 1994a)
and Hirayama (1994), and includes contributions
from Ma (1995), Gualdrini et ai. (1994), and Padoani
(1993).

--0"
.............. IS· 4.5.5. Conversion coefficients and analysis:
-------. 30" protection quantities
45·
60"
_._._._. 7S·
Organ and tissue doses
(261) There are few organ absorbed dose data for
irradiation by electrons published in the scientific
literature. ICRU Report 43 gives dose distributions
in complex anthropomorphic phantoms resulting
from irradiation by electrons of energy between 5
Neutron energy (MeV) and 46 MeV, calculated using a simulation code
Fig. 32. Conversion coefficients for Hp,slab(IO,a) as a function designed for radiotherapy treatment planning (ICRU,
of energy and angle ofincidence for neutrons incident on the ICRU 1988). Schultz and Zoetelief (1996, nd) have calcu-
slab as a reference computational model. lated organ dose and effective dose data using the 49
 o·

- ,~.--- ..... --.. -----..-.. - .'..../ .../~:; ~?- / ."

~.-'

o 15· ,-/-- / / //
~ 0.8
-----------------------,,-/ .. / / /
....
~
30°
_ ._ .. _ .. _ _ _ / .../
.. /
/ i
I

::t:: / ./ '- ._ .. - _.. / i

!
-....o....
0.6
_ ... _ .. / I
~ 45° i
-- I

-
::r::""
0.4

0.2
60°
.- -"- -'- '- '- ,/
/
/
i
i

_/
75°
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-U

1~ 1~ l~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ l~ l~
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 33. Angular dependence of the conversion coefficients for Hp,slab shown by the ratio Hp,slab( lO,a) to Hp,slab(lO,OO) calculated in the
ICRU slab. The legend for the various curves is similar to that in Fig. 32.

MCNP-4 code in the adult male and female MIRD-
type phantoms (ADAM and EVA) irradiated by
monoenergetic electrons in the energy range of 100
keV to 10 MeV, and in AP geometry. Conversion
coefficients for a few organs are given in Table A.43
in Annex 2.
Protection quantities: effective dose
(262) Schultz and Zoetelief (1996, nd) have esti-
mated effective dose data from their organ absorbed
dose data, calculated for the conditions just de-
scribed; these data are also presented in Table A.43.
Energy dependence of effective dose
(263) Values of the effective dose plotted as a
function of electron energy up to 10 MeV are shown
in Fig. 34. E increases with electron energy as deeper
organs are progressively reached by the radiation.
The skin contributes more than 75% of the effective
dose for electron energies up to about 1 MeV.
Angular and age dependence of the
effective dose
(264) No data are currently available to describe
the variation of the effective dose, in terms of either
angular incidence of radiation or size of the irradi-
ated body (phantom).
Relative contribution of specific organs
and tissues to the effective dose
(265) The organs that most significantly contrib-
ute to the effective dose are listed in Table A.43 in
Annex 2. Data for the skin and the lens of the eye are
50 plotted in Fig. 34.
Operational quantities: ambient
dose equivalent
(266) For electrons with energy between 70 keV
and 10 MeV, the greater part of the energy range
covered in this report, the ambient dose equivalent is
oflittle interest. Ifrequired, values of H*(10) may be
obtained from the calculated values of H'(10,OO)
because these two quantities have the same numeri-
cal values at higher energies (see Section 4.3.5).
Directional dose equivalent
(267) The operational quantity of greatest interest
for electron irradiation is the directional dose equiva-
lent (Section 4.5.2), which is determined in the ICRU
sphere but, as will be shown, may also be derived
from calculations in the ICRU slab.
Comparisons of dose equivalent
determinations in the ICRU sphere
and ICRU slab
(268) At electron energies below about 10 MeV, the
electron range is much smaller than the radius ofthe
ICRU sphere. In addition, the curvature of the
sphere is of negligible influence on the dose equiva-
lent at shallow depths. Thus, the dose-equivalent
data calculated in the ICRU sphere and a tissue-
equivalent slab are essentially in agreement (Pe-
toussi et ai., 1993; Ferrari and Pellicioni, 1994b;
Grosswendt, 1994b). Therefore, we may write:
H'(d, a) = Hs1ab(d, a) (4.2)
(269) Values of conversion coefficients from fluence
to the directional dose equivalent, H'(d,a), are de-
rived from the dose equivalent calculated at depth,
d, in the 300 mm X 300 mm X 150 mm slab phantom
 TABLE 7. - Summary of calculations of the conversion coefficients for protection and operational quantities for electrons ...,rIJ
~
.~
Codes/databases/ Quantities Energy! Energy Angle u
Author model calculated Geometries range points points IEQ)
0
Grosswendt (1993, 1994a) Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 50keVto1OMeV 28 18 c..l
~
PTB-BG d = 0.07,3 and 10 mm .S
Physical data: 00:s ex:s 89° ...
rIJ
Q)
Condensed history model! >
~
CSDA 0
c..l
Moliere multiple scattering
theory
Landau energy-loss
straggling
Model:
ICRU tissue sphere and slab
Gualdrini et al. (1994) Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 50keVto 10 MeV 17 7
MCNP-BO d = 0.07,3 and 10 mm
Physical data: 0° :s ex:s 83°
Condensed history model

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Moliere MS theory
Model:
ICRU tissue slab
Padoani (1993) Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 50keVto 0.8 MeV 9 6
MCNP4-A d = 0.07,3 and 10 mm
Physical data: 0° :s ex:s 75°
Condensed history model!
ETRAN
Goudsmit-Saunderson mul-
tiple scattering theory
Model:
ICRU tissue slab
Petoussi et al. (1993) Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 50 keVto 5 MeV 15 1
EGS4 d = 0.07, 3 and 10 mm
Physical data: ex = 0°
Condensed history model
Moliere MS theory
Model:
ICRU tissue sphere
Ferrari and Pelliccioni Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 70 keVto 10 GeV 34 1
(1994b) FLUKA d = 0.07, 3 and 10 mm
Physical data: nil ex = 0°
Model:
ICRU tissue sphere
Hirayama (1994) Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 50 keV to 10 MeV 13 8
EGS4 d = 0.07,3 and 10 mm
Physical data: 00:s ex:s 89°
Condensed history model
Moliere multiple scattering
theory
Model:
ICRU tissue slab
Schultz and Zoetelief(1996) Monte Carlo code: E, HE, DT for selected organs AP 100keVto 10 MeV 8 1
MCNP-4 ex = 0° Parallel beam
Physical data:
Condensed history model
ITS code (Halbleib et ai.,
00
1992) O"l
O"l
,.....
Model:
MIRD (ADAM and EVA) t-"
to
Skin model 1::0
Eye model 0.
Q)
Ma(1995) Monte Carlo code: H'(d,ex) Parallel beam 50keVto1OMeV 15 7 ~
EGS4 d = 0.07,3 and 10 mm :;J
Physical data: 0° :s ex:s 85% ~
c..l
Condensed history model ......
Moliere multiple scattering
theory
Model:
ICRU tissue slab
51
 (271) In most cases, after the consistency between
the different data sets had been verified, the refer-
ence values and associated uncertainties of the
conversion coefficients were obtained by calculating
the mean value of all the different, but consistent,
independent determinations. This simple procedure
could not be used in some cases. For example, it was
modified when the number of separate data points
was limited or when a systematic shift in data over a
specific angular range was observed at neighbouring
a Skin
• Ere ..
o E
n. electron energies. Specific details of the techniques
••••• H. used are described by Grosswendt and Chartier
(1994). In addition, an uncertainty was given for
every evaluated value, making possible an estima-
tion of the fluctuations of single values about the
10°
mean value.
Electron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 34. Protection and operational quantities for electrons.
The effective dose, E , the effective dose equivalent, HE, the organ
absorbed dose, D T , for the lens of the eye and skin, and the
directional dose equivalentH'(d,OO) at depths, d, of 0.07, 3 and 10
mm, as a function of electron energy.
made of ICRU tissue substitute, under the condi-
tions of an expanded radiation field . These conver-
sion coefficients are tabulated in Table A.44 in
Annex 2.
Analysis of the variability of the data
(270) Reference values of the fluence-to-dose-
equivalent conversion coefficients were evaluated for
normally and obliquely incident electrons. For the
latter, an angular-dependence factor was deter-
mined as a function of energy and angle ofincidence.
Normal electron incidence
(272) Examples of the good agreement between the
absolute values of the conversion coefficients,
H' (d,OO)!(/), derived from various computer codes
(Grosswendt, 1993; 1994a; Gualdrini et at., 1994;
Hirayama, 1994; Ma, 1995; Padoani, 1993) may be
seen by inspection of Figs. 35-38.
(273) Figure 35 summarises data at a depth of 0.07
mm in tissue. The differences between the calculated
data decrease continuously with increasing energy
from about 20% at 70 keY to about 5% at 10 MeV.
(274) The differences between data generated by
different authors is also illustrated in Figs. 36-38
but in a somewhat different manner from that in Fig.
35. These figures plot values of the ratios of H'(d,OO)/(/)
to the mean value of all the consistent data,
H'(d,OO)/(/), at depths of 0.07, 3, and 10 mm in tissue,

+ Grosswendt
11++ 0 Guoldrini
+ 0 Hirayamo
A Ma
3
~
u
1.0
~ .
D

9
Podoani
Petoussi
Ferrari
>
CIl
c:: t
'-' §

.-r:--
'eo +
• I·
CO
-I": +8 +,
m
m
..... 0
0
l • +. II *•* •
r:
lQ

1::
0
d
:.-'
•
0
A
::r:
~
~ 0.1 0

-
Q
10- 1 10° 10 1
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 35. Comparison of data from several authors showing values of H'(0.07,OO) per unit incident electron fiuence, calculated at a depth
52 of 0.07 mm in ICRU tissue substitute.
 rn
1.10 r -+0

.~
.:
+ Gro ••wendt

t + 0 Cuoldrin!
Hirayomo
!:EQ)"
~
0 0
...0 110
U
0
0 0 Podoon!
...... 0 + + .:
0
0 0 ... ...0 ... .S
...: +
D 0
Ii + 0
+++ + ...
rn
0 0 2 0
+
Q)

s::0>
ci 0
,..... +++++
r:z:.: 1.00 + ... ... ...
e+'" u
...... 0 0 + ++0 + +
+ 0 0 0 0
q ... ~~o + +
r-
0 DD
ci
,..... 0'"
D 0 0
:z:: ... D

0 D
0
0.90
10- 1 10° 10 1
Electron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 36. Variability of operational quantity data for electrons: the ratio of H '(0.07,OO)IB'(0.07,OO) showing the deviations from the mean
value of estimates by several authors calculated at a depth of 0.07 mm in ICRU tissue substitute.

1.10
+ Gros.wendt
o Guoldrfnl
o Hlroyamo
... 110
......
0
q
,.....
<'\ +0 g ...
I:z:: i ...0
...... 1.00
... g'
0
q 0
~++

0
+ +
+ +
0 +
0
+ u +
•
,.....
<'1 0
:z::

0.90~--~------~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
o 5 10
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 37. Variability of operational quantity data for electrons: the ratio of H'(3,OO)!B'(3,OO) showing the deviations from the mean value
of estimates by several authors calculated at a depth of 3 mm in ICRU tissue substitute.

1.1 0 r----~--~--~--~--.-----~--~--~--~--"
+ Grosswendt
o Gualdrini
+ o Hirayama
... Ma
......
oo
-
~ + 0
...... 1.00 ~------+--_------------=--------:'--------.-i
+
0 + t A 0
...
OCJ
Ol
q A • ....
Ol
+ + 0 1:-"
8 0
ft
0
...,
lC
...
0
p..
Q)
~
0 ;:J
~
U
0.90 L-~~~ __--,"__--'-__- ' -__ ~ __ ~ __--L-_ _- ' -_ _- ' - ' .....
o 5 10
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 38. Variability of operational quantity data for electrons: the ratio of H' (10,OO)IB '( 10,OO) showing the deviations from the mean
value of estimates by several authors calculated at a depth of 10 mm in ICRU tissue substitute. 53
 1.10 [)
a
0I~7S·
$
.. [In
0 00
[I

1.00
~ 0

00
go ~ + +
() + +~+ ()
0 0
6- L;. L;. + Grosswendt
,,-... 0 Gualdrini
~ 0.90
r-:
a 1.10 0
[)
0
L;.
Hirayama
Ma
0 01=45" a n Padoani
'-'

-
I~
,,-...
~
f-
1.00

a 0.90
0' - ' 1.10
~ cx~ IS"
+
[)
1.00 o
o

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.90
10- 2
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 39. Values of the ratio R(0.07 ,a)iR (0.07,a) showing the deviations from the mean value of estimates by several authors, calculated
at a depth of 0.07 mm in JCHU tissue substitute, as a function of electron energy and angle a. Data are plotted for values of a = 15°, 45° and 75°.

as a function of electron energy. These figures show
that deviations from the mean value become smaller
with increasing energy and range from 7 to 3% at a
depth of 0.07 mm; from 5 to 1% at a depth of 3 mm;
and from 7 to 1 % at a depth of 10 mm if the majority
of the data is included.
Reference coefficients for normal incidence
(275) A set of reference conversion coefficients has
been derived at each of the three standard depths
using a procedure that averaged available published
data. This procedure is described in PTB Report

1.10
o

o Ijl
Ijl
0 ... 6
... +
+ + Grosswendt
0 Gualdrini
..- 0 Hirayama
~

-
A Ma
0

-
' -"'
I~

. .-
~
o +
...
+

<Xl
Ol
Ol
.....
-
0
' -"'
~
0.90
1.10
cx= 15°
o

t-=' A
ID
t0
0- o
~
~ 0 .90 ' - - - - ' - - - ' - - - - ' -_ _........_--.l.._ _' - - _ - ' -_ _' - - _ - ' - _ - - - l
8 o 5 10
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 40. Values of the ratioR(10,a)IR (10,a) showing the deviations from the mean value of estimates by several authors, calculated at a
54 depth of 10 mm in JCHU tissue substitute, as a function of electron energy and angle a. Data are plotted for values of a = 15°, 45° and 75°.
 00

d z 0.07 mm ]
u
....
0 ~o
.....
0 U
1.5
S ~
.S
Q) 00
0 ....Q)
c:
Q) >
"0 ~
c: o
Q)
1.0 U
a.
Q) -O.II1.V
"0 - - 0.2 II.V
.... --0.411.V
e --- 1.0 II.V
:; 0.5 - 4.0 II.V
c>
c: ·····10.01l.V
«

15 30 45 60 75 90
Angle of Incidence (degrees)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.41. Reference values of the angular-dependence factor for electrons as a function of the angle of radiation incidence at a depth of
0.07 mm in ICRU tissue substitute.

DOS-24 (Grosswendt and Chartier, 1994). The nu-
merical values are given in Table A.44 in Annex 2,
and the corresponding smoothed curves are shown in
Fig. 34. The associated standard deviations decrease
with increasing electron energy. Typical values vary
from 5 to 1.5% at a depth of 0.07 mm and from 3 to
1.5% at depths of 3 and 10 mm.
Angular dependence factor
(276) Variations of the conversion coefficient,
H'(d,o.)/</), as a function of electron energy and the
angle of incidence, 0., of radiation to the front face of
the slab can be studied through the angular-
dependence factors, R(d,o.), defined by:
R(d, 0.) = [H'(d, o.)I</)]/[H'(d, OO)/</)]
for the three ICRU-recommended depths (0.07, 3
and 10 mm). Calculations of R(d,o.) were made with
0. varying from 0° to 89°.
(277) Good agreement between sets of published
data may be seen from Figs. 39 and 40, which
compare individual values of the angular-depen-
dence factors (Grosswendt, 1993; 1994a; Ma, 1995;
Gualdrini et al., 1994; Padoani, 1993; Hirayama,
1994) with the mean values, R (d,o.), at depths of
0.07 and 10 mm in the ICRU tissue substitute
phantom. The ratios R(d,o.)IR(d, 0.) are plotted as a
function of electron energy with respect to the angle
of incidence, 0., in these figures. At all depths, and for
the preponderance of the data, deviations from the
(4.3) mean values generally range from about 1 to 4% with

....
o
(J 1.5

- o

15 30 45 60 75 90
Angle of Incidence (degrees)
Fig. 42. Reference values of the angular-dependence factor for electrons as a function of the angle of radiation incidence at a depth of3
mm in ICRU tissue substitute. 55
 1.5
d= 10mm
L-
...,0
-u
0

Q)
u
c:
Q)
1.0

"'C
c:
Q)
c.
Q)
"'C
L- 0.5
.2
::J
0'1
c:
<

0.0
a 15 30 45 60 75 90
Angle of Incidence (degrees)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 43. Reference values of the angular-dependence factor for electrons as a function ofthe angle of radiation incidence at a depth oflO
mm in ICRU tissue substitute.

only minor systematic shifts at large angles of
incidence and at low electron energies.
Reference angular dependence factors
(278) Reference angular dependence factors were
derived at the three recommended depths in the
ICRU tissue using the evaluation procedure de-
scribed in PTB Report DOS-24 (Grosswendt and
Chartier, 1994). The resulting reference factors are
summarised and shown in Figs. 41-43 for the four-
element ICRU tissue substitute and the correspond-
ing numerical data are given in Tables A. 45-AA 7 in
Annex 2. As is apparent from the figures, R(d,a.) is
strongly dependent on the angle of incidence, a.,
especially at a depth of d = 0.07 mm, for electron
energies higher than 2 MeV and for angles of inci-
dence, a. > 75°.
Personal dose equivalent
(279) ICRU Report 47 (Paragraph 4.3.2) suggests
that the dose equivalent in an ICRU tissue slab
phantom, Hp,slab(d,a.), is a satisfactory surrogate for
the personal dose equivalent in the human torso.
The reference conversion coefficients and angular-
dependence factors given in the previous section are
thus considered to be adequate fluence to the per-
sonal dose-equivalent conversion coefficients.

56
 5. Relationships Between Quantities
5.1. Introduction
(280) This section examines the impacts of recent
changes in the recommendations ofthe ICRP and the
ICRU on both protection and operational quantities,
discusses the interrelationship between these quan-
tities and describes the performance of the opera-
tional quantities as predictors of the protection
quantities.
5.2. Changes in the Protection and
Operational Quantities
5.2.1. General
(281) Section 2 has described those conceptual
changes, modifications in specification and changes
in physical data that affect the quantities used in the
dosimetry of external ionising radiations for radiologi-
cal protection.
(282) This section analyses the impact of these
changes on the protection quantities and operational
quantities and their function with particular empha-
sis being given to:
• a comparison between the currently recom-
mended ICRP basic protection quantity (the
effective dose, E) with that previously recom-
mended (the effective dose equivalent, HE) (Sec-
tion 5.2.2).
• A comparison between the currently recom-
mended values of the conversion coefficients for
the operational quantities (ambient dose equiva-
lent, H*, directional dose equivalent, H', and
personal dose equivalent, Hp), with those previ-
ously recommended (Section 5.2.3).
5.2.2. Protection quantities
(283) This section considers the effects of the
changes in the protection quantities-from the dose
equivalent to the equivalent dose, and from the
effective dose equivalent to the effective dose (ICRP,
1977, 1991a). Whenever the term 'effective dose
equivalent' is used in this section, it refers to the
quantity defined in ICRP Publication 26. No modifi-
cations of this definition are used to calculate any
other 'effective dose equivalent-like' quantities.
Photons
(284) The principal reason for differences between
effective dose and effective dose equivalent is the
inclusion of skin in the specification of the effective
dose. The consequence of this change becomes par-
ticularly evident at low photon energies (see Fig. 7).
Smaller differences are due to the different specifica-
tions of these two protection quantities with respect
to organs and their respective tissue-weighting fac-
tors, WT. There is no numerical difference between E
and HE because of changes in radiation weighting
between the organ dose equivalents (evaluated using
the quality factor) and the organ equivalent doses
(evaluated using the radiation-weighting factor).
The mean quality factor Q for photons is taken by
convention to be unity, the radiation weighting fac-
tor is also defined as unity.
(285) For all the irradiation geometries considered
in this report (AP, PA, LAT, ROT, and ISO), and for
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
all photon energies above approximately 20 keY, the
differences between HE and E are small. This is
shown both in Fig. 44, which compares conversion
coefficients for E and HE in the AP irradiation
geometry, and in Fig. 45, which shows the ratios
E I HE in all irradiation geometries.
(286) For all irradiation geometries and for photon
energies above 100 keY, the differences between E
and HE do not exceed 12%. However, for energies
between 25 and 100 keY (and in the PA and LAT
geometries), HE differs substantially from E, by as
much as a factor of 2. Over the energy range 10-100
keV the differences between the conversion coeffi-
cie~ts for E and HE are smaller for the multidirec-
tional irradiation geometries (ROT and ISO) than
they are for the PA and LAT geometries (i.e., the
ratios E I HE are more nearly equal to 1). At photon
energies above 1 MeV, the ratio EIHE is relatively
unchanged with energy and approaches the value
1.0 for all geometries. At the other extreme of the
energy spectrum, as the photon energy falls below
about 20 keY, E may exceed HE significantly in some
irradiation geometries (see Fig. 45).
(287) The variation of the ratio E I HE with energy
is determined in a complex way by the irradiation
geometry, by the location of the organs and by their
tissue-weighting factors, WT. This is illustrated in
Fig. 7, which shows the organ equivalent dose conver-
sion coefficients for a few selected organs (the colon,
female breast, lungs, red bone marrow, and skin)
irradiated in the AP geometry as a function of
energy. At low photon energies, the organ equivalent
doses are much higher for superficial organs than for
deep-lying organs - the effect being most pronounced
for skin. For this reason, with the skin being in-
cluded in the specification for the effective dose but
omitted for the effective dose equivalent, the effec-
tive dose is higher than the effective dose equivalent
at very low photon energies in some irradiation
geometries.
(288) In AP geometry the enhancement of E as
compared with HE, which arises from the contribu- 57
 E (ICRP Publication 60)
Hs (ICRP Publication 26

~ 0.5
o
"d
4)

.::
...
..."

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

~
~ O.Ou-~ __~__~~~~~L-__~__~~~~~~____~__L-~~~~U
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 44. A comparison of conversion coefficients in AP irradiation geometry for effective dose, E, and the effective dose equivalent, HE,
per unit air kerma free-in-air as a function of photon energy.

tion of the skin, is to some extent mitigated by the
reduced weighting factor given to the breast-an
organ that can also receive a significant dose in the
AP irradiation geometry when irradiated by low-
energy photons (see, for example, the ratio of E / HE
in Fig. 45 at 10 keY for the AP irradiation geometry
as compared with the ratio in PA irradiation geom-
etry). The female breast dose makes a significant
contribution to HE with a weighting factor of 0.15. In
the effective dose, however, the relative contribution
of the breast is reduced because its weighting factor
is 0.05 (see Figs. 46 and 47).
(289) At energies above approximately 25 keY
(when deeper organs are irradiated and therefore
the influence of the doses to superficial organs and
any changes to their weighting factors become ofless
relative importance), the numerical differences be-
tween the effective dose and effective dose equivalent
are largely due to two changes in the specification of
the remainder. First, and most importantly, ICRP

::r;'"

..
c AP
PA
-;: LAT
.;; 10 ROT
....
c-

'"
ISO

..
~
Q
'C

...
00 ~
en ~
en
.... .....
t-- ~
to ~ \ .
t;
0
P-
Q)
..
~
Q
'C
\
\
\
':
':
0:: ... 1
..... : .......... :...... :..................... .
~ ~

-
C)
~

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Photon energy (MeV)
58 Fig. 45. The ratio E / HE for several irradiation geometries as a function of photon energy.
 0.037 0.03 0.056 0.139
Bladder Lung Others Stomach
0.04
Skin
0.087 0.412 0.128
0.058
Stomach Testes Testes
Breast
0.066
Thyroid
0.147 0.121
Thyroid 0.08 Colon
0.191 Red bone
marrow Ovaries Lung
Breast

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

IWTHTIHE]
0.021 0.01
Lung Red bone 0.038
0.062 0.017marrow 0.076 Thyroid 0.026
Thyroid Bone surface Red bone Bone surface
0.323
0.138 Remainder
Remainder 0.399 0.107
Breast Lung

0.112
Ovaries

Testes Testes Breast

Fig. 46. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective Fig. 47. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective
dose and to the effective dose equivalent respectively for 20 keY dose and to the effective dose equivalent respectively for 200 keY
incident photons in AP irradiation geometry on an adult human incident photons in AP irradiation geometry on an adult human
computational model. computational model.

Publication 60 reduced the tissue-weighting factor
for the remainder by a factor of6 compared with that
given in ICRP Publication 26. Second, the remainder
dose contributing to HE is higher than that which
contributes to E because the former is averaged over
those five remainder organs that have the maximum
dose, whereas the latter is determined from the
average of the doses to 10 fixed organs.
(290) The influence of geometry and WT on the
relative contributions to E and HE at 20 and 200 keY
may be seen in Figs. 46 and 47, in AP irradiation
geometry.21
Neutrons
(291) The impact of the new specifications of the
protection quantities is most noticeable in the case of
neutrons. As a result, the values of the conversion
coefficients from fluence to organ doses and the effective
21 It should be noted that the absolute values of wTHT are
different for HE and E (see the specifications in JCRP Publications
26 and 60, and also the values of WT in Tables 1 and 3 in the
Glossary).
dose have changed, primarily because of the introduc-
tion of the concept of radiation weighting factors (see
Sections 2.4 and 4.4.2 for further discussion).
(292) Conversion coefficients from neutron fluence
to the effective dose are given in Section 4 for the
standard irradiation geometries. Figure 48 shows
the ratio E / HE for four irradiation geometries (AP,
PA, LAT, and ROT). In AP geometry, and for the
energy range from thermal energies to 1 MeV, the
ratio E / HE varies between 2 and 4. The ratio steadily
increases for PA geometry from about 1.5 at thermal
energies to a value of 4 at about 1 keY, then rises
steeply with energy between 10 keY and 200 keV, and
has a value of 7-7.5 over a broad peak from 50-200 keV,
before declining to a value of! near 10 MeV. The energy
dependence of the ratio in the LAT and ROT geom-
etries is similar to that for the PA geometry, with a
broad peak between 10 and 200 keY and maximum
values of the ratio between 4 and 5. In all four
geometries, the value of E / HE is about 1 at 10 MeV.
(293) In summary, there are significant differences
between E and HE for neutrons. These large differ-
ences are mainly due to the method of radiation
weighting and the weighting factor used to calculate 59
 AP
PA
LAT
6 ROT
o~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10-9 10'" 10-7
.5 Fig. 48. The ratio E / HE for incident neutrons in several irradiation geometries on an adult human computational model (mean of
~ values calculated in ADAM and EVA) as a function of neutron energy.
;:
,..
<2
!l
!'::
Q)
.<:j
the two quantities. In the calculation of HE, the
!SQ) radiation weighting is achieved by using the Q(L )-L
o relation at the point of energy deposition. Thus,
U
!':: weighting is applied to the absorbed dose deposited
.S
en by the degraded neutron spectrum and the induced
~
;> photon spectrum (see Sections 2.4 and 4.4.2 for a
!'::
o discussion). By contrast, the values of WR used to
U
calculate E are determined only by the neutron
energy incident on the body and do not alter with the
changing character of the nuclear transformations
occurring in the body.
(294) The differences between E and HE as the
neutron energy and irradiation geometry change are
shown in Fig. 49. This figure compares the relative
contributions of specific organs to the effective dose
equivalent, HE, and the effective dose, E, for the AP
and PAgeometries and at two energies. The energies
selected are 100 keY, in the energy region where the
largest differences between the two quantities occur;
and 14 MeV, where the differences are small. Data22
showing the relative contributions of specific organs
to the effective dose equivalent (HE) and effective
dose 23 (E) are presented. For the effective dose
equivalent, the separate values of the mean quality
factor, Q, are indicated for the constituent organs.
For the effective dose, the values of WR (which are
organ-independent) shown on the figure are calcu-
lated from eqn (2.5).
(295) Inspection of Fig. 49 permits a qualitative
understanding of the ratios of E / HE as shown in Fig.
22 Taken from JCRP Publication 51 for HE and from this report
for E (see the tables in Chapter 4). Values of mean quality factor
for the breast, ovaries, and testes were obtained from Hollnagel
(1994a).
23 It should be noted that the absolute values of wTHT are
different for HE and E (see the specifications in JCRP Publications
60 26 and 60, and also in Tables 1 and 3 in the Glossary).
10"' 10-5 1~ 10.3 10-1 10.1 10° 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
48. This may be best done by focusing attention on
the differences between the values of WR and those of
the mean quality factors, Q, for each organ. At 14
MeV, the value ofwR calculated from eqn (2.5) is 7.7.
In both the AP and PA geometry, the values for the
organ mean quality factors vary between 7.0 and 9.0,
with the exception of the bone surface in the AP
geometry. Thus, only small differences are to be
expected between E and HE in either geometry and
this is confirmed in Fig. 48. At 100 keY, however, the
organ mean quality factors differ widely from one
another, by organ and by irradiation geometry. Fur-
thermore, the values of organ Q are substantially
different from the calculated value of WR of 16. In AP
geometry, for example, the mean quality factor for
the ovaries used in the computation of HE is less than
10% of the value of the radiation weighting factor
used in the computation of the effective dose, E; for
the testes, it is 55%. Similarly, in PAgeometry at 100
keV, the mean quality factors for the ovaries, testes,
and breast are all less than 10% of the value of the
radiation weighting factor used in the computation
of the effective dose.
(296) From these discussions it may be deduced
that the difference between E and HE is greatest in
PA irradiation geometry and for incident neutron
energies around 100 keY, where moderated (slowed
down) neutrons have smaller values of Qn than the
primary (uncollided) neutrons.
Electrons
(297) Inclusion of skin as an organ in the specifica-
tion ofthe effective dose leads to differences between
the effective dose and effective dose equivalent.
These differences are only noticeable at relatively
low electron energies.
 HE - AP 100 keY ([=7.1 E - AP 100 keY wR = 16

Testes Q=
.Kelmall'clerQ = 2.4

HE-AP 14 MeV ([=7.6 E-AP 14 MeV wR=7.7

Others
Ovaries 0= .RelmaillderQ = 7.4

Testes Q = 7.6 i~~~mriii

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Q=80

Bone M . 0 = 7.

HE - PA 100 keY ([=4.1 E - PA 100 keY wR = 16

Breast Q= 3.3
0=1.5

HE-PA 14 MeV ([=7.5 E - PA 14 MeV wR = 7.7

OIhc,"
Ovaries Q= 7. Rcn"uirldcrQ =7.3

Testes Q=7

Q=8.6
Q-78
Breast
Fig. 49. Relative contributions of specific organs to effective dose and to the effective dose equivalent for 100 keVand 14 MeV incident
neutrons inAP and PAirradiation geometry on an adult human computational model (mean of values calculated in ADAM and EVA).

(298) Schultz and Zoetelief (1996) have reported
calculations of the conversion coefficients for the
effective dose, E, using the MIRD phantoms (ADAM
and EVA). These calculations, which were restricted
to the AP geometry, spanned the energy range from
80 keV to 10 MeV. These authors have also reported
new calculations of the conversion coefficients for HE
under the same conditions. There is good agreement
between the new conversion coefficients for HE and
those reported earlier in the literature.
(299) In AP geometry, and for electron energies
from 1.5 to 10 MeV, the ratio E I HE remains almost
constant at a value close to 0.7. At 1 MeV, the ratio
EIHE is approximately 1; below 1 MeV, it increases
steeply as the electron energy decreases (Fig. 50).
Below 600 keV, the steep increase in EIHE is due
totally to the dose to the skin, which is not included
in the specification of HE' At these energies, the dose
contribution of even the most superficial organs is
more than two orders of magnitude lower.
Sununary: changes in the
protection quantities
(300) For photons and for most irradiation geom-
etries, the difference between conversion coefficients
for the effective dose, E, and effective dose equiva-
lent, HE, is typically less than 5%. At energies below 61

:5
2 replaced the individual dose equivalent (penetrat-
100
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 50. The ratio E / HE for incident electrons in AP irradia-
tion geometry on an adult human computational model (mean of
values calculated in ADAM and EVA) as a function of electron
energy.
25 keV, there are some significant differences (>30%)
between E and HE because ofthe inclusion of skin in
the specification of the effective dose. This change
makes the effective dose a numerically larger quan-
tity than the effective dose equivalent at low ener-
gies. In the PA and LAT geometries, however, and at
photon energies between 25 and 100 keV, E is less
than HE by as much as a factor of 2.
(301) As intended by the ICRP, there are large
differences between the conversion coefficients for
converting fluence to effective dose, E, and to effec-
tive dose equivalent, HE, for neutrons. These differ-
ences arise partly because of the choice of values of
radiation weighting factors for neutrons and partly
because, in the calculation of effective dose, the
radiation weighting factor is determined by the
energy ofthe incident neutrons, and is applied to the
absorbed dose in the organ or tissue, regardless of
the quality of the radiation in that organ or tissue.
The quality factors used in effective dose equivalent
are determined and applied at the point of interac-
tion. The conversion coefficients for E for neutron
energies up to 1 MeV are typically 2-4 times higher
than those for HE. This increase is consistent with
the intentions of the ICRP. Under particular condi-
tions of energy and irradiation geometry, the conver-
00
sion coefficient for E can be as much as seven times
Ol
Ol
,.....
larger than that for HE. At about 10 MeV and above,
the differences between the conversion coefficients
for E and HE are small «5%). Data at energies up to
180 MeV are incomplete.
5.2.3. Operational quantities
General
(302) Since the publication of ICRU Report 39
62 (lCRU, 1985), there have been modifications to the
definitions of the operational quantities and in the
recommended values of the conversion coefficients
(lCRU, 1992a,b). The precise definition of the direc-
tional dose equivalent, H'(d), has changed and a new
quantity, the personal dose equivalent, Hp(d), has
ing) and the individual dose equivalent (superficial)
(lCRU, 1992a,b). These changes in definition re-
sulted in no numerical changes in the appropriate
conversion coefficients.
(303) Revised values for the stopping powers of
protons and 4He+ + ions given in ICRU Report 49
(lCRU, 1993a) influence the values of quality factor
(see Section 2.4.8).
(304) The recommendations of ICRP Publication
60 also affect not only the protection quantities but
also the operational quantities. Changes in the opera-
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
tional quantities arise primarily because of the
revised Q(L)-L relationship (ICRP, 1991a). No fur-
ther changes have been made in that relationship
following the revision of the stopping powers. These
changes have implications for practical monitoring
and measurement but, in practice, the effect of these
changes on the values of the conversion coefficients
for operational quantities is only significant for
neutrons.
(305) This section compares the currently recom-
mended values of the conversion coefficients for the
ambient dose equivalent, directional dose equivalent
and personal dose equivalent with those given in
ICRP Publication 51 (ICRP, 1987). Differences be-
tween the older and newer data are discussed in
terms of changes in the recommended technique for
radiation weighting and of modifications in the
physical database used in the calculations.
Photons. Ambient dose equivalent
(306) The values of the conversion coefficients from
air kerma to the ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), for
photon energies between 10 keV and 10 MeV are
given in Table A.21 in Annex 2. These values are not
significantly different from those recommended in
ICRP Publication 51 (ICRP, 1987). The data adopted
are taken from the more recent ICRU Report 47
(ICRU, 1992a), in which several sets of published
data were evaluated.
Photons. Directional dose equivalent
(307) Although the definition of the quantity has
been slightly modified, the numerical values of the
conversion coefficients have not significantly changed
from those recommended in ICRP Publication 51
and ICRU Report 43 (ICRP, 1987; ICRU, 1988).
Tables A.22 and A.23 in Annex 2 give values of
recommended conversion coefficients for H'(10,a)
and H'(0.07,a) for a range of values ofthe angle a to
 H* calc. with Q(L) - ICRP 60 and ICRU 49 (liquid phase)
+ H* calc. with Q(L) - ICRP 60 (vapour phase)
x H* calc. with Q(L) - ICRP IS. 21 and 26 (vapour phase)
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-u~-u
1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ l~ t~
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 51. Conversion coefficients for H*(10)1<P for neutrons in AP irradiation geometry based on different Q(L) relationships and
stopping power in both vapour and liquid phases.

the principal axis of the ICRU sphere between 0° and
180°. The quantity H'(3) is not widely used in
practical monitoring for radiological protection and
conversion coefficients are not given in this report.
Photons. Personal dose equivalent
(308) Tables A.24 and A.25 in Annex 2 summarise
the values of Hp,slab(lO,a) and H p,slab(0.07, a) and the
corresponding angular dependence factors, R(d,a),
as a function of the angle of incidence, a, of radiation
up to angles of 75° for photons. Pending calculations
in the human trunk for various irradiation geom-
etries and photon energies, it is not possible to
estimate precisely how these surrogate conversion
coefficients, Hp,slab (d,a), mimic Hp(d) in the human
trunk; but the errors involved are thought to be
small (see Section 2.6.4).
(2) with the ICRP Publication 60 Q(L )-L relation-
ship and the stopping power data for water in the
vapour phase; and (3) with the ICRP Publication 60
Q(L)-L relationship and the new stopping power
data for water in the liquid phase. The differences
resulting from the Q(L)-L relationship introduced
by ICRP Publication 60 are trivial at energies above
about 1 MeV. The small differences below 1 MeV are
about 25% in the thermal to intermediate energy
regions, reaching a maximum of about 40% near to
400 keY.
Neutrons. Directional dose equivalent
(311) Because neutrons are deeply penetrating,
values of the directional dose equivalent for neu-
trons are of limited interest, and so no conversion
coefficients are given for this quantity for neutrons.

Neutrons. Personal dose equivalent

Neutrons. Ambient dose equivalent
(309) Since 1985, there have been two changes to
the conversion coefficients for ambient dose equiva-
lent: a new Q(L)-L relationship has been recom-
mended (lCRP, 1991a) and new stopping power data
for protons and alpha particles have been published
(ICRU, 1993a). A detailed discussion of these changes
is given in Section 2.4.8, and their consequence may
be seen in Fig. 51.
(310) Figure 51 shows the neutron fiuence to
ambient dose equivalent conversion factors obtained
with both the Q(L) relationships (ICRP, 1977; ICRU,
1993a) and stopping power data for both water
vapour and liquid water (lCRU, 1993a). The three
curves presented are (1) with the Q(L)-L relation-
ship used in ICRP Publications 15, 21 and 26 and the
stopping power data for water in the vapour phase;
(312) Under AP irradiation conditions in the fron-
tal hemisphere, the value of H p,slab(10, 0°) is very
similar to H*(10) (see Fig. 52 and Table A.42 in
Annex 2). For other directions of radiation incidence,
rough estimates may be achieved by applying data
for H p,slab(10,a). See Section 2.6.4 for a detailed
discussion of personal dose equivalent.
Electrons. Directional dose equivalent
(313) Comparison between recently calculated nu-
merical values and the values presented in ICRP
Publication 51 and ICRU Report 47 shows that there
are no significant differences between the new and
older data. The reference values recommended in
this report result from an extensive analysis of data
provided by several authors. This analysis also in- 63
 E I H*(10), (lCRP 60)
E I H,(10), (lCRP 60)
1.5
,------'"
0.5
O~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~-W
10-' 10-8 lIT7
.5 Fig. 52. The ratios of effective dose, E, to H *( lO ) and Hp,slab(lO,OO) as a function of neutron energy.
cluded an estimate of the uncertainties in the refer-
ence data. Table A.44 in Annex 2 gives values of
conversion coefficients from electron fluence to
H'(0.07,a), H'(3,a), and H'(10,a) for values of a = 0°,
where a is the angle to the principal axis ofthe ICRU
sphere. Tables A.45 to A.4 7 give values ofthe angular
dependence factors that facilitate calculation of
H'(0.07,a), H'(3,a), and H'(10,a) for the value of a in
the range 0° :=:; a :=:; 90°.
Electrons. Personal dose equivalent
(314)As is the case for photons, data calculated for
ICRU phantoms may serve as surrogates for the
personal dose equivalent. The data for H'(d) calcu-
lated in the ICRU sphere and slab do not differ
significantly from each other; therefore, the data for
H'(d) in Table A.44 may also serve for Hp(d) in the
human trunk. Section 2.6.4 provides a detailed dis-
cussion of the personal dose equivalent.
Summary
(315) In the case of electrons and photons, the
differences between the conversion coefficients for
the ambient and directional dose equivalent given in
this report and those previously published in JCRP
Publication 51 and JCRU Report 43 are small (less
than 5%). Conversion coefficients for the personal
dose equivalent for photons and electrons incident
on the human trunk are not available but it is
assumed that their values are close to those obtained
from calculations of the dose equivalent in the
tissue-equivalent sphere and slab phantoms.
(316) For neutrons, there are some changes in the
conversion coefficients for the ambient dose equiva-
lent because ofthe new Q(L)-L relationship in JCRP
64 Publication 60 and stopping powers in JCRU Report
104 10-5 10~ 1003 10-1 lIT1 10° 101 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
49. At energies below 1 MeV, the conversion coeffi-
cients for H *(10) are typically 20-40% higher than
those given in JCRP Publication 51. At energies
above 10 MeV, there are no significant differences
between the data sets. For personal dose equivalent,
there are concomitant changes in the conversion
coefficients.
5.3. Relationships between the Protection
and Operational Quantities:
The Performance of the
Operational Quantities
5.3.1. General
(317) The operational quantities were designed to
facilitate measurements that provide an adequate
approximation to the appropriate protection quan-
tity for irradiation from external radiation sources,
while avoiding underestimation or excessive overes-
timation of the quantity. Before the changes in the
recommendations of JCRP Publication 60, it was the
case that" . .. for neutrons and photons over a wide
energy range, and for electrons present in routine
operations, these aims are usually met by the deter-
mination of the dose equivalent at certain specified
depths in the ICRU sphere" (ICRU, 1985). Changes
in both the ICRP and ICRU recommendations over
the past 10 years have directly affected the opera-
tional quantities. Thus, it is important again to
establish whether the operational quantities con-
tinue to provide an adequate measure of the ICRP
protection quantities.
(318) The performance of the operational quanti-
ties as predictors of the protection quantities is
described in this section. This is done by examining
the relationships between the protection quantities,
particularly the effective dose, and those operational

O~~~~~-L~~~~-L~~~~-L~~~U
10-9 10-8 10-7
Fig_ 53_ The performance of a mbient dose equivalent H *( lO ) as indicator of effective dose for neutrons in AP irradiation geometry.
quantities used for area and individual monitoring
(i.e., the ambient dose equivalent, directional dose
equivalent, and personal dose equivalent). These
relationships are discussed for photons, neutrons,
and electrons; the conversion coefficients of this
report are used throughout this discussion, unless
stated otherwise.
(319) The operational quantities were designed to
provide a reasonable estimate of the appropriate
protection quantity under normal working condi-
tions. For external irradiation of the body, this may
be simply expressed by the goal that the value of the
appropriate protection quantity is less than that of
the operational quantity. It must be emphasised that
this goal applies to radiation fields to which people
are exposed and these fields are usually associated
with broad energy spectra and various irradiation
geometries.
(320) As an example, Fig. 53 illustrates the perfor-
mance of the ambient dose equivalent, H * (10), in
estimating effective dose, E, from neutrons in AP
geometry. The ratio of conversion coefficients from
fluence for neutrons (similar figures will be pre-
sented for photons and electrons) is calculated for a
range of radiation energies and geometries. In those
energy regions where E / H * (10) exceeds unity, the
protection quantity is underestimated by the opera-
tional quantity. Conversely, where E / H*(10) is less
than unity, the operational quantity will provide an
overestimate of the protection quantity.
(321) In order to ensure valid comparisons of
protection and operational quantities, a convention
has been adopted to distinguish values of conversion
coefficients for quantities in different irradiation
geometries.
• AP geometry: E(AP) denotes the conversion coef-
ficients for effective dose from fluence or air
kerma, in AP geometry. E(AP) can be compared
OverelTimation
10"' 10-5 10-4 10.,] 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
Neutron energy (MeV)
with H*(10) because this quantity is defined in
an aligned field , and therefore conversion coeffi-
cients for H*(10) are the same in all geometries.
E(AP) can also be compared with H'(10,00) and
H p,slab(10,00) because conversion coefficients for
these quantities correspond to radiation incident
at 0° to the principal axis of the ICRU sphere and
to the front ofthe ICRU slab, respectively.
• PA geometry: E(PA) denotes the conversion coef-
ficients for effective dose from fluence or air
kerma in PA geometry. E(PA) can be compared
directly with conversion coefficients for H * (10),
which are independent of radiation geometry
(see above). E(PA) can also be compared directly
with H'(10,1800) and Hp,slab (10,180°) because
conversion coefficients for these quantities corre-
spond to radiation incident at 180° to the princi-
pal axis ofthe ICRU sphere and to the front face
of the ICRU slab, respectively. Hence the dose
equivalent is calculated at a depth of 10 mm in
ICRU tissue, at a point opposite the incident
radiation, which has to travel through the bulk
of the tissue equivalent sphere (290 mm) or slab
(140 mm).
• LAT geometry: E(LAT ) denotes conversion coeffi-
cients from fluence or air kerma in LAT geom-
etry. E(LAT) can be compared directly with
conversion coefficients for H*(10), which are
independent of radiation geometry. E(LAT) can
also be compared directly with H'(10,900) be-
cause conversion coefficients for this quantity
correspond to irradiation at 90° to the principal
axis of the ICRU sphere. Conversion coefficients
for H p,slab(10,900) are available but there are
some uncertainties in published data. In any
case, the validity of comparing E(LAT) with
Hp,slab data is questionable, because it is not 65
 P ROTECTlON
G EOM ETRY QUANTITY AREA MONITORING
AP E (AP) H* ( lO ), H '(10 ,OO)
PA E(PA) H* ( lO ), H '( lO,1800)
LAT E(LAT ) H*(lO), H'(lO ,900)
ROT E(ROT) H*(lO), H'(lO,ROT)
ISO E(ISO ) H*(lO) , H'(lO,ISO)
likely to correspond closely to Hp(d) in the body
for LAT geometry,
• ROT geometry: E(ROT) denotes the conversion
coefficients for effective dose from fluence or air
kerma in ROT geometry, E(ROT) can be directly
compared with conversion coefficients for H * (10),
which are independent of radiation geometry.
E(ROT) can also be compared with H'(10,ROT)
and conversion coefficients for this quantity are
obtained for dose equivalent at a 10 mm depth in
the ICRU sphere in a 360 0 rotating plane paral-
lel beam (lCRP, 1987), Furthermore, E(ROT) can
be compared with H p,slab(10,ROT). Conversion
coefficients for this quantity can be obtained
from values for H p,slab(10,a), where a is the angle
of incidence of a plane parallel beam on the front
face of the ICRU slab. For the purposes of this
comparison, H p,slab(10,ROT) has been obtained
by averaging H p ,slab(10,a) for a = 0° to 360 0 at 15°
intervals (Till et al., 1995),
• ISO geometry: E (ISO) denotes the conversion
coefficients for effective dose from fluence or air
kerma in ISO geometry. E(lSO) can be directly
compared with conversion coefficients for H*(10),
which are independent of radiation geometry.
E(ISO ) can also be compared with H'(10,ISO)
and conversion coefficients for this quantity are
obtained for dose equivalent at a 10 mm depth in
the ICRU sphere in a fully isotropic radiation
field (ICRP, 1987). No data for H p ,slab(10,ISO) are
available for photons, electrons or neutron radia-
tions ,
(322) In addition to comparisons of effective dose
values with personal dose equivalents in the ICRU
slab, Hp,slab(d), it is helpful to see how this latter
quantity corresponds to Hp(d), defined in soft tissue
below a specified point in the body. Unfortunately, no
data exist for H p(d ) at the time of going to press, so
approximations have to be made. Hence, for the
purposes of comparing likely values of Hp(d) in soft
tissue in the body, dose equivalents in small organs
near to the surface of the body have been calculated,
using the absorbed dose data for photons and ab-
sorbed dose and the Q-L relationship for neutrons.
In particular, dose equivalents to the thymus and
testes are deemed suitable for this purpose and more
details about these calculations are given later.
Conversion coefficients are denoted Hp,organ (geom-
66 etry) and these are used to provide additional surro-
O PERATIONAL QUANTITIES
I NDlVIDUAL MONITORING
H p ,slab(10 ,OO), Hp,organ(AP)
H p,slab(lO,1800), Hp,organ(PA)
slab data not valid, Hp,organ(LAT)
Hp,slab(lO,ROT), Hp,organ(ROT)
no slab data exist, Hp,organ(ISO)
gate measures of Hp(d) in the body, particularly for
comparisons with Hp,slab(d),
(323) In summary, the comparisons made ofprotec-
tion and operational quantities and correspondences
made for particular irradiation geometries are shown
in the table above,
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
5.3.2. Area monitoring
Photons
(324) The relationships between the effective dose,
E , and ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), can be seen
in Figs. 54 and 55, which show, respectively, the
values of conversion coefficients for the quantities E
and H *( 10), and the ratio E / H *(10) as a function of
photon energy for the irradiation geometries AP, PA,
and ROT, Inspection of these figures shows that
H * (10) always overestimates E [i.e., E / H *( lO) < 1]
for photons with energy up to 10 Mev'
(325) For photon energies between 60 keV and 10
MeV, the value of the ratio of E / H* ranges from 0.75
to 0.92 for the AP geometry and from 0.48 to 0.85 for
the ROT geometry (see Fig. 55), Hence, the ambient
dose equivalent provides an overestimate of the
effective dose exceeding 15% for a wide range of
photon energies and irradiation geometries. At low
photon energies, the extent of overestimation is
significant; at 25 keV, the ratio E / H*(10) is approxi-
mately 1/3 for the AP geometry and approaches an
order of magnitude for the ROT and PA geometries,
It is important, once again, to comment that, at low
photon energies, the dose to the skin and the lens of
the eye are of greatest importance in radiological
protection (see Section 4.5.2) and, in this situation,
the quantities E and H *(10 ) are of limited practical
application.
Neutrons
(326) Figures 56 and 57 show the relationship
between the effective dose, E , and the ambient dose
equivalent, H *( 10). Up to incident neutron energies
of 40 MeV, the ambient dose equivalent overesti-
mates the effective dose for all geometries, except for
the AP and PA. Above 40 MeV, H*(10 ) underesti-
mates E in all geometries. In the AP geometry, the
ambient dose equivalent underestimates E in energy
regions from about 1 eV to 40 keV; from about 3 MeV
 2.0 r-------------------------------..
-- H*(IO)
---- E(AP)
;;: •••••••• E(PA)
~ -.-. E(ROT)
;..
1.5
,- .
~ " ... "" '"
:J
...c
'y ,, " .... ", ..........
I.:
~ ,. ........... . ......... ---------------------.
..
o
C
1.0
"
I
J:,,'l-. -. -:........... ................. wy
--- ..............................:.:.:-.-.-
- - . - . __ . - .
.• .... - - _ ...

o I I
-E! : I
...;.. I ~

15 0.5 ,, t
-:
U : I!
" ,;!
" .~~ ..
."". -: "
-'!:...','

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.0 ~.J~.....~--I- .............................i..I.-:---........-"'---'-........................J-:-----'---'-........-'-.........-.....J
10 10" 10° 10'
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 54. Conversion coefficients for ambient dose equivalent and effective dose in various irradiation geometries as a function of photon
energy.

to 13 MeV; and above 40 MeV. E is also underesti- of neutron spectra (Bartlett et aZ., 1992; Posny et aZ.,
mated in the energy region from about 10 eV to 20 1992; Clark et aZ., 1993; Marshall et aZ., 1994). These
keY for the PA geometry, but the magnitude of the studies show that, at facilities in the nuclear indus-
underestimation is much less than is the case in the try (e.g., nuclear power plants and fuel-reprocessing
AP geometry. plants), the typical neutron spectra show peaks in
(327) In practice, irradiation by monoenergetic the energy range between 100 keVand 1 MeV, which
neutrons rarely occurs. Thus, it is necessary to is characteristic of degraded fission neutrons. In this
consider irradiation by neutrons distributed over a energy region, the ratio of E / H*(10) indicates that a
wide range of energies. Under these circumstances, measurement of H*(10) is likely to overestimate E in
the ambient dose equivalent is usually a conserva- all irradiation geometries. There are exceptions to
tive (safe) estimate for the effective dose. this general conclusion, especially when there are
(328) Several authors have studied the practical significant numbers of neutrons at energies below 10
implications for radiological protection for a variety keY, but these situations are rare.

10.00 r----------------------------,

1.00
,. .... ~.~.:.~.~.~.~.:••• ::'••• ~.r.~.::'••• ::'.r.r.r." ........ _ .. ____ - - -

-",'
,"
.-'l
,",,
0.10
. ..,,
.. '
" \.
,......,.-,'
,
, I - - E(AP) I H*(IO)
,, '
' •• - - E(PA) I H*(IO)
,, ' '
.. , ........ E(ROT) I H*(IO)

Photon energy (MeV)

Fig. 55. The ratio of E I H*(lO) for various irradiation geometries as a function of photon energy. 67
 AP
PA
R·LAT
L-LAT
ROT
ISO

O~~~~~~~~~~~wA~~~~~~~~~~

10.9 10-8 10.7 10-6 10.5 10-4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10° 10 1 102

Neutron energy (MeV)

Fig. 56. The ratio of E / H*(lO) for several irradiation geometries as a function of neutron energy.

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

(329) When typical calibration sources are used in
the workplace, calculated E / H*(10) ratios show that
H*(10) should provide a reasonable overestimate of
E. In the AP geometry, for example, the ratio E /
H*(10) in a 252Cf spectrum moderated in a 400 mm
diameter sphere consisting of heavy water is 0.91; in
the unmoderated 252Cf spectrum, the ratio is 0.88;
and in the fairly 'hard' Am-Be source spectrum, the
ratio is 1.05.
(330) In contrast, however, there are some environ-
ments where high-energy radiations are present
[e.g., in the cabins of high-flying airplanes or near
high-energy accelerators where it might not be ad-
equate to assume that H*(10) is a prudent measure
of effective dose] and higher values of depth, d, in
H*(d) may be appropriate. Knowledge of the neutron
spectrum in which measurements are to be made is
always highly recommended if reliable results are to
be obtained.
5.3.3. Individual monitoring
Photons. Effective dose and personal dose
equivalent
(331) Figure 58 shows the conversion coefficients
for E and H p ,slab(10,00) in AP geometry. E(AP) is
compared with H'(10,00) and H p ,slab(10,00), because
conversion coefficients for these quantities corre-
spond to radiation incident at 0° to the principal axis
ofthe ICRU sphere and to the front face of the ICRU
slab, respectively. Values for H*(10) are also included
in Fig. 58 for comparison. At ex = 0°, H'(10,00) is

E I H*(10), (lCRP 60)

E I H,(10), (lCRP 60)
1.5

0.5 ... --------------------------------.

----................

------ HE I H*(10), (ICRP 26 and 51)

O~~~~~~~~~~~~~wA~~~~~~~~

1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ l~
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. 57. The ratio of E / H*(lO) (solid line) and E / Hp,slab(lO) (dashed line) as a function of neutron energy. E is calculated for incident
neutrons in AP geometry on a human computational model; both E and H*(lO) are calculated as specified in ICRP Publication 60. For
68 comparison, the ratio HpfH*(lO) (lower dashed line) is also shown.
 2.0 r---------------------------------------------------~
,"'- ..... .. .. E(AP)
,...,'..........."
" Hp,sIab(IO.OO)
:;:: I.
-.'. ",
• •••• " " H*(lO). H'(IO,OO)

-..
~ I.S

til
'-'
/
I
/
i
t
",-

-. ...
....... .....
.......::::- ...
...:-.,..........
I ~-¥u~~~~~~~~~~_~ _ _ _ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

,,
I
I

0.0 ":.2:"""''---'---'---'--'-.L...J...........!..:----'----I.-1...-J'-'--'-''-I..I-::----I.--'-'-'----'--'-..........w
1
10 10. 10° 10 1
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 58. Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective dose as a function of photon energy in AP irradiation geometry.

equal to H*(10). For all photon energies up to 10 cate that it is likely that H p (10) may underestimate
MeV, Hp,slab( 10,0°) overestimates E to about the same the effective dose for photons of energy up to 1 MeV
degree as does H*(10). Figure 59 shows the ratio or more, At low photon energies, the magnitude of
E / H p,slab(10,00) for the same energy range. the underestimation may be very large but it should
(332) In PA geometry, it is assumed that be noted that this corresponds, in a practical situa-
H p,slab(10,1800) will provide a close measure ofH p (10) tion, to wearing a personal dosemeter at the front of
in the human trunk. Figure 60 shows conversion the body when irradiation is incident primarily at
coefficients for E, H p,slab(10,1800), H*(10), and the back. Underestimation of effective dose is there-
H'(10,1800); Fig. 61 shows the ratios E / fore to be expected in such a situation.
H p,slab(10,1800) and E / H'(10,1800). These ratios indi- (333) In LAT geometry, there are particular prob-

10,0

til
~
''':: - - E(AP) / Hp.•lab(IO,OO)
''':: - - - - E(AP) / H'(IO,OO)
=
co:
::s
C"
c;
=
c
'''::
co:
'Co"'
~
1.0

--=
c
c

.~
.-------------

-( .I
~

c
'Co"'
o..
C

-
,~

~
co:
0.1 ·2
10 1~ 1~
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig, 59. The ratios E / Hp,slab(lO,OO) and E / H'(lO,OO) as a function of photon energy inAP irradiation geometry. 69
 2.0 r-------------------------------------------------~

-- E(PA)

- :l···············..... ----
••••••..
H p (10)
H*(10)
~ 1.5
--....
/ , '. - • _. H'(10,1800)
: .'.

..................................~:.~.:.:.:.:.:...................
t:'-I

.•=
u
to:
CJ

10-0 1.0
CJ
o
U

.•=o -.- .. ---

.. ......... .....
'
..........
t:'-I
~ 0.5
:.:
, . -- .... ----.- .......... ~ '
>
=
o . ,,
/

.. .....
..... ;'
;

U ......... . '

_...... _.... -.
'

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.0 ~----~~~~-~.~-~.~-~.~~----~--~~~~~~----~--~~~~~~
.1
10 10,1 10°

Photon energy (MeV)

Fig. 60. Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective dose as a function of photon energy in PA irradiation geometry.

lems in comparing calculations of the effective dose equivalent at ex = 90° is therefore used for compari-
with Hp(d). First, until recently, available data for sons with effective dose in LAT geometry. Figure 62
the dose equivalent in the ICRU slab have been shows values of conversion coefficients for E(LAT)
unreliable for ex> 75° (Ambrosi et al., 1991). Second, and H'(10,900) together with H*(10) for purposes of
it is questionable to use H p ,slab(10,900) data for comparison. The conversion coefficients show that,
comparisons with effective dose because, at ex = 90°, for most photon energies, H'(10,900) is a good mea-
the difference in phantom geometry between a slab sure of E(LAT). This may also be seen in Fig. 63 from
and the human body is extreme. The ICRU sphere is the plot ofthe ratio EI H'(10,900) .
used instead, because such differences in phantom (334) In ROT geometry, data are available for the
geometry are much less obvious; directional dose dose equivalent in the slab, Hp,slab(lO,ROT), and in

100.0 ~--r--\--------------------,

'"
:~
-=
0:
............. .
=
c:r - - E(PA) / H p,slab(10,1800)
-; "".. - - - - E(PA) / H'(10,1800)
c 10.0 .. .
-...
.S
0:
u
c.
.... --.
co -
0
0 --- -. -- ---
O'l
O'l
,.....
C
.S - .... _- .. -- ... _-
uu
[:".'-
lC
....,
....0
0.
-...
0

...
C.
1.0 '-

~ 0

~ .S
>z:: ';
~ cz:
I I
0.1 ·1 I
10 10.1 10° 10
Photon energy (MeV)
70 Fig.61. The ratios E / H p ,slab(10,1800) and E / H '(1 0,1800) in PAirradiation geometry as a function of photon energy,
 2.0

.-.
.../ .................
;.-.

---
C"..:)

en
;.-
1.5

j!
.: '-. '.

...............................
C
VI

Col
'u
.. .................... ~ ............................. .

S 1.0 _.- .. .,.. _.. _.. _.. _.. - .. -- - - .--

Col
o
.... ..... -_.- .-.-.-.-.
o
C ,. ....
';;;
...... ; /
~ 0.5
o - - E(LAT)
U
. ....•••. H*(10)
_. _. H'(10,900)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.010~·1~--~~~~~~~~1~0·-I----~--~~~~~1~0~O----~--~~~~~1~01

Photon energy (MeV)

Fig. 62. Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective dose as a function of photon energy in LAT irradiation
geometry.

the sphere, H'(lO,ROT). These data can be compared these energies, there is some appreciable overestima-
with conversion coefficients for effective dose. The tion of E by the operational quantities.
sets of conversion coefficients are shown in Fig. 64 (335) In ISO geometry, conversion coefficients are
with data for H*(lO) included for comparison pur- available for the dose equivalent in the ICRU tissue-
poses. It can be seen that, in this geometry, Hp(d) is equivalent sphere but not for the slab. Figure 66
likely to provide a very good measure ofthe effective shows the conversion coefficients for E(lSO), H*(lO),
dose. The ratios E / Hp,slab( 10,ROT) and E / H' (lO,ROT) and H'(lO,ISO). The data show that Hp(d) is also
given in Fig. 65 emphasise the closeness of this likely to be a good measure of E in this irradiation
match for photon energies above about 40 keV. Below geometry for photon energies above about 40 keV.

10.0
VI
.!:!
~
=
C'I
:I
C'
-;
c
-......
.2
C'I

c.

--
0
0

.2
c
1.0
- 00

'"'"
-
.-<

.......
...c.
0

...
0

-
.2
~
C'I - - E(LAT) I H'(10,900)

0.1
10.1 I~ I~ 10
1

Photon energy (MeV)

Fig. 63. The ratio E(LAT)IH'(lO,900) as a function of photon energy. 71
 2.0 r----------------------------------------------------------,
_E(ROT)
.......
.....-.
-....
~ I.S
.
.:.
".
....
- - - - Hp,JIab(IO,ROT)
•••••••. H·(IO)
_. _. H'(IO,ROT)
--re> .:
I -.
-.. ..

/ . . . . . . . . -.~:.~~~~:.~=~~~.~~~~~~.
~

.:l
cGJ

.:. :
'u
IS 1.0
GJ
o
<oJ - .. _-----_ .. ---
C
o
.~

U
u
~ O.S
o

:
i
I t
~..

./~/

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.0 e·"
10.2 10.1 10°
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 64. Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective dose as a function of photon energy in ROT irradiation
geometry.

Below these energies, however, there is likely to be E, and personal dose equivalent calculated in a slab
some substantial overestimation of E by the opera- phantom or a sphere phantom (directional dose
tional quantities as is shown by the ratio equivalent). To establish whether these dose quanti-
E / H'(lO,ISO) in Fig. 67. ties are reasonable approximations to Hp(d) defined
in soft tissue in the body, comparisons may be made
with the average doses to small organs located near
Approximations to Hp for photons
the surface of the body (e.g., the thymus and testes).
(336) In the immediately preceding sections, com- In the absence of definitive calculations of Hp(d) in
parisons have been made between the effective dose, the human trunk, equivalent doses to some small

10.0
<II
GJ
'';:
'';:
c
"=
='
-;
0
c
~

"
J..
GJ
Co _.... ---._-----._---_._-- ..
-
0
0
0
1:1
1.0

-e
~
<oJ
~

....
Co
0
0
- E(ROT) I Hp,slab(IO,ROT)
'';: - - - - E(ROT) I H'(IO,ROT)
"
r:z::
0.1
10.2 I~ I~
Photon energy (MeV)
72 Fig.6S. The ratios E / Hp,slab(ROT) and E / H'(lO,ROT) as a function of photon energy.
 2.0 r-----------------------------,
,_ .. ,
,, .. ...
~
.....15 , I ...
..
Co:)
~ ,,
, " .. ..... .
CIl
'-" ,, ' .... , ..........
.l!l I' .... - ......
'y
=
Q,j

,
I - ...... ------------ ..
E 1.0
Q,j
o
Col
,... .,.......................................................................................
.~
=
o
Q,j /' /.l/
~ 0.5
o - E(ISO)
U
,'........../ - - - - H*(IO)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

•••••••. H'(IO,ISO)
, .'
0.0 .] .-
, , " .'
·1
10 10 10°
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 66. Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective dose as a function of photon energy in ISO irradiation geometry.

organs, appropriately located in the body, can be LAT and ISO geometries. Figure 69 shows the ratios
assumed to be approximations to the point quantity for E I Hp,thyrnus for the same geometries as in Fig. 68.
Hp(d) and are referred to in what follows here as The ratios and their general trends, both with re-
Hp,organ, where the term organ refers to the organ spect to energy and irradiation geometry, are very
used as a surrogate for the human trunk. similar in the two figures. However, it must be
(337) The validity of this expedient in the case of stressed that because Hp,thyrnuS is an approximation
photons may be partially inferred by comparing the for Hp(d) in the human trunk, only qualitative
data in Figs 68 and 69. In Fig. 68, the ratios of conclusions should be drawn from these two figures.
conversion coefficients E I Hp,slab(lO) are given for the (338) From these comparisons, it seems likely, for
AP, PA, and ROT geometries and of EI H'(lO) for the those photon irradiation geometries generally found

10.0

til
Q,j

-=
:=
=
=
co
-;
=
.2
..
c:;
G.I
Co

-
0 1.0
0
00
= 0>

--e
.2
Col
G.I
0>
.....
~
U";)

1::
0
....
Co
P-
C>
C>
~
.::: - - E(180) I H'(IO,ISO) ;:J
... p::
~

0.1 .J ·1 1
-
CJ

10 10 10° 10
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 67. The ratio E(lSO)IH' (1 O,lSO) as a function of photon energy. 73
 100.0
,, -- E(AP) I Hp,slab(IO,O·)
-.:::'" ,,
u
---- E(PA) I H ......b(10,180·)
-.::: , ........ E(LA T) I H'(IO,90·)
1:1
<'I
,,
=
C'
,, -. -.
_ .. - •.
E(ROT) I H ....lab(lO,ROT)
E(ISO) I H'(10,ISO)
-; ,
1:1 10.0 \
,
C>
-.:::<'I .
-
\

\
U
C. \

- C>
C>
1:1
C>
-.:::u . ~
\
, ....
.... -._- -._-- ....
-- .....
-eu

c.
....
C>
1.0

,~ " "
,-:.=:.::.:.-:-'- _._.:::::::::::::. --:.- --
." .•.-!..... ..... _...........•......................•............

-
"
.~
<'I

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

~

0.1 ~_l~--~--~~~~~~~--~--~~~~~~~--~--~~~~~WW
1 1
10 10- 10° 10
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 68. The ratiosEI Hp,slab(lO) and E I H'(lO) for several irradiation geometries both as a function of photon energy.

in the workplace and environment (AP, ROT, and (341) In theAP geometry, the ratio ofEIH p,slab(10)
ISO), that Hp(d) in the human trunk will either be a is very similar to the ratio E I H *(10) (see Fig. 57).
close measure of the effective dose or provide a Comparisons between E and Hp,slab in geometries
reasonable overestimate. This conclusion also ap- other than the AP are fraught with difficulty and
pears to be the case in LAT geometry.24 In the PA require great care in the interpretation of the data.
geometry, however, it appears likely that Hp(d) in Nevertheless, there is a practical need to know the
the human trunk will considerably underestimate E value of the ratio E I H p (10) in geometries other than
over a wide photon energy range. This latter conclu- the AP so that the extent of the error in personal
sion is not unexpected and corresponds to the practi- dosimetry resulting from the incorrect placement of
cal situation where a personal dosemeter is worn in a personal dosemeter or by irradiation from an
the front of the body, which is primarily irradiated unexpected direction can be estimated. There are
through the back (see also Paragraph 332). reasons to believe that there is the potential for
(339) In summary, by contrast with the ambient H p,slab(10) to underestimate E for neutron energies
dose equivalent (which overestimates E in all irradia- between 1 eV and 50 keV.
tion geometries) we may infer that Hp(d) will provide
an overestimate or a close measure of E in the AP
and ROT geometries but could underestimate E in Approximation of Hp for neutrons
the PA irradiation geometry.
(342) As with photons, it is possible to make some
general observations by determining equivalent doses
Neutrons. Effective dose and personal to small organs close to the surface of the body. The
dose equivalent thymus and male gonads (testes) are of a suitable
(340) In lieu of definitive data for conversion size and are located at a suitable depth for the
coefficients for Hp(d) in the human body or suitable purposes of inferring the result of more precise
anthropomorphic phantoms, calculations have been calculations. Figures 70 and 71 show the ratios of
carried out for the dose equivalent in the ICRU E I Hp,testes and E I Hp,thymus, respectively, for several
tissue-equivalent sphere and slab phantoms for dif- irradiation geometries_ The dose equivalents in each
ferent geometries. organ were calculated in the human adult computa-
tional models (ADAM and EVA) using the Q(L )-L
relationship from ICRP Publication 60. As might be
expected, from the anatomical location of the organs
24 Although Hp.slab(10) and Hp,thymu s appear to have some
similarities in their energy variation in LAT geometry in the case and the sensitivity of the organ absorbed dose on
of photon irradiation, this similarity is unlikely to hold true for neutron scattering, the curves for the two organs are
74 neutrons. far from identical. They are nevertheless suggestive
 100.0 , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
E / Hp.u.ym ••
--AP
•••• PA
.. ·· .... LAT
-.-. ROT
_ .. _ .. ISO
,
,,
, ,

\. \"......................
\
.. ,,-----
\
..
~
----- ... _-- - .. - .........
--.-.----- .. _.. -':~

-- ;i:"W:-: .. ,.. ........... ",._ .... ,. ..

• " ' . , . _ _ JIo . . . . . .· . _ " ' . " ' • • .A.- . -

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

I I
0.1 ~~~-~--~~~~~~.-I----~--~~~~~~o----~--~~~~-wUI
10 10 10 10
PhotOD eDergy (MeV)
Fig. 69. The ratio E / Hp,thymus for several irradiation geometries as a function of photon energy.

that, in the AP geometry, the personal dose equiva- Electrons. General

lent may prove to be an adequate measure of the
(344) There are few calculations available for
effective dose; but in other geometries, there is the
effective dose, E, from electrons and comparisons
possibility of serious underestimation of E by the
with operational quantities are difficult. The great-
personal dose equivalent H p (10). These tentative
est practical interest is in the comparison of direc-
conclusions serve to emphasise the importance of
tional dose equivalent, H'(0.07), with skin dose. The
well-designed calculations of Hp(d) in the human
data currently available only permit the comparison
body models or suitable computational models. At
between Hp,skin in AP geometry and H'0.07,00) or
the time of writing, preliminary calculations of Hp(d)
H p ,slab(0.07,00).
in a pseudo-organ situated at mid-torso in the anthro-
pomorphic phantoms (ADAM and EVA) have been
brought to the notice ofthe Task Group in the form of Electrons. Skin dose and directional
a personal communication but further work is needed dose equivalent
before definitive advice can be developed.
(345) The relationship between skin dose, Hp,skin>
and directional dose equivalent, H'(0.07, 0°), is given
in Fig. 72. The operational quantity provides a
Neutrons. Skin dose and directional considerable overestimate of skin dose at low elec-
dose equivalent tron energies. However, between 0.5 and 10 MeV the
(343) In general, for neutron irradiation,25 operational quantity provides a reasonable estimate
H'(0.07) < H'(3) < H'(10), and thus if the limit for of mean skin dose (within a factor of 2). At the
the effective dose is maintained, the limits for the present time, the data do not extend above 10 MeV.
eye and skin are not exceeded (Jahr et al., 1985).
Skin exposure is therefore of no practical concern for Electrons. Skin dose and personal
radiological protection against neutrons because of dose equivalent
the penetrating nature of the radiation and conver-
sion coefficients for directional dose equivalent for (346) Given the nature of electron interactions
neutrons are not given in this report. with matter, calculations of personal dose equivalent
in the human trunk, Hp(d), can be assumed to be
numerically equal to directional dose equivalent,
H'(0.07) in the ICRU sphere, or dose equivalent in
25 There are a few discrete energies in the neutron resonance
region where this general rule is violated (e.g., 1 MeV or 5.12 the ICRU slab, H p ,slabCO.07) (see Section 4.5). Figure
MeV), but the magnitude of the discrepancy is never significant 72 shows the ratio Hp ,skinIH'(0.07,00) [or Hp.skinl
(less than 10%). H p ,slab(0.07)] as a function of electron energy. 75
 35
AP
f/\\
if :\
30 PA : b
LAT
25
ROT
ISO /' \\:,
/ \~
I \\
20
l!
~
/ \\\1
,,'/
-
:::::0,
~
15

10
//"
:.:::::~ - -----:.--:::::::-:.::::.:::::-:.-:.-:.~.~.~..
............
~ ,
\,\

'\ \
!.
5 ''""
'"
O~~~~~C;:'~'L'-~':"-~':"-~"':-:~:'-L~~-=~:'~~::--~~C-~.~.a·~··=\~~~··~·~J
10-8 10'7 10-6 lO's 10-4 10,3 10'2 10'1 10° 101

Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. 70. The ratio E / H p,testes for several irradiation geometries as a function of neutron energy.

Electrons. Effective dose and personal
dose equivalent
(347) For electron energies above 1.5 MeV, the
contribution of the skin dose to the effective dose
becomes negligible. Because of the increasing elec-
tron range, organs more deeply located in the human
body, such as the testes, red bone marrow, ovaries
and stomach, are successively irradiated and make
their contribution to E, as the electron energy in-
creases. Figure 34 shows a graph of effective dose for
AP geometry as a function of electron energy, A curve
of B'(10) shown on the same graph shows that
H p (10) overestimates E for electron energies above
about 2 MeV. At 10 MeV the overestimation is a little
more than a factor of2.5.
5.3.4. Summary
(348) Mter all the changes in definitions, specifica-
tions, and physical databases are considered, it may
be concluded that, for photons and electrons, mea-
surement of the operational quantities for area
monitoring (ambient and directional dose equiva-
lent) will continue to provide a reasonable overesti-
mate (typically 20% or more) ofthe protection quan-
tities in all irradiation geometries.
(349) This conclusion is also the case for neutrons
in most, but not all, irradiation geometries. There is
a particularly important exception for the AP geom-
etry at low neutron energies (about 1 eV) where
underestimates of the protection quantity by about
25% can occur.
(350) Particular caution is required when dealing
with radiations having energies above about 20 MeV,
because the operational quantities defined at a depth
of 10 mm in tissue may not provide sufficient overes-
timation of protection quantities.
(351) For photons and electrons, measurements of
the operational quantity for individual monitoring
(personal dose equivalent) should provide a good

35
AP
30 PA
LAT
ROT
25 ISO

00
a>
.e" 20
a>
..... ...
oS
r:.:
1C
t0

~
p,.
<ll
-
:::::c.
~
15

10
::;
~ 5
-
U

0
10-8 to,7 10-6 10's 10-4 10,3 10'2 10'\ 10° 10 1

Neutron energy (MeV)

76 Fig.71. The ratio E / Hp,thymus for several irradiation geometries as a function of neutron energy.
 0.8
Electron energy (MeV)
Fig. 72. The ratio of the skin dose, Hp,skin> to the directional dose equivalent, H'(O.07;OO), as a function of electron energy.
estimate of the effective dose in the geometries of
most interest for radiological protection (AP and
ROT). However, care is required in other irradiation
geometries (particularly the PAgeometry) ifunderes-
timation is to be avoided. This may be achieved by
appropriately positioning personal monitors on the
individual being monitored.
(352) Measurement of the personal dose equiva-
lent will also potentially underestimate the effective
dose at some energies for neutrons, even in the ROT
geometry. However, under typical working condi-
tions, where neutron energies are distributed over a
broad spectrum of energies (e.g., fission neutrons or
degraded fission spectra), a measurement of H p (10)
is likely to be a reasonable measure of E (i.e., to
provide an overestimate of25% or more). Knowledge
of the neutron spectrum in which measurements are
to be made is always highly recommended if reliable
results are to be obtained.
5.4. General Conclusions
(353) A major concern of this Section has been to
consider whether the operational quantities recom-
mended by IeRU, in the light of the new recommen-
dations in ICRP Publication 60, still achieve their
objective in providing measurable quantities that
adequately represent the protection quantities.
(354) The operational quantities as originally speci-
fied in 1985 were designed to satisfy the require-
ments of ICRP Publication 26 and, with the excep-
tion of the revision in the Q(L )-L relationship
recommended in Publication 60, remain essentially
unchanged. It is of great practical interest, therefore,
to understand their performance in the changed
conditions following release of Publication 60.
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
(355) The analysis of the data presented in this
report indicates that generally, but with a few excep-
tions, the operational quantities continue to achieve
their objective.
(356) There are some circumstances of irradiation
geometry or radiation energy in which the discrepan-
cies between the two sets of quantities 26 are signifi-
cant. These latter cases may be generally classified
into three groups: electrons and photons of low
energy (and therefore low penetrating power); inter-
mediate-energy neutrons; and high-energy neutrons.
(357) As a practical matter, radiations of low
penetrating power rarely present practical problems
of external exposure because they may usually be
reduced by modest shielding. Exposure to neutrons
generally occurs to broad energy spectra, in which
case the operational quantities are generally ad-
equate. However, the high-energy radiations beyond
the scope of this report, such as are found in the
cabins of high-flying aircraft, need separate and
further study.
(358) It therefore appears that the operational
quantities provide a satisfactory basis for most mea-
surements for radiological protection against exter-
nal radiations. In those cases where this is not so,
the data provided in this report provide a basis for
designing special measurement programmes, prop-
erly interpreting their results and relating them to
the protection quantities.
Acknowledgements - Some unpublished material
was made available to the Task Group during its
preparation of this Report and prior to publication.
26 That is, between the protection and the operational quanti-
ties.
77
 ANNEXES
Introduction

These annexes contain figures (Annex 1) and
tables (Annex 2) which support the text of Section 4.
NOTE. The data in these annexes are presented
with a high precision to help in making comparisons
and to provide consistency in metrology. However, it
should be remembered that they have been derived
from idealised representations of the energy and
orientation ofthe radiation fields and from idealised
anthropomorphic computational models.

Contents
Annex 1 Figures Page
Photon data

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. A. 1. Bladder absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 81
Fig.A.2. Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 81
Fig. A.3. Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 82
Fig.A.4. Breast (female) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in- a ir 82
Fig.A.5. Colon absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 83
Fig.A.6. Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 83
Fig.A.7. Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 84
Fig.A.8. Gonads absorbed dose (mean of ovaries and testes) per unit a ir kerma free-in- a ir 84
Fig. A.9. Liver absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 85
Fig. A. 10. Lung absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 85
Fig. A.H. Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit air k erma free-in-air 86
Fig.A.12. Remainder absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 86
Fig.A.13. Skin absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 87
Fig. A.14. Stomach absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 87
Fig.A.15. Thyroid absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 88
Fig.A.16. Effective dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 88
Fig.A.17. Eye lens absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 89
Fig.A.18. Thymus absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 89
Fig.A.19. Uterus absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air 90
Neutron data
Fig.A.20. Bladder absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 90
Fig. A.21. Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit neutron f1uence 91
Fig.A.22. Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 91
Fig.A.23. Breast (female) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 91
Fig.A.24. Colon absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 92
Fig.A.25. Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 92
Fig.A.26. Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 92
Fig. A.27. Gonads (mean of ovaries and testes) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 93
Fig. A.28. Liver absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 93
Fig.A.29. Lung absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 93
Fig.A.30. Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 94
Fig.A.31. Remainder absorbed dose per unit neutron f1uence 94
Fig. A.32. Skin absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 94
Fig. A.33. Stomach absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 95
Fig. A.34. Thyroid absorbed dose per unit neutron f1uence 95
Fig. A.35. Effective dose per unit neutron fluence 95
Comparative neutron data
Fig. A.36. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to bone marrow (males)
in PA geometry 96
Fig. A.37. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (male) in AP
geometry 96
Fig. A.38. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (male) in
RLAT geometry 96
Fig. A.39. Evaluated and original data for the mean a bsorbed dose to the colon (female) in
RLAT geometry 97
Fig. A.40. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (male) in
LLAT geometry 97
Fig. A.41. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (female) in
78 LLAT geometry 97
Annex 1
Contents
Figures Page
...'"
Q)

So
Fig. A.42. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the gonads (female, iZ
ovaries) inAP geometry 98 ....
:><
Fig.A.43. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the gonads (male, Q)
~
testes) in ROT geometry 98 ..;j
Fig. A. 44. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (male) in PA
geometry 98
Fig.A.45. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (male) in
RLAT geometry 99
Fig.A.46. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (female) in
RLAT geometry 99
Fig.A.47. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (male) in
LLAT geometry 99
Fig.A.48. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (female) in
LLAT geometry 100
Fig.A.49. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the lungs (female) in
APgeometry 100
Fig.A.50. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the remainder (male)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

in PA geometry 100
Fig.A.51. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (male) in
RLAT geometry 101
Fig.A.52. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (female)
in RLAT geometry 101
Fig.A.53. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (male) in
LLAT geometry 101
Fig.A.54. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (female)
in LLAT geometry 102
Fig. A.55. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the thyroid (female) in
PAgeometry 102

Comparative data on effective dose from neutrons

Fig.A.56. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose in AP geometry 102
Fig.A.57. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose in PAgeometry 103
Fig.A.58. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose in RLAT geometry 103
Fig.A.59. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose in LLAT geometry 103
Fig.A.60. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose in ROT geometry 104
Fig. A.6l. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose in ISO geometry 104

Annex 2 Tables
Photon data
TableA.l. Conversion coefficients for air kerma per unit fluence of monoenergetic photons 105
TableA.2. Bladder absorbed dose per unit air kerma 105
TableA.3. Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit air kerma 105
TableA.4. Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit air kerma 105
TableA.5. Breast absorbed dose per unit air kerma 106
TableA.6. Colon absorbed dose per unit air kerma 106
TableA.7. Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit air kerma 106
TableA.8. Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit air kerma 106
TableA.9. Gonads absorbed dose (average of male and female) per unit air kerma 107
TableA.10. Liver absorbed dose per unit air kerma 107
TableA.U. Lung absorbed dose per unit air kerma 107
TableA.12. Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit air kerma 107
TableA.13. Remainder absorbed dose per unit air kerma 108
TableA.14. Skin absorbed dose per unit air kerma 108
TableA.15. Stomach absorbed dose per unit air kerma 108 <fJ
0>
TableA.16. Thyroid absorbed dose per unit air kerma 108 ....
0>

TableA.17. Effective dose per unit air kerma 109 ~

lD
TableA.18. Eye lens absorbed dose per unit air kerma 109
TableA.19. Thymus absorbed dose per unit air kerma 109
~
...
0
p.
TableA.20. Uterus absorbed dose per unit air kerma 109 ~
Q)

TableA.2l. Conversion coefficients for ambient dose equivalent and directional dose equiva- ~
lent from photon fluence and air kerma 110 ~
TableA.22. Conversion coefficients for directional dose equivalent, H'(10,OO), from air kerma 8
and angular dependence factors 110
TableA.23. Conversion coefficient for directional dose equivalent, H'(O,07,OO), from air kerma
and angular dependence factors 110
TableA.24. Conversion coefficient for H p(10) in an ICRU slab from air kerma and angular-
dependence factors 110 79
 I': Contents
0
:;l Annex 2 Tables Page
<d
:.a<d TableA.25. Conversion coefficients for H p(0.07) in an ICRU slab from air kerma and angular-
c.:: dependence factors up to 75° (Grosswendt, 1991) 111
<ii Neutron data
E TableA.26. Bladder absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 111
~
>< TableA.27. Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 112
ril
....,
en TableA.28. Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 112
.;I': TableA.29. Breast (female) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 113
TableA.30. Colon absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 113
~ TableA.31. Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 114
I':
0
'.;3 TableA.32. Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 114
t.>
TableA.33. Gonads (mean of ovaries and testes) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 115
~
...0 TableA.34. Liver absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 115
Po. TableA.35. Lung absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 116
<iit.> TableA.36. Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 116
'6h TableA.37. Remainder absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 117
0
'0 TableA.38. Skin absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 117
;a TableA.39. Stomach absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 118
~ TableAAO. Thyroid absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence 118

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.5 TableA.41. Effective dose per unit neutron fluence 119
Q)
en TableA.42. Ambient and personal dose equivalent per unit neutron fluence, H*(IO)I<P and
;::l
... H p ,slab(IO,a)l<P 119
r£ Electron data
.r'5
I':
Q)
TableA.43. Conversion coefficients for organ absorbed dose and effective dose from electron
' <) fluence 120
!:S
Q)
TableA.44. Reference conversion coefficients for directional dose equivalents from electron
0 fluence 120
U
I': TableA.45. Reference values of the angular factor at a depth of 0.07 mm 120
0
'iii TableA.46. Reference values of the angular factor at a depth of 3 mm 121
...
Q) TableA.47. Reference values of the angular factor at a depth of 10 mm 121
>
I':
0
U

80
 ANNEX 1. FIGURES
2.0 AP
PA
LAT
ROT
ISO

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0 . 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig.A.I. Bladder absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.

1.5
AP
PA
LAT
ROT
ISO
'. '.
" . ".
........ ... .... ........... .. .. .... .
........ ~.' ......

,':
. / -......... ~..-;:::" .....
: I/' ---- _ _ _ -:: ..........
...
G)
: :'/~-----------
c:>. : I VI
~ 0.5
: : I
"0 :i I
1l :
: • I
: ,
.' ,
~ ,
:'

..
.t:>
: :
.: I,

~
;' :' I
..../,~
.... ..
o 0.0u-__~~~~~~u-__~__~~~~~__~__~~~~~
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig.A.2. Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air. 81
 ::: 3.0
.S
..., AP
e<S
;a PA
~
e<S
S !.AT
ROT
OJ
::: 5
'-'
2.5
ISO
...,'"
(1) ~.
>: "1:-
r:tl
..., Cl
2.0
00
::: '"..,E
"a
<:::
~
..
'(i!

·s 1.5
.S
...,
u
...,
(1) ....,
::s
0
'"
0..
..,c:>.
OJu
'"
0
"0
1.0 ...................................
'M
"0 ..,
0 of
'0 0
;a .0 '" 0.5
~
e<S
'"c
'"

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S e!l
(1) 0
00
::s 0 . 0u-~~ __~~~~u-__~__~~~~~__~__~~~~~
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
'"
<Sl
Photon enerlrY (MeV)
..,
00
::: Fig.A.3 . Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
.u~
!E(1)
0
U
:::
.S
00
'"
(1)
;>
:::0
u

2.0
-. AP
>. PA
~ !.AT
ROT
0
'-'
~ .. ISO
"1:- 1.5
Cl

~
.,'"
E
·iii
·s::s 1.0
00
(j)
(j)
.,...
.-<
.,.:
..,c:>.
l!') 0'"
"0
1::0
c:>.
.,
"0

(1) of 0.5
0
~
::> '"co
.0

~ C
U co
...... e!l
0
.'
0. 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
82 Fig. A.4. Breast (female ) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
1.5

· ....... .
'.
/./.......... '" .........................:.:.:::::.:.:::::.:.:::::::.:.-=
:::t .......... - ... _ ... _ ... .- ... -... ~ --::~::::.~ . -.
" ...-;";:.--.-
j ---.
......... ---- , - :'..... - ,..
: / ""'-----:':. ........ .
! / ,. -'-
- - - - - - -_.-.-'
- - - _.-'
I: / 1,./' '-._._ . - '
: / I.' AP
1/ II1/
•
PA
LLAT
/tt!

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

RLAT
:·i':i i I ROT
.·71
o.ou-____~~·~/~~~~wu~__~__~~~-L~~~ __~___L~~_L~~
ISO

0 .01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. A.5. Colon absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in- air.

1.5n---~r-~~~~MI----~-T-T-.~~r----.--~~-Arp~rn

PA
LAT
ROT
ISO

:::
... .. ................. :~:::: ;.:.......--:::.~::
_... _... - ... -
!/
Ii ...- . . . .
;':' / .........
........ ..

_-_.----
- ...

-- --
11/
I;' / ,. - - - - - - - ---
If / /
1.'/ 1
'. I
.l /I
.:; I
,.'l,.'
O.Ow-____~~·~/~~~~~L__ _ _ _~_ _~~~~~~_ _ _ _~_ _~~~~~~u
0.01 0 . 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig.A.6. Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit air kerma fr ee-in-air. 83
 ~ 2.0
.S
+'
AP
PA
;.s""
""
p:: ~ LAT
ROT
til
e ~ ISO

.2l~
~ .. 1.5
>il
+'
~ ..
rJl
~
'0; ~
5
~ ....
~
'cu 1.0
0
:;:l '2:s
<.>
<I)
+' tc:l.
0
ct Q)
II>
0
til<.> "C

'6'.0
0
'0
"C

-e
Q)

0
0.5
--
;.s ~
II>

""
p:: ..e!l
c

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S
<I)
rJl
0
:s
.... 0.10 1.00 10.00
<£ Photon energy (MeV)
rJl
+'
~ Fig.A.7. Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
.<.>~
IE
<I)
0
u
~
.SrJl
....
<I)
>
~
0
u

2.0 AP
PA

~
';>.,
LAT
ROT
0 ISO
'-'
~ .. 1.5
~..§
Q)
~
....
'cu 1.0
·s:s
.(-:.~:""""''''''''''-':':':':::'''~::':::'.'::::':':::':':'''''''::'':-:~;?:
00
O"l
....
----- ---
O"l
...... Q)

t-"
10
c:l.
Q)
II>
:.:
/:/
",- --
..........
~----
0
t0 "C .:/
Po.
<I)
p::
"C
Q)

-e0
0.5 .II:" ----
~
Ii.:" .-
~
II>
./'.: "
p::
u
...... c.
e!l
i : ""
./ :
,: /"
0 0.0 ..-'" .... :../
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
84 Fig. A.S. Gonads absorbed dose (mean of ovaries and testes) per unit air kerma free-in-air.
 1.5
AP
PA

~
8-
LLAT
RLAT
ROT
'1<," ISO
~ .. 1.0
.,
E
.;c
...' OJ
.t::
c
:l
.,...
.,
Q.

... ...
VI
0 (,.5
-0
-0.,
of

.......
0
VI

--- --
.D

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

C
CIl
0
0.0
0.01 0 . 10 1.00 10.00
Pholon ener,y (MeV)
Fig.A.9. Liver absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in- air.

1.5

~
'1<."
~.. .......... ... .........

E
1.0
". __
.,
, '- .
_- .-... - "'-'"
... ... -
- - :----=
--
--
.;c .. --. . . . ... ...
... . . ,-.......... ....-""-
...
'OJ
·s .: ,:/ '- ""'------
....,:l : : /
.,.,
Q. j il ,'---------
0 0 .5 :: , !I I '
-0
.,
-0 / .:/1
of0 i ! I,' AP
~
VI
,.: il I PA
.C

e!l
.:' :/,'
....1/ I
LAT
ROT
0
0.0
....~.... ' ISO

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Pholon energy (MeV)
Fig. A.IO. Lung absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air. 85
 1.2

............
S
e
'-'
1.0 ' .....
" ............. .....
~"
~.. O.B _
.. - . . . ... .,., ... "
E
"
.:.:
...
'iii
0.6
'2;:s
...
"
Q,

"
~
"0
0.4
"0

"
of
AP
0 PA
~
'" 0.2 LLAT
c. RLAT

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

e!l ROT
0 ISO

0.10 1.00 10.00

Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. A.ll. Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in- air.

1.2

S
e
'-'
1.0

~"
~.. O.B
E
..."
.:.:
'iii
'2;:s 0.6
co ...
0>
0>
.... "
Q,

t-"
...,
LC
"'"0
"0 0.4
...
0
"0
Q, "0
of AP
& '"
PA
::> ~ LLAT
p::
Co)
......
c..
f!l
0.2
RLAT
ROT
0 ISO
0.0
0.01 0 .10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
86 Fig. A.12. Remainder absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
S
&
..
'-'
~

~
1.0
:/~··-··· .......... ---.
I' / - __ __
.. _0"-··'-·"-"
-":;:-_
. "- .... _ ... _0. .....___

-------~--
--- ------
..
E
0.6
:/ ,
.
//,----------- --
..
~

.;
II '
'2
::s
0.6 /1 "
:/ I

8. .Ii "
~
/1'
.g 0.4 :1 "
.~ ,
i
1l
.. 0.2 /1
Ii,'
·'0' AP
PA
LAT
~

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

I
ROT
o ISO

0 . 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig.A,13. Skin absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.

2.0
AP
PA
LLAT
RLAT
ROT
ISO

/::. .:::. ..........

II
I.~I
..'
. ..... '0, " - .....-=-'7..-:' . :-:: _.-:._.-.:.::';"~' ~.'2
. ........... .. .. .. ........ __
::-:: ::-.:::::-.:::
l" .0/ - -.... ___ --
II ----
f/
I,:'
I I:
il':
,;:
j ...
~ . .... ".
0 .0u-__~~~~~~~____~~~~~~____~~~~~~~
0.01 0 . 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. A,14. Stomach absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air. 87
 I=i
0 2.0
~
til
AP
PA
;.a
til
p::
S
">. LAT
(:>
........
ROT
til ISO
e '><,"
1.5
~
Q)

t<
..., OS
"''""
.S
E
~
til
bIl ...
' 01
<I=i .~
.S 1.0
..., .,...::s
CJ
...,0
Q)
.,""
'"
Il.. '"0
"0
tilCJ
1l
'5h of D.l -
.Q ~
0
;.a .&>
OS
c<J
p:: c::
OS
...CO

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S 0
Q)

::s'"
'"
C£ 0.10 1.00 10.00
...,'" Photon energy (MeV)
I=i
.CJ~ Fig. A.15. Thyroid absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
IEQ)
0
U
I=i
.,
.S
'"
Q)
>
I=i
0
U

1.5

~
~
~

-
,,<"
f.:<
01
S
1.0
.! .-: - ;. . <:::.....,,_.. _". _"._ ...:':"':"-'...., ~::~.~_.-,r...-
...... _0. .... .. .. .. ... . ... . .. . .. . ..... ::.:-....::;..:....."'# __ ... ,..r..
.,'"
.:.:
--- - -
/ ,- -... . . . . . -- -:: -:::*,.;:.::...,..
00
O"l
-=
.;'"
: / - -::. -::'"'..........
;7!/ ///"_.-._._._._._.-
/'" - - - - - - - - -.:.-.-'
O"l
..... ·C

::/ ,,,
t-"

.,'"~
LO 0.5
"t0
'"0 if: 1/ AP
""
Q)
p:: ~
., : : II
il'; PA
~
p::

-
U -
.::
~
~
CJ
.,'1;
;.
:"f
~.
LLAT
RLAT
ROT
//..'/' ISO
~.'
0.0
0.01 0. 10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
88 Fig.A.16. Effective dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
2.0 AP
PA
LAT
ROT
ISO

.. '

.. .. '
'
.. ,

.. '

.. ' .. '
.... .....

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig.A.l7. Eye lens absorbed dose per unit air kerrna free-in-air.

2.0 AP
PA
LAT
ROT
ISO

:/
.... -. ....... ,o-
j - - "'-"'-"'-"'=':;~'~~.:
/// -------:--
.... ....
/1:'1 - - -
I~' :":-: '::::"" " " """ """"
....

il ' ....
'j ,,'
;' I:'
:/ ,,'
~ 1/
O.Ou-__~e·~·~-~~~··~·~~~~L___~~~~~~~~____~__~_J_J~~~J
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. A.l8. Thymus absorbed dose per unit air kenna free-in-air. 89
 ~
0
:;:l
1.5 AP
;e
oj PA
LAT
~
oj
6'"' ROT
0;
e S
'-'
ISO
OJ
+' l<'"
~
~
~
+'
00 oS 1.0
~
E
., ........................................
'0;
~
~
~
...
'0; __ - ::~::::::~:'.­

... .... -.... - .... ---...-::::::-- - . ---'

0
..;:: os Ii ,,- ~"'~-
'"
OJ
+'
;:I
.,p..... i,' / - -- __ __ ....- ----I',.
...0
p.., ., ::i / -------
II>
0.5
j'f ---
n ," -----
0
0; "0
'"
'So .,
"0
0
'0 -e !f '
;e ~
~
~
oj
c:: if "
II ,'

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

oS
.S /
OJ 0
e!l
.// ,
00
;:I
o.ou-___~~~~~~--~~~~~~~--~~~~~~
... 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
<£ Photon energy (MeV)
00
+'
~
OJ
Fig.A.I9. Uterus absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air.
'u
!EOJ
0
<:)
~
.S
...
00
OJ
>
~
0
<:)

102 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO
....'"' 10\
00
0>
e...
,...,
0>
.... 5
r.: ~
It:>
p..
'-'
1::0 €; 10°
~ ""
OJ "1-
S, 5
~
~
<:)
......
10'\ I...L...............~.....................L..~~.......JL................-:-"'....J..-:-"'"........~...I....:'........""-:-~~
10.9 10-8 10.7 10'" 10.5 10-4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10° 101 102

Neutron energy (MeV)

90 Fig. A.20. Bladder absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence.
 101 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO
....,-..
E 101
U
.... 5
~

--
~
Co

~ 10°

--
~
5

10.1 1..L.......................L...........L..........L.........Lo...........I....,...........~.....L..~""'-:........o/...::'........."'-:'-l
10.9 10-3 10.7 10-6 10's 10-4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10° 101 102

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.21. Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence.

AP
PA
LAT
ROT
ISO

10.1 ...............................o/...::'..........t..............L.............~....................L...........................L.............L..........L....J
10.9 10-3 10.7 10-6 10's 10-4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10° 101 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.22. Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence.

IOZ AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO

10.1 l...L................,..........L...........L.........~........~....................L..:"""'................o/...::'........t...............L....J
10.9 10-3 10.7 10-6 10's 10-4 10.3 10.1 10.1 10° 101 102
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.23. Breast (female) absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence. 91
 101 AP
PA
5 R-LAT
L-LAT
ROT
.....-. ISO
e... 10·
.... 5
t.!l
c:r.
'-'
I§;'
10°
~
-- 5

Neutron energy (MeV)

Fig. A.24. Colon absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence .

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

101 AP ..... .,
PA
5 LAT //
ROT ,i/
.. I
ISO fl,'
.....-. /,

...e 10· /1,'

.... 5
Ij/
! ,
Co'

-------=-=-=-=~~=:fj
c:r.
'-'
I§;'
~ 10°
----------------
/~-----------
'-'
5
-
------ " /
/

10·. 1..L.......................................L................-w.o.........~..1....:'........~......._:_"~::_'"'":'........"'_:'_"
10-' 10-8 10.1 10-4 10-s 10-4 10-3 10-1 10-1 10° 101 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.25. Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.

101 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO
.....-. 101
e
.......
00
m
m
...... 5
t.!l
t--"
It:l
c:r.
'-'
t: I§;'
~
8-
~ ;;r
'-"'
10°
5
~
Q
......
10-1 ..................................................................~--........""'-:........""'""":'...................."'-:'......."'--:-'......."'-:'-'
10-9 10-8 10-' 10-4 10-s 10-4 10-3 10-1 10-1 10° 101 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
92 Fig.A.26. Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.
 101 AP
PA ,i/';
5 LAT
ROT ,IV
ISO /1,1
j!/
...
,-.
101
.f; I"l
5
....u 5 .If:
c.!l /1-/ :
.• I
g,
.....,..::".'!:::7::::::.::.::::~.:::.:~.::~:.::::~.=:.:::::::~~T
.. / - - -
/
'-'

€ 10° - - -- - - .,,'
=-.;. . .~-;~;:~...... ......
~
'-'
5
~~
-_ ... -----
-----------------_ ... -....,/
~~

.-------'
10.1 .......:-"""""-:~""-::~"'-;.........."-:-........~...........l..:'-'......J.-:-'".......~.....I....::'-""'~.........~
10.9 10-3 10.7 10-' 10.5 10-4 10.3 10.1 10.1 10° 101 101

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.27. Gonads (mean of ovaries and testes) absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.

101 AP
PA
5 R·LAT
L-LAT
ROT
.....-.. ISO
5U 101
.... 5
c.!l
c.
'-'
€
~
'-'
10°
5

Neutron energy (MeV)

Fig. A.28. Liver absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.

101 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO
.....-..
5U 101
.... 5
~
g,
.......
€
10°
~
'-' 5

10. 1 .........................................,..................................,............................................,.................,........""-:-...............,............"'-'-J
10.9 10-3 10.7 10-' 10.5 10-4 10.3 10.1 10. 1 10° 101 101
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.29. Lung absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence. 93
 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO

10··~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10.9 10" 10-7 10-4 10's 10-4 10-l 10.2 10-· 10° 10· 102

Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig. A.30. Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.

102 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO
..........E 10·
\,j

~ 5
c.!)
Co
'-'
~- ........ --.--.--------
~
;;r
'-'
10°
5
---------

10'· ..............""-............................................................................-!'-'"""""-......."'-:'...................~
10.9 10" 10-7 10-4 10's 10-4 10·l 10-2 10-· 10° 10· 102
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.3!. Remainder absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.

102 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO
....,.....
10· .,fI'
OCJ E (if'
~ \,j

....
~
~
c.!)
5 0'
r-: Co -A/
It:)

~
0
p.
Q)
~
'-'

'1- 10°
__-----::====-----::
_-._____- _. ..
... ... ... ...
._______ ==-=:.-7-==-::.---=_..:::_=-~,'"
... ... ... ,- ",/ /1/
~/

~
;:J
S. 5
~
Co.)
......
10'· ......."!"""'............~~............""'-:...................""-:".....-""-:".....-............"-:'-........"-:'-......'-:'-'
10.9 10" 10.7 10"' lO's 10-4 10.3 10-2 10-· 10° 10' 102
Neutron energy (MeV)
94 Fig.A.32. Skin absorbed dose per unit neutron fiuence.
 1~ AP
PA
5 R-LAT
L-LAT
ROT
.....-. ISO
ev 10 1
;...
~ 5
Q,
'-'
I§'
~
'-'
10°
5

Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.A.33. Stomach absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence.

101 AP
PA
5 LAT
ROT
ISO

.....-. 101
ev 5
;...
~
Q,
'-'
I§' 10°

~
'-'
5

10,1 l-L............L...~.L...~.L............L.............~.....L..............L............L..........L...~.L............I.-..J
10,9 10-8 10'7 10-<1 10,5 10~ 10,3 10,1 10'1 10° 101 102

Neutron energy (MeV)

Fig. A.34. Thyroid absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence.

103
AP
5 PA
R-LAT
L-LAT
ROT
1~ ISO
............
E 5
0
>
rIl
0-
'-'
~ 10
1

~
'-' 5

Neutron energy (MeV)

Fig. A.35. Effective dose per unit neutron fluence. 95
 lot - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
5 " GSF-2
University of Texas
° JAERl
AGH&KFA
PNL
PTa

10-\ 1..L~w.L~.....L~.....L.........L.............L..~..L....~.a......~.a........~L....""""L.............t-...l

l~ l~ 1~ 1~ l~ l~ l~ l~ l~ l~ 1~ lot
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.36. Evaluat ed and original data for the mea n absorbed dose to bone marrow (male) in PAgeometry_

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

lot - - - Evaluation
9 GSF-I
5 GSF-2
" University of Texas

.e
-.
Col
10\
JAERl
°0 AGH&KFA
PNL
• PTa
~ 5
C,,!) 0

......
Q.

~ 10·
~
...... 5

10-\
10-' lO-s 10-7 10-6 10-s 10" 10-3 10-1 10-\ 10° 10\ lot
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.37. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (male) inAP geometry_

lot
5 - - - Evaluation
o
GSF-I
" GSF-2
University of Texas
10\ ° JAERI
....-. o AGH&KFA
e
Col
5 PNL
~
C,,!)
Q.
'-'
10°
~ o 0 0 000 o 0 0 o 0 CD 0 ooov
000
• • • • • ., Ii °0
~ 5 0

'-' .. ° .. 0
• 0 .. o.<t!/' 0°/'

10-\
5UL~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~
10-' 10-· 10-' 10-6 10-s 10" 10-3 10- 1 10-\ 10· 10\ lot
Neutron energy (MeV)
96 Fig. A.38. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (male) in RLAT geometry_
 to' - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
5 " GSF-2
University of Texas
o JAERI
AGH&KFA

0 0 0

5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I~ t~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ 1~ to'
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.A.39. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (female) in RLAT geometry.

10' Evaluation
GSF-2
5 " University of Texas
0 AGH& KFA
....-.
E 10'
(oJ
>.
(,.') 5
!:.
'-'

€ 66 b A

--
~
'-'
10' " 000
" "
" "OOcP° oOO

I 0·' .......:'"'""'""'-........."""-............L-.......""'-..........L.............................L............L...~L.............L.............L....I
10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 I O~ lO-l 10-' 10-' 10° 10' 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.40. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (male) in LLAT geometry_

10' Evaluation
GSF-2
5 " University of Texas
AGH& KFA
PNL
....-.
S 10'
(oJ
>. 5
(,.')
!:.
'-' • ~~ • .p. • 0

€ " • " 0

-- " o" o
QOq,oooo
tOO 0 0 0 0 o 0 0

~
'-' 5

10-' l..L........wL.........w.L...........................................L..........................L.........L.......................................'-'-1
10-' 10-8 10-7 10-' 10-5 10~ 10-l 10-' 10-' 10' 10' 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.41. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the colon (female) in LLAT geometry. 97
 10' - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
5 GSF-2
" University of Texas

--
M
E
(,/ 10'
0 JAERI
AGH & KFA
PNL
>. PTS
5
""~
Co
'-'
~
o. b x x x )(

~ 10'
S- 5
~

10-'
10-9 10-" 10-' 10-" 10-5 10-' 1O- 10-1 10-' 10· 10' 10'
'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. AA2. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the gonads (female, ovaries) in AP geometry.

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

10' - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
5 GSF-2
" University of Texas
0 JAERI

--
M
E
(,/
10'
x
AGH&KFA
PNL
PTB
>. 5

""
Co
'-' 0

~ 10' 0

~
~ 5
'-'

10·' l..L.............L.............L.u.u....L..........J...-...........L.............L...-'""'.l.............L.............."--'-~"--'-.......~
10·· 10·· 10·' 10.6 10. 5 10·' 10·l 10.1 10-' 10· 10' to'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.43. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the gonads (male, testes) in ROT geometry.

10' - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
5 GSF-2
" University of Texas

OCJ
--
M
E
(,/
10'
0 JAERI
AGH& KFA
PNL
0>
>. PTS
....
0>

~
...,...
I.(.) '"
'-'

~
Co
5

• o· 0
0
0..
Q)
p:: ~
'-'
10'
~ 5
p::

-
C)

10·'~~~~~Lu~L.~~.w~~~~~~~~~~~~~L-U
10.9 10.8 10·' 10.6 10-' 10" 10·l 10-2 10·' 10· 10' 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)
98 Fig.A.44. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (male) in PAgeometry.
 1()l - - - Evaluation
GSF-I
5 6 GSF-2
~ University of Texas
c JAERI
N
.-.. AGH& KFA
E
CJ
10' PNL
;... 5
C

IS --
c.

~
10·
...... 5

I~ I~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ 1()l
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.A.45. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (male) in RLAT geometry.

10' - - - Evaluation
GSF-\
5 6 GSF-2
University of Texas
N
....... c JAERI
E AGH& KFA
CJ 10'
;...
C 5
c.
......
IS
? 10·
5

10" L.L~....L~......L~.......~.......c......"""'L........""""L........~L........_L........_L...-~L....~~

1O'? 10'· 10" 10,6 10" 10" 10,l 10" 10" 10' 10' 1()l
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.46. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (female) in RLAT geometry,

1()l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 Evaluation
6 GSF-2
University of Texas
AGH&KFA
....... 10'
N
'S
CJ
5
;...
C
c.
'-' 10'
IS
? 5

10"
5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1~ l~ l~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ W4 1~ 1~ 1()l
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.47. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (male) in LLAT geometry. 99
 102
Evaluation
S
.. GSF·2
University of Texas
AGH& KFA
.....-. 10' PNL
E
Col
.... s
c.!I
--
c.
I§' 10·

--~ S

10"
S~~-L~~~~~~~~~~-L~-L~~~~~~

10" 10'· 10" 10" 10.5 10" 10') 10.2 10" 10' 10' 10>
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig.A.48. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the liver (female) in LLAT geometry.

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

10> - - - Evaluation
GSF·l
S .. GSF·2
University of Texas
0 JAERI
0 AGH&KFA
10' PNL
x PTB
S
00 0

10" l..L~.....L~.....L ..........L..........L...........L.........L........................""",~L....~L......."""'L....J

10" 10'· 10" lit' 10" 10" 10-' 10.2 10" 10· 10' 10>
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.49. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the lungs (female) in AP geometry.

102 - - - Evaluation
GSF·l
S .. GSF·2
University of Texas
N
.-.. c JAERI
E AGH&KFA
00 Col 10' PNL
Ol
Ol .... PTB
M c.!I S
r.: c.
'-'
to
1:: €
0
A "1-
Q)
p::: l:::l
'-'
;:J S
p:::
u
....
10·'l..L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1~ 1~ I~ I~ 1~ 1~ I~ 1~ I~ 1~ 1~ 10>
Neutron energy (MeV)
100 Fig. A.50. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the remainder (male) in PA geometry.
 rJl
10' ...
QJ

5 --- Evaluation 6'n

GSF-l if:
A GSF-2 ...;
University of Texas >:
QJ

,.-. 10' 0 JAERI ~

N

eu
0 AGH&KFA
PNL
~
5

G
.e 10·
€
--c:r
"-'
5 000

/I
000

&
00
0 00

10"
s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2
9 10.
10'. 0 10" 10" 10" 10. 10" 10-' 10. 10' 10' 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.A.51. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (male) in RLAT geometry.

10' - - - Evaluation
GSF-l
5 A GSF-2
University of Texas

N
--
E
y
10'
o
o
JAERI
AGH&KFA

5
G
c.
'-'

€ 10·

~
"-'
5

10"
S~~~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~-u

1~ 1~ 1~ t~ 1~ 1~ 10-' 10-' 1~ 1~ 1~ 10'

Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.52. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (female) in RLAT geometry.

10' Evaluation
A GSF-2
5 University of Texas
0 AGH&KFA

N
.-
E
y
10'
~ 5
to!)
'-'
c.
6. 1111 11
€ A
A A A A
00

;;r
'-'
10·
5 o
A

0
0
000
o 0 0 000 000 0 0 ell 0
0

10" ~~~-U~~~~~~~~~~~~~wL~~~~-U~~
10.9 10.0 lit' 10.6 10" 10" 10.3 10.1 10" 10' 10' 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.53. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (male) in LLAT geometry. 101
 10' Evaluation
GSF-2
5 " University of Texas
0 AGH& KFA

--
....
E
Col
10'
PNL

.... 5
~
Q,
'-'

•
" 0
'§;' "
" " o
A • .,'" Q
00
0

~
o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 000)0

'-'
5

10- '~~~~~~~~~~~Lu~Lu~Lu~Lu~Lu~~~~
l~ 1~ l~ l~ I~ W~ l~ 1~ I~ I~ I~ I~
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.54. Evaluated and original data for the mean absorbed dose to the stomach (female) in LLAT geometry.

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

I~ - - - Evaluation
v GSF-I
5 " GSF-2
University of Texas
o JAERI
AGH&KFA
....,-.10' PNL
E
Col PTa
.... 5
~
c.
'-'

-
'§;'
~
'-'
10'
5

10-' W-.......w.L........'""'-.........""'"-.......................................J......o.......I..-...........Lu........L..............uL..............u.-.J
10·' 10·' 10"' 10.6 10-S 10~ 10.3 10·' 10·' 10' 10' I~
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.55. Evaluated and original data for t he mean a bsorbed dose to the thyroid (female) in PA geometry.

- - - Evaluation
5
GSF-\
GSF-2
Uni Austin
c JAERI
1~ AGH& KFA
PNL
5 PTa

10·bL~w.L~'""'-.........-L~........................~~~~~Lu~~........~........~
W·' W·a 10·' 10·' 10·s 10~ 10-3 10-' 10·' 10· 10' 1~
Neutron energy (MeV)
102 Fig. A.56. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose from neut rons in AP geometry.
 10'

5 - - - Evaluation
GSF·I
GSF·2
Uni Austin

N -S
C,/
10'

5
0
JAERI
AGH& KFA
PNL
PTS
>
V)
Q.
'-'
10'
~
~
'-'
5

10·~~~~~L.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LW
10·' 10·' 10-' 10·' 10.5 10" 10.1 10-' tool to· to' 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Fig.A.57. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose from neutrons in PAgeometry.

- - - Evaluation
5
GSF-\
GSF·2
Uni Austin
o JAERI

N
-- S
C,/
10'

5
AGH& KFA

V)
>
Q.
'-' to'
5
o

to·bL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10.9 10-0 to-' 10·' 10.5 10" 10.1 10-2 10·' 10· 10' to'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.5S. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose from neutrons in RLAT geometry.

10'
- - - Evaluation
5
GSF·2
Uni Austin

N
-e C,/
10'

5
0 AGH&KFA

>
rJJ
Q.
'-'

~
~
'-'
10'

5 o
. .•
0

Fig. A.59. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose from neutrons in LLAT geometry. 103
 10>
- - - Evaluation
5
GSF-I
GSF-2
Uni Austin

M
- e
Col
10'
5
0 JAERI
AGH& KFA
PTB
>
rr,
c.
'-'
1
~ 10 ox ox

~
'-'

100~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9 10.6 5 10·· 10·'
1 1
10. 10. 10'" 10·' 10·' 10. 10· 10 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)
Fig. A.60. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose from neutrons in ROT geometry.

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

10'
5 - - - Evaluation
A GSF-2

00
M-e Col
10'
0

x
JAERI
AGH&KFA
PTB

m > 5

-
m
,..., rr,
r:-: c.
to
1:0 ~
p..
III
p::
;:J
p::
-
~ 10
1

-
Q

10'~~~~~~~~~~wd~wd~wd~~~~~~-u~~

1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 10'
Neutron energy (MeV)
104 Fig. A.61. Evaluated and original data for the effective dose from neutrons in ISO geometry.
 ANNEX 2. TABLES rn
Q)

~
Photon Data c.;i
><
Q)
~

TABLE A.1- Conversion coefficients" for air kerma per unit (luence, TABLE A.3 -Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit air kerma .;j
K./<l), of monoenergetic photons free-in -air, DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various
geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model.
Photon energy (MeV) K.I<P ( pGy em ') These data are presented graphically in Fig. A2 (Annex 1)
0.010 7.43 Photon D-r/K. (Gy/Gy)
0.015 3.12 energy
0.020 1.68 (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
0.030 0.721
0.010 0.00029 0.00048 0.000 0.00022 0.00014
0.040 0.429
0.015 0.00411 0.00788 0.00197 0.00409 0.00311
0.050 0.323
0.020 0.0144 0.0316 0.00904 0.0167 0.0136
0.060 0.289
0.030 0.0697 0.171 0.0585 0.0932 0.0733
0.080 0.307
0.040 0.211 0.450 0.175 0.262 0.211
0.100 0.371
0.050 0.400 0.772 0.323 0.473 0.385

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.150 0.599
0.060 0.573 1.037 0.456 0.660 0.539
0.200 0.856
0.070 0.698 1.212 0.552 0.788 0.645
0.300 1.38
0.080 0.768 1.302 0.603 0.856 0.698
0.400 1.89
0.100 0.822 1.347 0.643 0.900 0.729
0.500 2.38
0.150 0.808 1.254 0.635 0.866 0.706
0.600 2.84
0.200 0.783 1.175 0.629 0.835 0.689
0.800 3.69
0.300 0.761 1.088 0.622 0.804 0.669
1.000 4.47
0.400 0.755 1.043 0.627 0.792 0.665
1.500 6.14
0.500 0.756 1.017 0.637 0.789 0.668
2.000 7.55
0.600 0.761 1.000 0.647 0.790 0.674
3.000 9.96
4.000 12.1 0.800 0.774 0.983 0.667 0.797 0.690
1.000 0.787 0.974 0.686 0.806 0.705
5.000 14.1
2.000 0.833 0.968 0.753 0.845 0.762
6.000 16.1
4.000 0.877 0.980 0.819 0.887 0.821
8.000 20.1
6.000 0.900 0.992 0.851 0.911 0.852
10.000 24.0
8.000 0.916 1.001 0.872 0.927 0.873
• Data from ICRU Report 47 (lCRU, 1992a) using data from 10.000 0.927 1.007 0.889 0.940 0.889
Hubbell (1982).

TABLE A.2 -Bladder absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in -air, TABLE A.4-Bone (s urface) absorbed dose per unit air kerma
DTiK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries free-in-air, DTiK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various
on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model.
are presented graphically in Fig. Al (Annex 1) These data are presented graphically in Fig. A3 (Annex 1)
Photon D-r/K. (Gy/Gy) Photon D-r/K. (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.00143 0.00201 0.00163 0.00161 0.00103
0.015 0.00834 0.000 0.000 0.00140 0.00081 0.015 0.0247 0.0335 0.0218 0.0266 0.0197
0.020 0.0895 0.000 0.000 0.0184 0.0114 0.020 0.101 0.132 0.0884 0.107 0.0826
0.030 0.474 0.0391 0.0254 0.157 0.111 0.030 0.537 0.694 0.422 0.539 0.422
0.040 0.970 0.199 0.121 0.389 0.286 0.040 1.257 1.572 0.928 1.218 0.970
0.050 1.377 0.415 0.250 0.620 0.465 0.050 1.884 2.297 1.344 1.793 1.437
0.060 1.622 0.602 0.358 0.790 0.599 0.060 2.185 2.617 1.526 2.057 1.653
0.070 1.722 0.713 0.421 0.889 0.676 0.070 2.219 2.628 1.541 2.078 1.678
0.080 1.732 0.761 0.450 0.922 0.698 0.080 2.083 2.452 1.432 1.941 1.565
0.100 1.656 0.789 0.476 0.922 0.704 0.100 1.757 2.040 1.206 1.628 1.322 r::JJ
Ol
0.150 1.458 0.752 0.474 0.841 0.661 0.150 1.268 1.448 0.883 1.175 0.965 Ol
,...;
0.200 1.336 0.724 0.466 0.803 0.629 0.200 1.074 1.216 0.763 1.002 0.829
~
0.300 1.231 0.704 0.499 0.777 0.606 0.300 0.938 1.048 0.685 0.879 0.739 to
0.400 1.182 0.709 0.524 0.772 0.609 0.400 0.892 0.987 0.666 0.840 0.713 1::
0
0.500 1.151 0.721 0.542 0.774 0.619 0.500 0.873 0.959 0.663 0.826 0.706 A.
Q)

0.600 1.130 0.733 0.559 0.778 0.632 0.600 0.866 0.943 0.666 0.821 0.707 0:::
0.800 1.102 0.756 0.592 0.790 0.657 0.800 0.863 0.929 0.676 0.821 0.715 ~
0:::
1.000 1.084 0.774 0.620 0.802 0.680 1.000 0.866 0.924 0.690 0.826 0.727 Q
......
2.000 1.041 0.824 0.710 0.849 0.750 2.000 0.885 0.929 0.749 0.858 0.775
4.000 1.015 0.841 0.783 0.898 0.801 4.000 0.912 0.947 0.808 0.893 0.828
6.000 1.000 0.830 0.812 0.920 0.819 6.000 0.928 0.960 0.837 0.911 0.855
8.000 0.986 0.814 0.828 0.932 0.830 8.000 0.938 0.971 0.856 0.927 0.872
10.000 0.973 0.801 0.838 0.940 0.839 10.000 0.947 0.980 0.870 0.939 0.885
105
 I'l TABLE A5 - Breast female absorbed dose per unit air kerma TABLE A.7 - Gonads female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit air
0
:p free-in-air, DTIKa • for monoenergetic photons incident in various kerma free-in-air, DTIKa • for monoenergetic photons incident in
~
;e geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational
~
p:: These data are presented graphically in Fig. A.4 (Annex 1) model. These data are presented graphically in Fig. A.6 (Annex 1)
ta
E
OJ
Photon
energy
DrlK, (Gy/Gy) Photon
energy
DTIK, (Gy/Gy)
+>
i< (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
>il
+>
rn
I'l
0.010 0.0223 0.000 0.00513 0.00869 0.00763 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.<Ii 0.015 0.186 0.000 0.0451 0.0747 0.0664 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
~ 0.020 0.465 0.000 0.128 0.198 0.183 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
I'l 0.030 0.958 0.0489 0.333 0.449 0.423 0.030 0.158 0.0785 0.00963 0.0660 0.0351
0
:p 0.040 1.296 0.181 0.507 0.655 0.615 0.040 0.511 0.345 0.0996 0.277 0.191
<.)
OJ
+> 0.050 1.522 0.328 0.634 0.811 0.752 0.050 0.846 0.676 0.234 0.527 0.383
...
0
0.060 1.644 0.439 0.724 0.909 0.836 0.060 1.072 0.944 0.345 0.723 0.520
P-
ta 0.070 1.683 0.511 0.765 0.958 0.878 0.070 1.200 1.113 0.414 0.844 0.607
<.)
·So 0.080 1.670 0.545 0.773 0.971 0.883 0.080 1.262 1.201 0.453 0.901 0.653
..s0 0.100 1.600 0.574 0.771 0.958 0.874 0.100 1.282 1.234 0.479 0.926 0.666
;e 0.150 1.449 0.600 0.755 0.912 0.829 0.150 1.185 1.116 0.470 0.882 0.609
~
p:: 0.200 1.361 0.625 0.747 0.875 0.813 0.200 1.106 1.034 0.478 0.841 0.588
0.300 1.264 0.663 0.756 0.851 0.795 0.300 1.017 0.963 0.491 0.810 0.586

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S
OJ
rn
0.400 1.214 0.693 0.766 0.851 0.794 0.400 0.972 0.936 0.501 0.796 0.599
0.924 0.511 0.789 0.614
...=' 0.500
0.600
1.184
1.164
0.717
0.737
0.774
0.782
0.854
0.858
0.798
0.804
0.500
0.600
0.948
0.934 0.918 0.522 0.786 0.627
<B
rn 0.800 1.138 0.767 0.799 0.865 0.815 0.800 0.921 0.911 0.542 0.787 0.650
+>
I'l
.~ 1.000 1.123 0.791 0.814 0.872 0.826 1.000 0.918 0.908 0.559 0.793 0.668
<.)
2.000 1.101 0.863 0.866 0.902 0.865 2.000 0.936 0.905 0.624 0.833 0.719
isOJ 0.891
0
4.000 1.084 0.905 0.907 0.923 0.897 4.000 0.981 0.910 0.696 0.769
Co) 6.000 1.068 0.911 0.921 0.927 0.906 6.000 1.013 0.917 0.740 0.926 0.799
I'l 0.949
0 8.000 1.055 0.911 0.927 0.929 0.909 8.000 1.037 0.922 0.772 0.820
·rb
...OJ 10.000 1.042 0.911 0.931 0.930 0.911 10.000 1.056 0.926 0.796 0.966 0.836
>
I'l
0
Co)

TABLE A6 - Colon absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air, TABLEA8-Gonads male (testes) absorbed dose per unit air
DTIKa • for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries kerma free-in-air, DTIKa • for monoenergetic photons incident in
on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational
are presented graphically in Fig. A.5 (Annex 1) model. These data are presented graphically in Fig. A. 7 (Annex 1)
Photon DrlK, (Gy/Gy) Photon DriK. (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.0292 0.000 0.000 0.00744 0.00559
0.015 0.00034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00011 0.00009 0.015 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.0571 0.0446
0.020 0.0149 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00047 0.00008 0.020 0.503 0.000 0.000 0.160 0.138
0.030 0.251 0.0655 0.0306 0.0281 0.0945 0.0619 0.030 1.093 0.0411 0.0230 0.381 0.337
0.040 0.661 0.295 0.133 0.141 0.319 0.224 0.040 1.506 0.160 0.105 0.593 0.516
0.050 1.040 0.581 0.263 0.292 0.566 0.411 0.050 1.767 0.308 0.198 0.763 0.661
0.060 1.289 0.805 0.370 0.419 0.748 0.553 0.060 1.908 0.440 0.264 0.863 0.754
0.070 1.417 0.940 0.436 0.493 0.856 0.638 0.070 1.961 0.524 0.312 0.921 0.802
0.080 1.454 1.006 0.467 0.529 0.902 0.673 0.080 1.953 0.565 0.339 0.946 0.815
ex;, 0.100 1.416 1.036 0.484 0.550 0.907 0.677 0.100 1.855 0.599 0.372 0.934 0.792
O"l 0.150 1.280 0.963 0.462 0.532 0.842 0.640 0.150 1.631 0.629 0.392 0.866 0.744
O"l
.-<
0.200 1.184 0.912 0.459 0.520 0.812 0.614 0.200 1.497 0.641 0.422 0.831 0.720
t-"
10 0.300 1.099 0.873 0.471 0.523 0.789 0.603 0.300 1.366 0.675 0.457 0.794 0.710
"t0 0.400 1.065 0.860 0.486 0.536 0.780 0.606 0.400 1.303 0.705 0.480 0.781 0.712
P-
OJ
0.500 1.046 0.857 0.501 0.551 0.778 0.614 0.500 1.265 0.726 0.503 0.779 0.717
p:: 0.600 1.035 0.858 0.516 0.565 0.780 0.623 0.600 1.238 0.743 0.527 0.780 0.725
~
Co)
0.800
1.000
1.020
1.010
0.863
0.870
0.544
0.570
0.591
0.614
0.790
0.800
0.643
0.662
0.800
1.000
1.202
1.177
0.765
0.782
0.572
0.607
0.789
0.799
0.742
0.757
>-<
2.000 0.985 0.887 0.658 0.694 0.838 0.729 2.000 1.119 0.831 0.703 0.848 0.799
4.000 0.984 0.901 0.733 0.765 0.868 0.788 4.000 1.071 0.864 0.776 0.895 0.843
6.000 0.988 0.908 0.765 0.797 0.879 0.811 6.000 1.043 0.874 0.807 0.916 0.868
8.000 0.984 0.912 0.783 0.816 0.884 0.825 8.000 1.023 0.880 0.822 0.930 0.883
10.000 0.978 0.915 0.797 0.830 0.888 0.834 10.000 1.004 0.884 0.833 0.940 0.893
106
TABLE A9 - Gonads absorbed dose' per unit air kerma free·in·air, TABLE All-Lung absorbed dose per unit air kerma free·in·air, UJ

DTIK" for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries ~
on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data ~
are presented graphically in Fig. A8 (Annex 1) are presented graphically in Fig. AIO (Annex 1) C'i
><
Photon Photon '"
~

~
D~K, (Gy/Gy) DTIK, (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.0146 0.000 0.000 0.00372 0.00280 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.015 0.0970 0.000 0.000 0.0285 0.0223 0.015 0.00175 0.00325 0.00009 0.00111 0.00058
0.020 0.246 0.000 0.000 0.0761 0.0675 0.020 0.0304 0.0482 0.00037 0.0163 0.0100
0.030 0.628 0.0583 0.0165 0.223 0.184 0.030 0.297 0.360 0.0759 0.200 0.141
0.040 1.013 0.248 0.100 0.435 0.356 0.040 0.693 0.780 0.246 0.498 0.375
0.050 1.313 0.492 0.216 0.647 0.527 0.050 1.023 1.117 0.425 0.762 0.592
0.060 1.499 0.703 0.310 0.799 0.638 0.060 1.223 1.319 0.552 0.932 0.727
0.070 1.589 0.834 0.364 0.890 0.709 0.070 1.313 1.414 0.620 1.017 0.800
0.080 1.613 0.896 0.398 0.927 0.743 0.080 1.331 1.435 0.641 1.039 0.817
0.100 1.564 0.917 0.426 0.926 0.727 0.100 1.291 1.397 0.642 1.018 0.806
0.150 1.399 0.858 0.425 0.870 0.669 0.150 1.164 1.264 0.607 0.936 0.749

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.200 1.296 0.830 0.461 0.833 0.658 0.200 1.101 1.195 0.596 0.895 0.725
0.300 1.189 0.821 0.476 0.806 0.650 0.300 1.044 1.130 0.597 0.862 0.712
0.400 1.137 0.828 0.486 0.793 0.658 0.400 1.021 1.101 0.610 0.856 0.714
0.500 1.108 0.836 0.502 0.786 0.671 0.500 1.009 1.084 0.625 0.858 0.720
0.600 1.088 0.843 0.520 0.784 0.685 0.600 1.003 1.074 0.639 0.861 0.728
0.800 1.066 0.852 0.555 0.786 0.708 0.800 0.997 1.061 0.664 0.869 0.744
1.000 1.054 0.859 0.584 0.794 0.725 1.000 0.995 1.054 0.686 0.877 0.760
2.000 1.037 0.877 0.667 0.844 0.761 2.000 0.991 1.038 0.764 0.907 0.815
4.000 1.040 0.893 0.741 0.903 0.803 4.000 0.985 1.024 0.829 0.927 0.861
6.000 1.045 0.901 0.779 0.931 0.834 6.000 0.980 1.013 0.852 0.932 0.878
8.000 1.049 0.907 0.803 0.948 0.852 8.000 0.975 1.005 0.863 0.936 0.886
10.000 1.055 0.910 0.819 0.961 0.865 10.000 0.971 0.999 0.870 0.939 0.893
, This table is presented because in the calculation of effective
dose an average value of the mean absorbed dose to the ovaries
and testes is used.

TABLEA10-Liver absorbed dose per unit air kerma free·in·air, TABLE A12 - Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit air kerma
DTIK" for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries free·in·air, DTIK . , for monoenergetic photons incident in various
on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model.
are presented graphically in Fig. A9 (Annex 1) These data are presented graphically in Fig. All (Annex 1)
Photon D~K, (Gy/Gy) Photon Dr/K, (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.015 0.00316 0.00063 0.00015 0.000 0.00091 0.00046 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.020 0.0418 0.0109 0.00285 0.000 0.0139 0.00762 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.00015 0.00005 0.000 0.000
0.030 0.318 0.159 0.142 0.00300 0.159 0.109 0.030 0.0585 0.0435 0.0321 0.0499 0.0507 0.0314
0.040 0.732 0.448 0.427 0.0280 0.420 0.305 0.040 0.268 0.279 0.149 0.188 0.237 0.165
0.050 1.094 0.737 0.711 0.0723 0.674 0.502 0.050 0.522 0 .607 0.298 0.362 0.479 0.341
0.060 1.321 0.934 0.902 0.119 0.846 0.641 0.060 0.721 0.872 0.419 0.510 0.679 0.487
0.070 1.425 1.043 1.001 0.156 0.938 0.721 0.070 0.848 1.032 0.516 0.602 0.800 0.592
0.080 1.446 1.083 1.032 0.180 0.970 0.744 0.080 0.902 1.105 0.572 0.650 0.858 0.638
0.100 1.403 1.077 1.019 0.198 0.959 0.742 0.100 0.926 1.138 0.603 0.662 0.885 0.665 00
0.150 1.261 0.992 0.940 0.213 0.887 0.690 0.150 0.846 0.599 0.840 0.643 CTl
1.083 0.654 CTl
0.200 1.176 0.942 0.899 0.226 0.847 0.667 0.200 0.827 1.018 0.597 0.650 0.805 0.611 ......
0.300 1.094 0.901 0.865 0.251 0.806 0.654 0.300 0.811 0.949 0.604 0.659 0.772 0.607
r-:
Ii:)

0.400 1.056 0.887 0.854 0.277 0.795 0.656 0.400 0.809 0.920 0.619 0.681 0.766 0.624 1:0
0.500 1.034 0.882 0.851 0.301 0.796 0.663 0.500 0.813 0.906 0.637 0.702 0.771 0.642 ~

0.600 1.022 0.881 0.852 0.324 0.800 0.672 0.600 0.818 0.900 0.653 0.719 0.779 0.656 '"
p:;
0.800 1.008 0.882 0.859 0.364 0.811 0.690 0.800 0.828 0.897 0.682 0.746 0.798 0.680 ::>
p:;
1.000 1.002 0.886 0.868 0.399 0.822 0.708 1.000 0.836 0.900 0.704 0.767 0.815 0.698 8
2.000 1.002 0.910 0.906 0.520 0.861 0.772 2.000 0.860 0.921 0.772 0.825 0.869 0.754
4.000 1.006 0.931 0.934 0.626 0.892 0.820 4.000 0.896 0.934 0.830 0.864 0.914 0.804
6.000 1.003 0.935 0.940 0.671 0.902 0.832 6.000 0.920 0.933 0.856 0.878 0.936 0.830
8.000 0 .998 0.934 0.943 0.695 0.906 0.836 8.000 0.934 0.932 0.868 0.888 0.950 0.847
10.000 0.994 0.933 0.945 0.713 0.909 0.837 10.000 0.943 0.930 0.875 0.896 0.961 0.861
107
 TABLE A.13 - Remainder absorbed dose per unit air kerma TABLE A.15 - Stomach absorbed dose per unit air kerma
free-in-air, DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various free-in-air, DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various
geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model.
These data are presented graphically in Fig. A.12 (Annex 1) These data are presented graphically in Fig. A.14 (Annex 1)
Photon Photon n.,lK, (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.00065 0.00066 0.00027 0.00027 0.00048 0.00033 0.010 0.00001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.015 0.00643 0.00643 0.00230 0.00231 0.00438 0.00314 0.015 0.00835 0.000 0.000 0.00014 0.00182 0.00107
0.020 0.0326 0.0367 0.00665 0.00672 0.0201 0.0139 0.020 0.0880 0.000 0.00021 0.00486 0.0249 0.0132
0.030 0.214 0.212 0.0525 0.0695 0.146 0.104 0.030 0.483 0.0489 0.00119 0.149 0.169 0.122
0.040 0.527 0.513 0.169 0.220 0.379 0.284 0.040 0.998 0.230 0.0223 0.431 0.422 0.314
0.050 0.827 0.810 0.305 0.390 0.615 0.471 0.050 1.408 0.459 0.0641 0.705 0.674 0.505
0.060 1.030 1.019 0.412 0.517 0.784 0.605 0.060 1.637 0.643 0.110 0.885 0.844 0.641
0.070 1.136 1.133 0.479 0.595 0.882 0.686 0.070 1.735 0.749 0.145 0.980 0.937 0.717
0.080 1.177 1.177 0.510 0.627 0.920 0.716 0.080 1.740 0.801 0.167 1.008 0.972 0.738
0.100 1.172 1.174 0.529 0.638 0.925 0.719 0.100 1.650 0.815 0.191 1.002 0.962 0.739
0.150 1.070 1.076 0.518 0.616 0.864 0.682 0.150 1.457 0.771 0.207 0.933 0.874 0.688
0.200 1.003 1.013 0.515 0.605 0.826 0.661 0.200 1.355 0.747 0.223 0.889 0.835 0.667

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.300 0.945 0.955 0.523 0.606 0.800 0.650 0.300 1.243 0.738 0.252 0.854 0.810 0.644
0.400 0.924 0.932 0.539 0.615 0.794 0.651 0.400 1.185 0.742 0.281 0.846 0.803 0.647
0.500 0.916 0.921 0.556 0.627 0.794 0.657 0.500 1.150 0.748 0.307 0.847 0.803 0.656
0.600 0.913 0.916 0.572 0.640 0.798 0.665 0.600 1.125 0.755 0.332 0.852 0.804 0.665
0.800 0.911 0.913 0.600 0.665 0.807 0.683 0.800 1.093 0.768 0.374 0.863 0.810 0.681
1.000 0.912 0.913 0.625 0.687 0.817 0.701 1.000 1.073 0.780 0.411 0.874 0.819 0.697
2.000 0.923 0.922 0.707 0.757 0.852 0.765 2.000 1.038 0.827 0.533 0.902 0.865 0.768
4.000 0.932 0.935 0.776 0.815 0.886 0.819 4.000 1.023 0.863 0.639 0.915 0.907 0.824
6.000 0.933 0.941 0.804 0.838 0.901 0.839 6.000 1.016 0.874 0.686 0.918 0.921 0.837
8.000 0.933 0.944 0.820 0.851 0.910 0.848 8.000 1.008 0.880 0.713 0.923 0.928 0.843
10.000 0.932 0.948 0.831 0.861 0.916 0.855 10.000 1.002 0.883 0.734 0.927 0.934 0.848

TABLE A.14-Skin absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air, TABLE A.16 - Thyroid absorbed dose per unit air kerma free-in-air,
DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries
on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data
are presented graphically in Fig. A.13 (Annex 1) are presented graphically in Fig. A.15 (Annex 1)
Photon n.,lK, (Gy/Gy) Photon D.,IK, (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.235 0.237 0.142 0.200 0.172 0.010 0.00126 0.000 0.000 0.00029 0.00012
0.015 0.377 0.377 0.252 0.331 0.303 0.015 0.0962 0.000 0.00211 0.0227 0.00969
0.020 0.488 0.487 0.343 0.433 0.407 0.020 0.358 0.000 0.0543 0.121 0.0510
0.030 0.654 0.648 0.472 0.581 0.544 0.030 0.910 0.0114 0.335 0.409 0.206
0.040 0.808 0.796 0.578 0.714 0.658 0.040 1.355 0.106 0.650 0.718 0.409
0.050 0.944 0.929 0.669 0.830 0.758 0.050 1.670 0.253 0.892 0.968 0.592
0.060 1.040 1.025 0.738 0.911 0.828 0.060 1.846 0.383 1.062 1.122 0.715
0.070 1.098 1.083 0.790 0.968 0.879 0.070 1.925 0.465 1.146 1.204 0.783
0.080 1.109 1.096 0.796 0.981 0.886 0.080 1.938 0.503 1.179 1.234 0.818
0.100 1.097 1.083 0.805 0.977 0.885 0.100 1.873 0.532 1.188 1.229 0.817
0.150 1.050 1.046 0.795 0.948 0.865 0.150 1.674 0.544 1.131 1.161 0.773
0.200 1.022 1.020 0.789 0.926 0.850 0.200 1.543 0.538 1.091 1.109 0.752
0.300 0.992 0.987 0.787 0.904 0.835 0.300 1.410 0.560 1.059 1.055 0.739
0.400 0.978 0.973 0.791 0.899 0.832 0.400 1.354 0.589 1.057 1.031 0.741
0.500 0.972 0.967 0.797 0.900 0.833 0.500 1.324 0.616 1.063 1.021 0.748
0.600 0.970 0.966 0.805 0.903 0.837 0.600 1.302 0.640 1.069 1.019 0.754
0.800 0.970 0.967 0.819 0.909 0.847 0.800 1.269 0.677 1.076 1.023 0.766
1.000 0.972 0.970 0.833 0.916 0.857 1.000 1.244 0.704 1.081 1.031 0.777
2.000 0.984 0.984 0.879 0.939 0.891 2.000 1.166 0.761 1.093 1.054 0.819
4.000 0.991 0.995 0.910 0.953 0.914 4.000 1.093 0.814 1.075 1.066 0.870
6.000 0.989 0.995 0.917 0.953 0.919 6.000 1.053 0.851 1.052 1.066 0.901
8.000 0.986 0.994 0.920 0.952 0.919 8.000 1.026 0.878 1.036 1.064 0.920
10.000 0.982 0.992 0.921 0.950 0.918 10.000 1.007 0.899 1.023 1.064 0.935
108
 TABLE A.17 - Effective dose per unit air kerma free-in -air, E l K., TABLE A.19 - Thymus absorbed dose per unit air kerma cIJ
Cl)

for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries on an free- in-air, D-r/K. , for monoenergetic photons incident in various ::a
adult anthropomorphic computational model. These reference geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. ~
values are presented graphically in Fig. 8 and Fig. A.16 (Annex 1) These data are presented graphically in Fig. A.18 (Annex 1) c-i
~
Cl)

Photon Photon ~
ElK, (Sv/Gy)
~
D~K, (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.00653 0.00248 0.00172 0.00172 0.00326 0.00271 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.015 0.0402 0.00586 0.00549 0.00549 0.0153 0.0123 0.015 0.0151 0.000 0.000 0.00299 0.00163
0.020 0.122 0.0181 0.0151 0.0155 0.0462 0.0362 0.020 0.161 0.00009 0.000 0.0422 0.0264
0.030 0.416 0.128 0.0782 0.0904 0.191 0.143 0.030 0.700 0.00762 0.0308 0.224 0.159
0.040 0.788 0.370 0.205 0.241 0.426 0.326 0.040 1.246 0.0887 0.151 0.482 0.373
0.050 1.106 0.640 0.345 0.405 0.661 0.511 0.050 1.621 0.223 0.302 0.710 0.572
0.060 1.308 0.846 0.455 0.528 0.828 0.642 0.060 1.826 0.347 0.415 0.853 0.694
0.070 1.407 0.966 0.522 0.598 0.924 0.720 0.070 1.913 0.425 0.488 0.929 0.762
0.080 1.433 1.019 0.554 0.628 0.961 0.749 0.080 1.926 0.463 0.523 0.964 0.788
0.100 1.394 1.030 0.571 0.641 0.960 0.748 0.100 1.866 0.487 0.530 0.974 0.786
0.150 1.256 0.959 0.551 0.620 0.892 0.700 0.150 1.640 0.505 0.536 0.901 0.747

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.200 1.173 0.915 0.549 0.615 0.854 0.679 0.200 1.499 0.498 0.549 0.863 0.720
0.300 1.093 0.880 0.557 0.615 0.824 0.664 0.300 1.359 0.489 0.580 0.846 0.703
0.400 1.056 0.871 0.570 0.623 0.814 0.667 0.400 1.289 0.496 0.606 0.840 0.704
0.500 1.036 0.869 0.585 0.635 0.812 0.675 0.500 1.246 0.510 0.628 0.836 0.710
0.600 1.024 0.870 0.600 0.647 0.814 0.684 0.600 1.215 0.525 0.646 0.834 0.715
0.800 1.010 0.875 0.628 0.670 0.821 0.703 0.800 1.171 0.553 0.675 0.831 0.726
1.000 1.003 0.880 0.651 0.691 0.831 0.719 1.000 1.141 0.577 0.700 0.832 0.738
2.000 0.992 0.901 0.728 0.757 0.871 0.774 2.000 1.063 0.645 0.779 0.850 0.786
4.000 0.993 0.918 0.796 0.813 0.909 0.824 4.000 1.003 0.715 0.840 0.883 0.835
6.000 0.993 0.924 0.827 0.836 0.925 0.846 6.000 0.972 0.758 0.861 0.905 0.856
8.000 0.991 0.927 0.846 0.850 0.934 0.859 8.000 0.950 0.789 0.872 0.920 0.867
10.000 0.990 0.929 0.860 0.859 0.941 0.868 10.000 0.933 0.813 0.880 0.932 0.875

TABLE A.18 - Eye lens absorbed dose p er unit air kerma TABLE A.20 - Uterus absorbed dose per unit air kerma free·in-air,
free-in-air, D-r/K., for monoenergetic photons incident in various DTIK., for monoenergetic photons incident in various geometries
geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data
These data are presented graphically in Fig. A.17 (Annex 1) are presented graphically in Fig. A.19 (Annex 1)
Photon D~K, (Gy/Gy ) Photon D~K, (Gy/Gy)
energy energy
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

0.010 0.304 0.000 0.0880 0.114 0.0877 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.015 0.664 0.000 0.252 0.287 0.236 0.015 0.00024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.020 0.912 0.000 0.390 0.423 0.365 0.020 0.00133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.030 1.197 0.000 0.579 0.588 0.523 0.030 0.217 0.0700 0.00817 0.0759 0.0491
0.040 1.334 0.0186 0.718 0.694 0.639 0.040 0.606 0.309 0.0850 0.283 0.195
0.050 1.419 0.0521 0.838 0.793 0.742 0.050 0.966 0.594 0.201 0.524 0.371
0.060 1.492 0.0837 0.930 0.886 0.812 0.060 1.209 0.814 0.303 0.708 0.511
0.070 1.536 0.122 0.988 0.958 0.857 0.070 1.333 0.955 0.379 0.816 0.596
0.080 1.550 0.156 1.023 0.999 0.882 0.080 1.381 1.025 0.412 0.862 0.630
0.100 1.530 0.193 1.049 1.030 0.907 0.100 1.376 1.054 0.431 0.874 0.636 a:J
Ol
0.150 1.425 0.241 1.024 1.017 0.894 0.150 1.224 0.973 0.439 0.811 0.609 Ol
0.200 1.357 0.262 1.020 0.994 0.868 0.200 1.126 0.910 0.440 0.772 0.586
.....
~
0.300 1.280 0.295 1.015 0.958 0.846 0.300 1.032 0.866 0.450 0.743 0.562 lQ

0.400 1.232 0.333 1.013 0.935 0.839 0.400 0.988 0.857 0.462 0.739 0.564 1::
0
0.500 1.199 0.369 1.012 0.921 0.836 0.500 0.965 0.854 0.477 0.742 0.574 p..
Cl)

0.600 1.174 0.401 1.010 0.913 0.835 0.600 0.952 0.853 0.494 0.747 0.586 r:t:
0.800
1.000
1.138
1.113
0.453
0.495
1.007
1.004
0.908
0.909
0.837
0.843
0.800
1.000
0.941
0.937
0.853
0.854
0.529
0.561
0.759
0.769
0.608
0.627
~
U
.....
2.000 1.047 0.618 1.005 0.943 0.878 2.000 0.929 0.862 0.667 0.798 0.692
4.000 0.995 0.723 1.015 0.995 0.917 4.000 0.915 0.868 0.742 0.826 0.752
6.000 0.967 0.775 1.022 1.024 0.936 6.000 0.902 0.867 0.765 0.844 0.780
8.000 0.946 0.807 1.028 1.044 0.950 8.000 0.893 0.863 0.775 0.855 0.798
10.000 0.931 0.833 1.034 1.063 0.963 10.000 0.885 0.859 0.782 0.864 0.810
109
 TABLE A.21- Conversion coefficients a for the ambient dose TABLE A.23 - Conversion coefficients from air kerma free-in-air to
equivalent, H*(10), and directional dose equivalent, H'(0.07, 0°), H'(0.07, 0°) and angular dependence factors, R(10, a) (Dimbylow
from photon fluence and air kerma free-in-air and Francis, 1989)
Photon Photon RatioH'(0.07, a)!H'(0.07, 0")
energy H*(10)!K, H'(0.07,O")IK, K/cf> H*(lO)/cf> H'(0.07,O")!cf> energy H'(0.07, O")!K, ----~~~--.:...-.:..=~--.:...~---
(MeV) (Sv/Gy) (Sv/Gy) (pGycm2) (pSvcm2) (pSvcm2) (MeV) (Sv/Gy) 0" 15" 30" 45" 60" 75" 90" 180"

0.010 0.008 0.95 7.60 0.061 7.20 0.005 0.76 1.00 0.96 0.87 0.79 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.015 0.26 0.99 3.21 0.83 3.19 0.010 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.89 0.19 0.00
0.020 0.61 1.05 1.73 1.05 1.81 0.020 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.54 0.00
0.030 1.10 1.22 0.739 0.81 0.90 0.030 1.22 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.62 0.00
0.040 1.47 1.41 0.438 0.64 0.62 0.050 1.53 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.69 0.02
0.050 1.67 1.53 0.328 0.55 0.50 0.100 1.55 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.77 0.05
0.060 1.74 1.59 0.292 0.51 0.47 0.150 1.42 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.87 0.07
0.080 1.72 1.61 0.308 0.53 0.49 0.300 1.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.89 0.10
0.100 1.65 1.55 0.372 0.61 0.58 0.662 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.18
0.150 1.49 1.42 0.600 0.89 0.85 1.25 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90 0.30
0.200 1.40 1.34 0.856 1.20 1.15 2 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90 0.39
0.300 1.31 1.31 1.38 1.80 1.80 3 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90 0.46
0.400 1.26 1.26 1.89 2.38 2.38 5 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 0.54
0.500 1.23 1.23 2.38 2.93 2.93 10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.63

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.600 1.21 1.21 2.84 3.44 3.44
0.800 1.19 1.19 3.69 4.38 4.38
1 1.17 1.17 4.47 5.20 5.20
1.5 1.15 1.15 6.12 6.90 6.90
2 1.14 1.14 7.51 8.60 8.60
3 1.13 1.13 9.89 11.1 11.1
4 1.12 1.12 12.0 13.4 13.4
5 1.11 1.11 13.9 15.5 15.5
6 1.11 1.11 15.8 17.6 17.6
8 1.11 1.11 19.5 21.6 21.6
10 1.10 1.10 23.2 25.6 25.6
a Data compiled from ICRU Report 47 (1992a) using Hubbell
and Seltzer (1995). The K.I<P data are slightly different from those
used for the protection quantities (see Table A.1) which used
earlier data from Hubbell (1982).

TABLE A.24- Conversion coefficients from air kerma free-in-air to

Hi10, 0°) in an ICRU slab and angular dependence factors
R(10, a) (Gross wendt et al., nd)
Photon Ratio Hp(lO, a)IHp(lO, 0")
energy Hp(lO,O")IK,
(MeV) (Sv/Gy) 0" 15" 30" 45" 60" 75"

0.010 0.009 1.000 0.889 0.556 0.222 0.000 0.000

0.0125 0.098 1.000 0.929 0.704 0.388 0.102 0.000
0.015 0.264 1.000 0.966 0.822 0.576 0.261 0.030
0.0175 0.445 1.000 0.971 0.879 0.701 0.416 0.092
TABLE A.22 - Conversion coefficients from air kerma free-in-air to 0.020 0.611 1.000 0.982 0.913 0.763 0.520 0.167
H'(10, 0°) and angular dependence factors, R(10, a) (from 0.025 0.883 1.000 0.980 0.937 0.832 0.650 0.319
graphical data in ICRU (1992a); Grosswendt and Hohlfeld 0.030 1.112 1.000 0.984 0.950 0.868 0.716 0.411
(1982)) 0.040 1.490 1.000 0.986 0.959 0.894 0.760 0.494
0.050 1.766 1.000 0.988 0.963 0.891 0.779 0.526
Photon Ratio H'(10, a)!H'(10, 0") 0.060 1.892 1.000 0.988 0.969 0.911 0.793 0.561
energy H'(lO,O")IK, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(MeV) (Sv/Gy) 0" 15" 30" 45" 60" 75" 90" 180" 0.080 1.903 1.000 0.997 0.970 0.919 0.809 0.594
0.100 1.811 1.000 0.992 0.972 0.927 0.834 0.612
0.015 0.26 1.00 0.85 0.63 0.42 0.20 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.125 1.696 1.000 0.998 0.980 0.938 0.857 0.647
0.020 0.61 1.00 0.94 0.83 0.67 0.46 0.22 0.06 0.00 0.150 1.607 1.000 0.997 0.984 0.947 0.871 0.677
0.030 1.10 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.85 0.69 0.47 0.23 0.00 0.200 1.492 1.000 0.997 0.991 0.959 0.900 0.724
0.050 1.67 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.88 0.80 0.61 0.37 0.02 0.300 1.369 1.000 1.000 0.996 0.984 0.931 0.771
0.100 1.65 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.86 0.70 0.48 0.04 0.400 1.300 1.000 1.004 1.001 0.993 0.955 0.814
0.150 1.49 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.88 0.75 0.56 0.08 0.500 1.256 1.000 1.005 1.002 1.001 0.968 0.846
0.300 1.31 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.82 0.67 0.13 0.600 1.226 1.000 1.005 1.004 1.003 0.975 0.868
0.662 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.87 0.76 0.23 0.800 1.190 1.000 1.001 1.003 1.007 0.987 0.892
1.25 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.82 0.34 1 1.167 1.000 1.000 0.996 1.009 0.990 0.910
2 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.85 0.44 1.5 1.139 1.000 1.002 1.003 1.006 0.997 0.934
3 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.86 0.49 3 1.117 1.000 1.005 1.010 0.998 0.998 0.958
5 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.88 0.56 6 1.109 1.000 1.003 1.003 0.992 0.997 0.995
10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.90 0.62 10 1.111 1.000 0.998 0.995 0.989 0.992 0.966
110
 rJl
TABLEA.25 - Conversion coefficients from air kerma free-in-air to
HlO.07, 0°) in an ICRU slab and angular dependence factors,
Neutron Data OJ
:a
R(10, a) (Gross wendt et ai., nd) TABLE A.26 - Bladder absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence, ~
DTI<J>, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in N
Photon various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational ><
OJ
Ratio Hp(O.07, a)IHp (O.07, 0°)
energy Hp(O.07,00)IK, ~
model. These data are presented graphically in
(MeV) (SvIGy) 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° 75°
Fig. A.20 (Annex 1)
.;j
0.005 0.750 1.000 0.991 0.956 0.895 0.769 0.457
Energy
0.010 0.947 1.000 0.996 0.994 0.987 0.964 0.904 (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
0.015 0.981 1.000 1.000 1.001 0.994 0.992 0.954
0.020 1.045 1.000 0.996 0.996 0.987 0.982 0.948 1.0 X 10- 9 1.28 0.50 0.18 0.55 0.46
0.030 1.230 1.000 0.990 0.989 0.972 0.946 0.897 1.0 X 10- 8 1.63 0.65 0.24 0.67 0.57
0.040 1.444 1.000 0.994 0.990 0.965 0.923 0.857 2.5 X 10- 8 1.94 0.77 0.28 0.81 0.66
0.050 1.632 1.000 0.994 0.979 0.954 0.907 0.828 1.0 X 10- 7 2.65 1.02 0.36 1.13 0.83
0.060 1.716 1.000 0.995 0.984 0.961 0.913 0.837 2.0 X 10- 7 3.03 1.14 0.40 1.29 0.92
0.080 1.732 1.000 0.994 0.991 0.966 0.927 0.855 5.0 X 10- 7 3.51 1.31 0.46 1.48 1.04
0.100 1.669 1.000 0.993 0.990 0.973 0.946 0.887 1.0 X 10- 6 3.84 1.42 0.50 1.61 1.13
0.150 1.518 1.000 1.001 1.005 0.995 0.977 0.950 2.0 X 10- 6 4.06 1.52 0.54 1.72 1.20
0.200 1.432 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.003 0.997 0.981 5.0 X 10- 6 4.24 1.63 0.59 1.81 1.29
10- 5

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

0.300 1.336 1.000 1.002 1.007 1.010 1.019 1.013 1.0 X 4.28 1.69 0.61 1.84 1.33
0.400 1.280 1.000 1.002 1.009 1.016 1.032 1.035 2.0 X 10- 5 4.27 1.73 0.63 1.85 1.35
0.500 1.244 1.000 1.002 1.008 1.020 1.040 1.054 5.0 X 10- 5 4.19 1.75 0.63 1.82 1.36
0.600 1.220 1.000 1.003 1.009 1.019 1.043 1.057 1.0 X 10- 4 4.11 1.76 0.63 1.80 1.35
0.800 1.189 1.000 1.001 1.008 1.019 1.043 1.062 2.0 X 10- 4 4.05 1.74 0.62 1.78 1.33
1.000 1.173 1.000 1.002 1.005 1.016 1.038 1.060 5.0 X 10- 4 3.99 1.71 0.61 1.76 1.30
1.0 X 10- 3 3.97 1.69 0.60 1.75 1.28
2.0 X 10- 3 3.98 1.69 0.58 1.73 1.25
5.0 X 10- 3 4.01 1.69 0.58 1.74 1.24
1.0 X 10- 2 3.97 1.71 0.58 1.76 1.26
2.0 X 10- 2 4.00 1.72 0.60 1.76 1.30
3.0 X 10- 2 4.01 1.74 0.61 1.78 1.34
5.0 X 10- 2 4.08 1.79 0.64 1.85 1.42
7.0 X 10- 2 4.22 1.83 0.67 1.93 1.50
1.0 X 10- 1 4.51 1.90 0.71 2.05 1.60
1.5 X 10- 1 5.18 1.96 0.75 2.24 1.72
2.0 X 10- 1 5.87 2.03 0.80 2.43 1.85
3.0 X 10- 1 7.24 2.20 0.89 2.86 2.12
5.0 X 10- 1 9.84 2.57 1.09 3.77 2.69
7.0 X 10- 1 12.3 2.91 1.25 4.72 3.33
9.0 X 10- 1 14.7 3.36 1.49 5.72 3.99
1.0 X 10° 15.8 3.63 1.64 6.22 4.33
1.2 X 10° 18.0 4.42 2.10 7.27 5.10
2.0 X 100 25.8 8.19 4.79 11.4 8.43
3.0 X 100 34.0 13.4 8.48 16.3 12.7
4.0 X 10° 40.5 18.3 12.0 20.9 16.9
5.0 X 100 46.0 22.5 15.3 25.0 20.6
6.0 X 100 50.6 26.4 18.4 28.9 23.6
7.0 X 10° 54.6 30.1 21.3 32.4 26.3
8.0 X 100 58.0 33.7 24.0 35.7 28.8
9.0 X 100 61.1 37.0 26.6 38.7 31.1
1.0 X 10 1 63.7 40.2 29.0 41.5 33.3
1.2 X 10 1 68.2 45.7 33.3 46.0 37.5
1.4 X 101 71.7 50.3 37.0 49.9 41.0
1.5 X 10 1 73.2 52.2 38.7 51.6 42.5
1.6 X 10 1 74.5 53.8 40.3 53.2 43.9
1.8 X 101 76.8 56.7 43.3 56.0 46.3
2.0 X 10 1 78.7 59.1 46.0 58.6 48.1 rX)
0')

3.0 X 10 1 84.5 67.1 57.0 67.5 na a 0')

,.....
5.0 X 10 1 88.6 77.4 72.6 78.5 na ".:
LO
7.5 X 101 89.3 89.3 86.0 88.0 na -+"
....
1.0 X 102 88.5 101 96.6 95.8 na 0
0-
1.3 X 102 87.0 113 106 103 na
~
OJ

1.5 X 102 85.3 125 114 109 na ;:J

1.8 X 102 83.1 138 124 117 na ~
C)
......
a Not available.

111
 >=:
0
TABLE A.27 - Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose per unit neutron TABLE A.28 - Bone (surface) absorbed dose per unit neutron
:g fluence, Dr/<P, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons fluence, DTI<P, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons
;.a incident in various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic incident in various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic
ca
~ computational model. These data are presented graphically in computational model. These data are presented graphically in
<a Fig. A.21 (Annex 1) Fig. A.22 (Annex 1)
EQ)
Energy Energy
t;l (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
ril
+'
00
>=: 1.0 X 10- 9 0.61 1.14 0.37 0.62 0.48 1.0 X 10- 9 0.77 0.94 0.47 0.67 0.54
'8 1.0 X 10- 8 0.76 1.41 0.48 0.80 0.62 1.0 X 10- 8 0.95 1.15 0.59 0.85 0.62
~ 2.5 X 10- 8 0.91 1.61 0.56 0.94 0.71 2.5 X 10- 8 1.10 1.34 0.69 1.00 0.72
>=: 1.0 X 10- 7 1.0 X 10- 7
0 1.21 2.07 0.71 1.21 0.88 1.43 1.69 0.88 1.26 0.92
:p
<..> 2.0 X 10- 7 1.38 2.31 0.80 1.35 0.97 2.0 X 10- 7 1.60 1.88 0.98 1.39 1.01
Q)
+'
0
5.0 X 10- 7 1.59 2.62 0.91 1.52 1.09 5.0 X 10- 7 1.80 2.12 1.09 1.56 1.13
&:: 1.0 X 10- 6 1.72 2.82 0.99 1.63 1.18 1.0 X 10- 6 1.93 2.29 1.17 1.67 1.21
<a<..> 2.0 X 10- 6 1.83 2.99 1.05 1.72 1.24 2.0 X 10- 6 2.03 2.40 1.22 1.75 1.26
'6b 5.0 X 10- 6 1.93 3.12 1.10 1.81 1.29 5.0 X 10- 6 2.09 2.48 1.26 1.81 1.30
0
'0 1.0 X 10- 5 1.97 3.1 1.12 1.85 1.31 1.0 X 10- 5 2.10 2.50 1.27 1.82 1.31
;.a 2.0 X 10- 5 1.98 3.16 1.13 1.85 1.33 2.0 X 10- 5 2.08 2.50 1.26 1.80 1.30
ca
~ 5.0 X 10- 5 1.96 3.11 1.12 1.82 1.32 5.0 X 10- 5 2.03 2.47 1.23 1.76 1.27
.S 1.0 X 10- 4 1.0 X 10- 4

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

1.93 3.04 1.11 1.79 1.31 1.98 2.43 1.20 1.72 1.24
Q)
00 2.0 X 10- 4 1.89 2.97 1.08 1.75 1.28 2.0 X 10- 4 1.93 2.39 1.17 1.67 1.20
;:S
... 5.0 X 10- 4 1.83 2.89 1.05 1.71 1.24 5.0 X 10- 4 1.88 2.33 1.13 1.61 1.16
..s
00
1.0 X 10- 3 1.78 2.84 1.03 1.69 1.21 1.0 X 10- 3 1.86 2.29 1.10 1.58 1.13
+' 2.0 X 10- 3 1.75 2.81 1.01 1.68 1.18 2.0 X 10- 3 1.86 2.24 1.09 1.56 1.12
>=:
Q)
5.0 X 10- 3 1.76 2.81 1.01 1.69 1.18 5.0 X 10- 3 1.88 2.22 1.09 1.56 1.13
'<l
!:S 1.0 X 10- 2 1.81 2.87 1.03 1.74 1.21 1.0 X 10- 2 1.91 2.26 1.12 1.61 1.18
Q)
0 2.0 X 10- 2 1.91 3.01 1.09 1.79 1.29 2.0 X 10- 2 1.97 2.36 1.17 1.68 1.24
U 3.0 X 10- 2 2.00 3.13 1.15 1.86 1.36 3.0 X 10- 2 2.02 2.45 1.22 1.75 1.31
>=:
.~ 5.0 X 10- 2 2.15 3.37 1.25 1.99 1.50 5.0 X 10- 2 2.13 2.65 1.34 1.89 1.44
...
00
Q)
7.0 X 10- 2 2.29 3.63 1.35 2.12 1.62 7.0 X 10- 2 2.27 2.85 1.46 2.05 1.57
>
>=:
1.0 X 10- 1 2.46 4.03 1.49 2.32 1.78 1.0 X 10- 1 2.51 3.16 1.66 2.28 1.75
U
0 1.5 X 10- 1 2.71 4.65 1.71 2.68 2.04 1.5 X 10- 1 2.92 3.65 2.00 2.70 2.08
2.0 X 10- 1 2.92 5.26 1.92 3.03 2.28 2.0 X 10- 1 3.32 4.12 2.33 3.10 2.38
3.0 X 10- 1 3.28 6.41 2.32 3.68 2.77 3.0 X 10- 1 4.08 5.01 2.95 3.84 2.99
5.0 X 10- 1 4.08 8.56 3.11 4.92 3.70 5.0 X 10- 1 5.48 6.66 4.08 5.21 4.12
7.0 X 10- 1 5.09 10.6 3.90 6.12 4.61 7.0 X 10- 1 6.79 8.28 5.14 6.48 5.14
9.0 X 10- 1 6.21 12.6 4.71 7.27 5.49 9.0 X 10- 1 8.04 9.80 6.14 7.69 6.11
1.0 X 10° 6.79 13.5 5.12 7.83 5.93 1.0 X 10° 8.64 10.5 6.62 8.27 6.58
1.2 X 10° 7.99 15.5 6.07 9.08 6.85 1.2 X 10° 9.79 11.9 7.54 9.41 7.49
2.0 X 10° 12.8 22.5 9.99 13.9 10.3 2.0 X 10° 13.9 16.6 10.9 13.5 10.8
3.0 X 10° 18.3 29.7 14.3 19.2 14.3 3.0 X 10° 18.3 21.5 14.4 17.8 14.5
4.0 X 10° 23.2 35.2 17.8 23.8 17.9 4.0 X 10° 22.1 25.6 17.5 21.6 17.8
5.0 X 10° 27.4 39.3 20.9 27.8 21.1 5.0 X 10° 25.5 29.2 20.4 24.9 20.8
6.0 X 10° 31.1 42.6 23.6 31.1 23.8 6.0 X 10° 28.7 32.4 22.9 27.8 23.7
7.0 X 10° 34.5 45.5 26.0 34.0 26.3 7.0 X 10° 31.7 35.3 25.3 30.6 26.3
8.0 X 10° 37.5 48.1 28.2 36.7 28.7 8.0 X 10° 34.4 38.0 27.5 33.1 28.6
9.0 X 10° 40.2 50.5 30.2 39.1 30.9 9.0 X 10° 37.0 40.4 29.5 35.4 30.7
1.0 X 101 42.6 52.7 32.1 41.3 33.1 1.0 X 101 39.3 42.7 31.4 37.4 32.6
1.2 X 101 46.6 56.6 35.5 44.8 37.6 1.2 X 101 43.3 46.7 34.7 41.1 35.5
1.4 X 101 49.9 59.6 38.6 47.7 41.4 1.4 X 101 46.6 50.1 37.7 44.1 37.9
1.5 X 10 1 51.2 60.9 40.0 49.0 43.1 1.5 X 101 48.0 51.5 39.0 45.4 39.1
1.6 X 101 52.4 62.0 41.4 50.1 44.5 1.6 X 101 49.3 52.8 40.2 46.6 40.2
1.8 X 101 54.5 63.7 44.0 52.1 46.8 1.8 X 10 1 51.6 55.0 42.6 48.7 42.6
2.0 X 101 56.2 65.1 46.4 53.8 48.4 2.0 X 101 53.5 56.9 45.1 50.5 45.6
3.0 X 101 62.0 68.9 53.3 59.4 na' 3.0 X 101 60.3 63.3 52.6 57.1 na"
00
en 5.0 X 101 68.8 71.8 61.6 65.9 na 5.0 X 101 68.4 69.9 61.8 65.2 na
en
,...; 7.5 X 101 75.0 74.0 69.0 71.7 na 7.5 X 101 75.3 74.3 69.7 72.2 na
~ 1.0 X 102 80.5 76.2 75.3 76.8 na 1.0 X 102 81.0 77.3 76.2 77.7 na
lC
1:: 1.3 X 102 85.6 78.5 81.4 81.7 na 1.3 X 102 86.0 79.5 82.0 82.5 na
0
~
1.5 X 102 90.5 81.0 87.3 86.5 na 1.5 X 102 90.6 81.4 87.4 86.8 na
Q)
~ 1.8 X 102 96.1 84.1 94.4 92.2 na 1.8 X 102 95.7 83.3 93.7 91.5 na
::> " Not available. • Not available.
~

-
U

112
 m
TABLE A.29 - Breast (female) absorbed dose per unit neutron TABLEA.30-Colon absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence, DTI <P, Q)

~
fluence, DTI<P, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in
incident in various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational
computational model, These data are presented graphically in model, These data are presented graphically in c-i
><
Fig. A.23 (Annex 1) Fig. A.24 (Annex 1) Q)

Energy
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
Energy
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO
J
1.0 X 10- 9 1.68 0.28 0.38 0.69 0.59 1.0 X 10- 9 0.89 0.77 0.11 0.45 0.53 0.40
1.0 X 10- 8 1.92 0.31 0.45 0.84 0.67 1.0 X 10- 8 1.06 0.96 0.16 0.48 0.66 0.51
2.5 X 10- 8 2.11 0.37 0.50 0.93 0.73 2.5 X 10- 8 1.28 1.13 0.19 0.53 0.80 0.59
1.0 X 10- 7 2.42 0.50 0.59 1.08 0.86 1.0 X 10- 7 1.79 1.42 0.28 0.64 1.08 0.75
2.0 X 10- 7 2.58 0.57 0.64 1.16 0.92 2.0 X 10- 7 2.09 1.58 0.32 0.72 1.22 0.85
5.0 X 10- 7 2.75 0.68 0.72 1.27 0.99 5.0 X 10- 7 2.48 1.80 0.39 0.83 1.40 0.97
1.0 X 10- 6 2.85 0.75 0.77 1.34 1.04 1.0 X 10- 6 2.75 1.96 0.44 0.93 1.51 1.07
2.0 X 10- 6 2.91 0.80 0.79 1.39 1.06 2.0 X 10- 6 2.91 2.07 0.46 1.00 1.61 1.14
5.0 X 10- 6 2.91 0.85 0.81 1.39 1.08 5.0 X 10- 6 3.02 2.19 0.49 1.08 1.71 1.22
1.0 X 10- 5 2.86 0.88 0.80 1.37 1.08 1.0 X 10- 5 3.04 2.25 0.50 1.14 1.76 1.27
2.0 X 10- 5 2.79 0.88 0.80 1.33 1.07 2.0 X 10- 5 3.05 2.29 0.50 1.18 1.78 1.30

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

5.0 X 10- 5 2.66 0.88 0.78 1.27 1.05 5.0 X 10- 5 3.05 2.31 0.51 1.23 1.78 1.32
1.0 X 10- 4 2.56 0.88 0.76 1.23 1.02 1.0 X 10- 4 3.04 2.31 0.50 1.26 1.77 1.33
2.0 X 10- 4 2.46 0.88 0.74 1.18 0.97 2.0 X 10- 4 3.04 2.30 0.50 1.27 1.75 1.32
5.0 X 10- 4 2.36 0.87 0.71 1.15 0.92 5.0 X 10- 4 3.04 2.29 0.50 1.28 1.72 1.29
1.0 X 10- 3 2.32 0.86 0.70 1.16 0.89 1.0 X 10- 3 3.04 2.28 0.50 1.28 1.69 1.28
2.0 X 10- 3 2.33 0.86 0.69 1.17 0.87 2.0 X 10- 3 3.05 2.27 0.50 1.29 1.67 1.27
5.0 X 10- 3 2.44 0.86 0.70 1.22 0.89 5.0 X 10- 3 3.06 2.27 0.50 1.31 1.65 1.27
1.0 X 10- 2 2.63 0.87 0.74 1.30 0.97 1.0 X 10- 2 3.07 2.30 0.50 1.33 1.66 1.28
2.0 X 10- 2 2.92 0.85 0.81 1.44 1.14 2.0 X 10- 2 3.04 2.33 0.50 1.31 1.69 1.31
3.0 X 10- 2 3.15 0.86 0.90 1.57 1.29 3.0 X 10- 2 3.04 2.37 0.50 1.32 1.72 1.34
5.0 X 10- 2 3.65 0.88 1.09 1.82 1.59 5.0 X 10- 2 3.05 2.46 0.51 1.35 1.79 1.39
7.0 X 10- 2 4.23 0.90 1.27 2.06 1.87 7.0 X 10- 2 3.10 2.55 0.52 1.39 1.85 1.45
1.0 X 10- 1 5.16 0.95 1.53 2.40 2.28 1.0 X 10- 1 3.20 2.67 0.53 1.45 1.93 1.52
1.5 X 10- 1 6.76 0.98 2.00 3.18 2.98 1.5 X 10- 1 3.43 2.84 0.55 1.52 2.04 1.61
2.0 X 10- 1 8.30 1.03 2.45 3.94 3.64 2.0 X 10- 1 3.66 3.00 0.57 1.60 2.16 1.70
3.0 X 10- 1 11.2 1.17 3.30 5.36 4.82 3.0 X 10- 1 4.22 3.31 0.62 1.80 2.45 1.86
5.0 X 10- 1 15.9 1.55 4.86 7.84 6.89 5.0 X 10- 1 5.49 3.90 0.77 2.29 3.05 2.23
7.0 X 10- 1 19.5 2.02 6.24 9.91 8.69 7.0 X 10- 1 6.94 4.53 0.92 2.86 3.69 2.67
9.0 X 10- 1 22.5 2.64 7.51 11.6 10.3 9.0 X 10- 1 8.52 5.40 1.12 3.51 4.47 3.14
1.0 X 10° 23.8 3.01 8.11 12.4 11.1 1.0 X 10° 9.35 5.93 1.26 3.85 4.92 3.39
1.2 X 10° 26.1 3.90 9.33 13.7 12.5 1.2 X 10° 11.1 7.15 1.61 4.65 5.92 4.07
2.0 X 10° 32.9 7.70 13.71 17.8 17.3 2.0 X 10° 17.4 12.6 3.61 8.44 10.4 7.14
3.0 X 10° 38.6 12.4 17.8 21.6 22.1 3.0 X 10° 24.5 18.7 6.04 12.8 15.4 11.3
4.0 X 10° 43.1 16.8 20.8 24.9 26.0 4.0 X 10° 30.5 23.8 8.32 16.8 19.8 15.5
5.0 X 10° 47.2 20.9 23.2 28.1 29.3 5.0 X 10° 35.6 28.2 10.5 20.6 23.6 19.4
6.0 X 10° 51.0 24.6 25.2 31.2 31.7 6.0 X 10° 40.0 32.0 12.6 24.5 27.0 22.6
7.0 X 10° 54.6 28.2 27.1 34.2 33.9 7.0 X 10° 43.9 35.6 14.7 28.2 30.2 25.4
8.0 X 10° 58.0 31.5 28.8 37.2 36.2 8.0 X 10° 47.4 38.9 16.7 31.7 33.2 28.0
9.0 X 10° 61.1 34.5 30.3 40.0 38.3 9.0 X 10° 50.5 42.1 18.5 35.0 36.0 30.4
1.0 X 10 1 63.9 37.4 31.8 42.5 40.6 1.0 X 10 1 53.3 45.1 20.3 38.0 38.7 32.5
1.2 X 10 1 68.3 42.2 34.6 46.6 45.9 1.2 X 10 1 58.1 50.6 23.4 43.8 43.4 35.7
1.4 X 10 1 71.4 46.3 37.2 49.6 50.4 1.4 X 10 1 62.1 55.3 26.1 48.2 47.5 38.6
1.5 X 10 1 72.5 48.1 38.5 50.8 52.3 1.5 X 10 1 63.8 57.4 27.4 50.0 49.2 40.1
1.6 X 10 1 73.3 49.7 39.7 51.7 53.8 1.6 X 10 1 65.4 59.3 28.6 51.4 50.8 41.6
1.8 X 101 74.5 52.6 42.2 53.0 56.0 1.8 X 10 1 68.2 62.8 30.9 53.4 53.7 44.7
2.0 X 10 1 75.1 55.2 44.7 53.9 57.0 2.0 X 10 1 70.7 65.7 33.0 54.4 56.1 48.1
3.0 X 10 1 74.3 64.4 37.3 54.9 naa 3.0 X 10 1 79.2 76.4 42.1 naa 63.9 naa
<Xl
5.0 X 10 1 68.1 74.8 32.0 53.4 na 5.0 X 10 1 87.8 87.7 56.0 na 72.8 na 0">
0">
7.5 X 10 1 61.3 83.3 31.4 52.4 na 7.5 X 10 1 92.9 95.1 70.1 na 80.8 na ......
na 1.0 X 102 95.4 99.4 82.7 na 88.2 na ~
1.0 X 102 56.3 89.7 32.7 52.9 10
1.3 X 102 52.9 95.0 35.2 54.5 na 1.3 X 102 96.7 102 94.6 na 95.4 na t:0
1.5 X 102 50.7 99.7 38.6 56.9 na 1.5 X 102 97.3 104 106 na 103 na 0.
Q)
1.8 X 102 49.0 105 43.6 60.5 na 1.8 X 102 97.5 106 120 na 112 na ~

a Not available. a Not available. ~

U
......

113
 TABLE A31- Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose per unit TABLE A32 - Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose per unit
neutron (luence, DT I cP, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutron (luence, DT I cP, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic
neutrons incident in various geometries on an adult neutrons incident in various geometries on an adult
anthropomorphic computational model. These data are presented anthropomorphic computational model. These data are presented
graphically in Fig. A.25 (Annex 1) graphically in Fig. A.26 (Annex 1)
Energy Energy
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

1.0 X 10- 9 0.75 0.80 0.20 0.50 0.38 1.0 X 10- 9 2.00 0.36 0.15 0.68 0.65
1.0 X 10- 8 1.00 0.95 0.26 0.72 0.43 1.0 X 10- 8 2.50 0.47 0.19 0.83 0.75
2.5 X 10- 8 1.19 1.16 0.30 0.88 0.51 2.5 X 10- 8 2.75 0.55 0.22 0.97 0.81
1.0 X 10- 7 1.60 1.63 0.43 1.13 0 .69 1.0 X 10- 7 3.31 0 .70 0.27 1.24 0.99
2.0 X 10- 7 1.82 1.88 0.49 1.25 0.79 2.0 X 10- 7 3.59 0.78 0.31 1.36 1.09
5.0 X 10- 7 2.10 2.23 0.56 1.41 0.92 5.0 X 10- 7 3.91 0.89 0.35 1.50 1.20
1.0 X 10- 6 2.29 2.47 0.61 1.51 1.01 1.0 X 10- 6 4.10 0.96 0.38 1.59 1.27
2.0 X 10- 6 2.45 2.65 0.66 1.61 1.10 2.0 X 10- 6 4.22 1.03 0.41 1.65 1.31
5.0 X 10- 6 2.61 2.80 0.72 1.73 1.19 5.0 X 10- 6 4.27 1.12 0.43 1.69 1.34
1.0 X 10- 5 2.69 2.85 0.75 1.79 1.24 1.0 X 10- 5 4.22 1.17 0.44 1.69 1.33
2.0 X 10- 5 2.75 2.87 0.78 1.85 1.28 2.0 X 10- 5 4.13 1.21 0.45 1.64 1.30
5.0 X 10- 5 2.79 2.84 0.81 1.89 1.31 5.0 X 10- 5 3.95 1.25 0.46 1.57 1.25

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

1.0 X 10- 4 2.81 2.80 0.82 1.89 1.32 1.0 X 10- 4 3.81 1.25 0.46 1.51 1.20
2.0 X 10- 4 2.82 2.77 0.81 1.88 1.30 2.0 X 10- 4 3.66 1.24 0.46 1.46 1.15
5.0 X 10- 4 2.84 2.73 0.80 1.84 1.27 5.0 X 10- 4 3.50 1.21 0.45 1.41 1.10
1.0 X 10- 3 2.86 2.71 0.78 1.80 1.25 1.0 X 10- 3 3.42 1.18 0.44 1.39 1.06
2.0 X 10- 3 2.88 2.68 0 .77 1.77 1.24 2.0 X 10- 3 3.41 1.16 0.43 1.37 1.05
5.0 X 10- 3 2.91 2.68 0.76 1.76 1.25 5.0 X 10- 3 3.51 1.15 0.42 1.39 1.07
1.0 X 10- 2 2.94 2.70 0.77 1.78 1.28 1.0 X 10- 2 3.69 1.15 0.43 1.45 1.12
2.0 X 10- 2 2.97 2.72 0.79 1.83 1.33 2.0 X 10- 2 4.00 1.14 0.43 1.54 1.22
3.0 X 10- 2 2.99 2.76 0.81 1.88 1.37 3.0 X 10- 2 4.25 1.15 0.44 1.64 1.30
5.0 X 10- 2 3.04 2.85 0.84 1.97 1.44 5.0 X 10- 2 4.80 1.18 0.45 1.83 1.47
7.0 X 10- 2 3.09 2.95 0.87 2.04 1.49 7.0 X 10- 2 5.44 1.21 0.47 2.00 1.66
1.0 X 10- 1 3.17 3.10 0.91 2.14 1.55 1.0 X 10- 1 6.48 1.25 0.49 2.25 1.97
1.5 X 10- 1 3.32 3.22 0.97 2.27 1.63 1.5 X 10- 1 8.25 1.29 0.51 2.77 2.50
2.0 X 10- 1 3.46 3.38 1.02 2.38 1.70 2.0 X 10- 1 9.97 1.34 0.53 3.25 3.00
3.0 X 10- 1 3.74 3.77 1.12 2.57 1.82 3.0 X 10- 1 13.1 1.45 0.59 4.17 3.93
5.0 X 10- 1 4.54 4.70 1.30 2.90 2 .10 5.0 X 10- 1 18.4 1.70 0.73 5.83 5.57
7.0 X 10- 1 5.70 5.74 1.44 3.27 2.47 7.0 X 10- 1 22.4 1.95 0.85 7.34 7.02
9.0 X 10- 1 7.08 6.98 1.66 3 .93 2.89 9.0 X 10- 1 25.7 2.24 1.03 8.75 8.34
1.0 X 10° 7.81 7.67 1.81 4.38 3.12 1.0 X 100 27.1 2.41 1.15 9.42 8.96
1.2 X 10° 9.33 9.22 2.26 5.45 3.73 1.2 X 100 29.6 3.02 1.55 10.7 10.1
2.0 X 10° 15.5 15.7 4.85 10.8 6.78 2.0 X 10° 36.7 6.43 4.22 15.3 14.1
3.0 X 10° 22.8 23.2 8.44 17.1 11.3 3.0 X 100 42.7 11.9 8.03 20.2 18.2
4.0 X 10° 29.2 29.6 11.9 22.4 16.0 4.0 X 100 47.4 17.3 11.6 24.5 21.7
5.0 X 100 34.6 35.0 15.1 27.0 21.0 5.0 X 100 51. 7 21.5 14.8 28.2 24.8
6.0 X 10° 39.4 39.6 18.1 30.9 23.9 6.0 X 100 55.8 25.4 17.9 31.5 27.6
7.0 X 10° 43.6 43.5 20.8 34.3 27.0 7.0 X 100 59.7 29.1 20.7 34.5 30.2
8.0 X 10° 47.4 46.9 23.3 37.3 29.7 8.0 X 10° 63.3 32.7 23.3 37.2 32.7
9.0 X 10° 50.8 49.9 25.6 39.9 32.2 9.0 X 100 66.7 36.0 25.7 39.7 35.1
1.0 X 10 1 53.7 52.7 27.7 42.3 34.5 1.0 X 10 1 69.6 39.3 27.9 42.0 37.4
1.2 X 10 1 58.7 58.1 31.6 46.5 38.4 1.2 X 10 1 74.3 45.4 31.9 46.1 41.9
1.4 X 10 1 62.5 63.0 35.2 50.1 41.6 1.4 X 10 1 77.4 50.5 35.3 49.6 46.4
1.5 X 10 1 64.1 65.3 36.8 51.8 43.0 1.5 X 10 1 78.5 52.6 36.9 51.2 48.7
1.6 X 10 1 65.5 67.5 38.4 53.3 44.3 1.6 X 10 1 79.3 54.4 38.3 52.6 50.8
1.8 X 10 1 67.8 71.5 41.5 56.1 46.5 1.8 X 10 1 80.1 57.6 41.0 55.3 52.8
2.0 X 10 1 69.6 75.0 44.4 58.7 48.4 2.0 X 10 1 80.4 60.1 43.5 57.7 53.5
3.0 X 10 1 75.7 83.6 54.8 68.8 na a 3.0 X 10 1 77.7 68.7 53.1 62.8 naa
5.0 X 10 1 82.7 89.0 70.3 81.7 na 5.0 X 10 1 69.0 78.7 65.2 69.7 na
7.5 X 10 1 89.7 90.0 84.4 91.9 na 7.5 X 10 1 61.3 88.7 76.1 76.5 na
1.0 X 102 96.6 91.0 95.4 99.0 na 1.0 X 102 57.1 98.2 85.4 82.7 na
1.3 X 102 103 91.5 105 104 na 1.3 X 102 55.1 107 94.1 88.7 na
1.5 X 102 110 91.8 112 109 na 1.5 X 102 54.8 116 103 94.7 na
1.8 X 102 118 92.0 121 113 na 1.8 X 102 55.9 127 113 102 na
a Not available. a Not available.

114
 <IJ
TABLE A.33 -Gonads (mean of ovaries and testes), absorbed dose TABLEA.34-Liver absorbed dose per unit neutron {luence, DT / <1>,
per unit neutron {luence, DT / $, in units ofpGy cm2 for in units of pGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in ~
monoenergetic neutrons incident in various geometries on an various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational ~
adult anthropomorphic computational model. These data are model. These data are presented graphically in C'i
><
presented graphically in Fig. A.27 (Annex 1) Fig. A.28 (Annex 1) QI
~

Energy Energy ~
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO

1.0 X 10- 9 1.38 0.58 0.19 0.59 0.51 1.0 X 10- 9 0.98 0.70 0.60 0.11 0.61 0.46
1.0 X 10- 8 1.75 0 .71 0.23 0.78 0.59 1.0 X 10- 8 1.20 0.92 0.71 0.12 0.71 0.56
2.5 X 10- 8 1.97 0.85 0.26 0.93 0.66 2.5 X 10-8 1.45 1.10 0.85 0.14 0.86 0.66
1.0 X 10- 7 2.46 1.17 0.35 1.18 0.84 1.0 X 10- 7 2.06 1.46 1.13 0.18 1.20 0.86
2.0 X 10- 7 2.70 1.33 0.40 1.31 0.94 2.0 X 10- 7 2.36 1.65 1.30 0.20 1.37 0.97
5.0 X 10- 7 3.01 1.56 0.46 1.45 1.06 5.0 X 10- 7 2.74 1.91 1.53 0.23 1.59 1.11
1.0 X 10- 6 3.20 1.72 0.50 1.55 1.14 1.0 X 10- 6 2.99 2.09 1.69 0.25 1.74 1.22
2.0 X 10- 6 3.34 1.84 0.53 1.63 1.20 2.0 X 10- 6 3.15 2.23 1.80 0.27 1.87 1.30
5.0 X 10- 6 3.44 1.96 0.57 1.71 1.26 5.0 X 10- 6 3.27 2.37 1.89 0.28 1.98 1.38
1.0 X 10- 5 3.46 2.01 0.60 1.74 1.28 1.0 X 10- 5 3.30 2.44 1.92 0.29 2.03 1.41
2.0 X 10- 5 3.44 2.04 0.61 1.75 1.29 2.0 X 10- 5 3.28 2.48 1.93 0.30 2.04 1.43

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

5.0 X 10- 5 3.37 2.04 0.63 1.73 1.28 5.0 X 10- 5 3.22 2.49 1.91 0.31 2.03 1.43
1.0 X 10- 4 3.31 2.03 0.64 1.70 1.26 1.0 X 10- 4 3.16 2.48 1.90 0.31 2.01 1.42
2.0 X 10- 4 3.24 2.00 0.63 1.67 1.23 2.0 X 10- 4 3.15 2.45 1.88 0.31 1.99 1.39
5.0 X 10- 4 3.17 1.97 0.62 1.63 1.18 5.0 X 10- 4 3.13 2.40 1.85 0.30 1.96 1.35
1.0 X 10-3 3.14 1.95 0.61 1.60 1.16 1.0 X 10- 3 3.13 2.36 1.83 0.30 1.95 1.33
2.0 X 10- 3 3.14 1.92 0.60 1.57 1.15 2.0 X 10- 3 3.10 2.34 1.80 0.30 1.94 1.31
5.0 X 10- 3 3.21 1.91 0.59 1.57 1.16 5.0 X 10- 3 3.08 2.32 1.77 0.29 1.94 1.30
1.0 X 10- 2 3.32 1.92 0.60 1.61 1.20 1.0 X 10- 2 3.08 2.34 1.78 0.30 1.96 1.32
2.0 X 10- 2 3.49 1.93 0.61 1.69 1.27 2.0 X 10- 2 3.06 2.32 1.76 0.31 1.94 1.35
3.0 X 10- 2 3.62 1.96 0.62 1.76 1.33 3.0 X 10- 2 3.09 2.33 1.79 0.32 1.95 1.39
5.0 X 10- 2 3.92 2.02 0.65 1.90 1.45 5.0 X 10- 2 3.18 2.41 1.86 0.33 2.02 1.47
7.0 X 10- 2 4.26 2.08 0.67 2.02 1.58 7.0 X 10- 2 3.30 2.50 1.95 0.35 2.10 1.54
1.0 X 10- 1 4.83 2.17 0.70 2.19 1.76 1.0 X 10- 1 3.51 2.64 2.09 0.36 2.24 1.64
1.5 X 10- 1 5.79 2.25 0.74 2.52 2.06 1.5 X 10- 1 3.99 2.85 2.29 0.38 2.45 1.74
2.0 X 10- 1 6.72 2.36 0.78 2.82 2.35 2.0 X 10- 1 4.47 3.08 2.51 0.39 2.67 1.85
3.0 X 10- 1 8.44 2.61 0.86 3.37 2.87 3.0 X 10- 1 5.56 3.55 2.97 0.42 3.19 2.08
5.0 X 10- 1 11.5 3.20 1.01 4.36 3.84 5.0 X 10- 1 7.69 4.59 4.01 0.46 4.29 2.66
7.0 X 10- 1 14.1 3.84 1.14 5.30 4.75 7.0 X 10- 1 9.75 5.77 5.24 0.49 5.45 3.50
9.0 X 10- 1 16.4 4.61 1.35 6.34 5.62 9.0 X 10- 1 11.7 6.99 6.52 0.58 6.68 4.41
1.0 X 10° 17.5 5.04 1.48 6.90 6.04 1.0 X 10° 12.7 7.62 7.19 0.63 7.30 4.89
1.2 X 10° 19.4 6.12 1.91 8.08 6.93 1.2 X 10° 14.6 9.00 8.59 0.79 8.57 5.85
2.0 X 10° 26.1 11.0 4.53 13.1 10.5 2.0 X 10° 21.4 14.7 14.4 1.84 13.6 9.78
3.0 X 10° 32.7 17.6 8.23 18.7 14.8 3.0 X 10° 28.6 21.3 21.2 3.42 19.4 14.6
4.0 X 10° 38.3 23.5 11.7 23.5 18.9 4.0 X 10° 34.6 26.9 26.6 5.21 24.5 18.9
5.0 X 10° 43.2 28.3 15.0 27.6 22.9 5.0 X 10° 39.7 31.4 31.3 7.11 29.0 22.8
6.0 X 10° 47.6 32.5 18.0 31.2 25.8 6.0 X 10° 44.2 35.4 35.2 8.99 32.9 25.5
7.0 X 10° 51.6 36.3 20.8 34.4 28.6 7.0 X 10° 48.2 39.1 38.7 10.9 36.4 28.0
8.0 X 10° 55.4 39.8 23.3 37.2 31.2 8.0 X 10° 51.8 42.4 41.7 12.7 39.6 30.4
9.0 X 10° 58.7 43.0 25.7 39.8 33.6 9.0 X 10° 55.0 45.4 44.5 14.4 42.4 32.7
1.0 X 10 1 61.7 46.0 27.8 42.2 35.9 1.0 X 10 1 57.8 48.3 47.0 16.2 44.9 34.9
1.2 X 10 1 66.5 51.8 31.8 46.3 40.1 1.2 X 10 1 62.4 53.3 51.3 19.4 49.0 39.7
1.4 X 10 1 70.0 56.8 35.2 49.8 44.0 1.4 X 101 66.0 57.4 55.1 22.3 52.5 43.8
1.5 X 10 1 71.3 58.9 36.8 51.5 45.8 1.5 X 10 1 67.5 59.1 56.7 23.7 54.0 45.5
1.6 X 10 1 72.4 61.0 38.4 53.0 47.5 1.6 X 10 1 68.7 60.6 58.2 25.0 55.5 47.0
1.8 X 101 74.0 64.5 41.3 55.7 49.7 1.8 X 10 1 70.8 63.1 61.0 27.4 58.1 49.2
2.0 X 10 1 75.0 67.6 44.0 58.2 51.0 2.0 X 10 1 72.4 65.2 63.4 29.5 60.4 50.6
3.0 X 10 1 76.7 76.1 53.9 65.8 naa 3.0 X 10 1 76.9 71 .7 71.7 na a 68.9 na a
00
5.0 X 10 1 75.8 83.9 67.8 75.7 na 5.0 X 10 1 80.1 78.1 80.4 na 78.5 na O"l
O"l
7.5 X 10 1 75.5 89.4 80.3 84.2 na 7.5 X 10 1 82.0 83.6 86.6 na 85.3 na .....
1.0 X 102 76.8 94.6 90.4 90.8 na 1.0 X 102 83.6 88.5 90.9 na 89.7 na t--"
LQ
1.3 X 102 79.3 99.4 99.3 96.5 na 1.3 X 102 85.3 93.2 94.3 na 92.8 na t0
1.5 X 102 82.5 104 107 102 na 1.5 X 102 87.2 97.8 97.3 na 95.1 na c..
QI
1.8 X 102 87.1 109 117 107 na 1.8 X 102 89.5 103 100 na 97.4 na p::
a Not available. a Not available. 0p::
U
.-.

115
 ~
0
T ABLE A.35 -Lung absorbed dose per unit neutron {luence, DT/ $, TABLE A.36 - Oesophagus absorbed dose per unit neutron {luence,
:.::l in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in D T/ $ , in units of pGy cm 2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in
;a'" various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational
'"
p:::
OJ
model. These data are presented graphically in
Fig. A.29 (Annex 1)
model. These data are presented graphically in
Fig. A.30 (Annex 1)
e
Ol Energy Energy
"t< (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
""
;.>
00
~ 1.0 X 10- 9 0.77 0.81 0.33 0.58 0.47 1.0 X 10- 9 0.50 0.95 0.30 0.53 0.40
'@ 1.0 X 10- 8 0.95 1.05 0.42 0.72 0.55 1.0 X 10- 8 0.73 1.13 0.37 0.64 0.48
bO
...: 2.5 X 10- 8 1.11 1.27 0.49 0.86 0.63 2.5 X 10- 8 0.88 1.30 0.42 0.77 0.56
~
0 1.0 X 10- 7 1.52 1.67 0.63 1.13 0.81 1.0 X 10- 7 1.24 1.79 0.52 1.05 0.75
:.::l 2.0 X 10- 7 1.74 1.89 0.71 1.27 0.92 2.0 X 10- 7 1.43 2.04 0.59 1.20 0.86
C.l
Ol
;.> 5.0 X 10- 7 2.03 2.18 0.81 1.44 1.05 5.0 X 10- 7 1.69 2.37 0.68 1.38 0.99
...
0
p.. 1.0 X 10- 6 2.21 2.38 0.88 1.56 1.15 1.0 X 10- 6 1.87 2.59 0.76 1.51 1.09
OJC.l 2.0 X 10- 6 2.32 2.53 0.94 1.65 1.22 2.0 X 10- 6 2.00 2.76 0.81 1.62 1.17
'So 5.0 X 10- 6 2.39 2.59 0.99 1.74 1.28 5.0 X 10- 6 2.13 2.94 0.88 1.73 1.26
0 1.0 X 10- 5
'0 1.0 X 10- 5 2.40 2.60 1.01 1.78 1.31 2.19 3.03 0.91 1.79 1.31
;a 2.0 X 10- 5 2.39 2.59 1.03 1.80 1.32 2.0 X 10- 5 2.22 3.08 0.93 1.81 1.34
'"
p::: 5.0
1.0
X 10- 5
10- 4
2.36 2.55
2.52
1.03
1.02
1.79 1.31
1.30
5.0 X
1.0 X
10- 5
10- 4
2.24
2.24
3.12
3.12
0.94
0.94
1.83
1.82
1.36
1.36
.S 2.34 1.77

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

X
Ol
00 2.0 X 10- 4 2.34 2.51 1.01 1.75 1.27 2.0 X 10- 4 2.26 3.12 0.95 1.82 1.34
;j
... 5.0 X 10- 4
10- 3
2.33 2.50 1.00 1.70 1.25 5.0 X
1.0 X
10- 4
10- 3
2.28 3.11 0.94 1.82 1.31
<£ 1.0 X 2.33 2.50 0.98 1.68 1.23 2.31 3.09 0.94 1.81 1.29
00
;.> 2.0 X 10- 3 2.32 2.49 0.97 1.65 1.21 2.0 X 10- 3 2.35 3.05 0.94 1.81 1.29
~
Ol 5.0 X 10- 3 2.31 2.49 0.95 1.63 1.20 5.0 X 10- 3 2.41 3.02 0.95 1.82 1.29
'f:)
!EOl 1.0 X 10- 2 2.31 2.50 0.96 1.65 1.22 1.0 X 10- 2 2.45 3.01 0.96 1.84 1.32
0 2.0 X 10- 2 2.31 2.46 0.95 1.62 1.23 2.0 X 10- 2 2.47 2.96 0.95 1.86 1.31
Co) 10- 2
3.0 X 10- 2 2.32 2.47 0.96 1.64 1.26 3.0 X 2.49 2.97 0.96 1.88 1.33
~
0 5.0 X 10- 2 2.38 2.58 1.00 1.72 1.32 5.0 X 10- 2 2.52 3.03 0.98 1.93 1.37
'00
...
Ol
7.0 X 10- 2 2.46 2.71 1.05 1.83 1.39 7.0 X 10- 2 2.55 3.11 1.02 1.97 1.42
> 1.0 X 10- 1 2.62 3.00 1.13 1.99 1.51 1.0 X 10- 1 2.63 3.25 1.07 2.03 1.49
~
0
Co)
1.5 X 10- 1 3.06 3.68 1.26 2.29 1.68 1.5 X 10- 1 2.70 3.42 1.13 2.09 1.58
2.0 X 10- 1 3.49 4.30 1.39 2.60 1.86 2.0 X 10- 1 2.82 3.62 1.20 2.18 1.67
3.0 X 10- 1 4.43 5.43 1.67 3.24 2.22 3.0 X 10- 1 3.14 4.08 1.36 2.39 1.85
5.0 X 10- 1 6.28 7.70 2.26 4.57 3.06 5.0 X 10- 1 4.06 5.11 1.72 2.89 2.25
7.0 X 10- 1 8.21 9.97 2.92 5.98 4.09 7.0 X 10- 1 5.34 6.35 2.09 3.50 2.68
9.0 X 10- 1 10.1 12.2 3.64 7.38 5.21 9.0 X 10- 1 6.83 7.60 2.53 4.33 3.13
1.0 X 10° 11.1 13.3 4.04 8.08 5.78 1.0 X 10° 7.65 8.23 2.77 4.81 3.38
1.2 X 10° 12.9 15.5 4.96 9.51 6.94 1.2 X 10° 9.45 9.46 3.41 5.87 4.14
2.0 X 10° 19.7 23.6 9.12 15.0 11.5 2.0 X 10° 16.0 14.2 6.59 10.5 7.59
3.0 X 10° 27.1 31.8 13.9 21.3 16.8 3.0 X 10° 23.7 19.7 11.1 16.6 12.2
4.0 X 10° 33.1 38.0 18.0 26.6 21.4 4.0 X 10° 30.0 24.7 15.3 22.2 16.7
5.0 X 10° 38.2 43.1 21.5 31.2 25.2 5.0 X 10° 35.2 29.4 19.3 26.9 20.7
6.0 X 10° 42.6 47.3 24.6 35.0 28.2 6.0 X 10° 39.6 33.7 23.0 31.2 23.4
7.0 X 10° 46.4 50.9 27.4 38.3 30.8 7.0 X 10° 43.2 37.8 26.4 34.9 25.9
8.0 X 10° 49.7 54.1 29.9 41.4 33.1 8.0 X 10° 46.3 41.5 29.6 38.3 28.2
9.0 X 10° 52.7 57.0 32.2 44.1 35.3 9.0 X 10° 49.0 44.9 32.5 41.3 30.5
1.0 X 101 55.3 59.7 34.3 46.7 37.4 1.0 X 101 51.3 48.1 35.3 44.0 32.7
1.2 X 101 59.7 64.3 38.2 50.9 41.9 1.2 X 101 55.1 53.5 40.3 48.6 37.7
1.4 X 101 63.3 67.9 41.5 54.5 45.9 1.4 X 101 58.0 57.9 44.3 52.3 41.9
1.5 X 101 64.8 69.5 43.0 56.1 47.8 1.5 X 101 59.2 59.7 46.0 53.9 43.7
1.6 X 101 66.2 70.8 44.5 57.5 49.4 1.6 X 101 60.3 61.3 47.5 55.4 45.2
1.8 X 101 68.5 73.1 47.1 60.0 51.8 1.8 X 101 62.2 64.0 50.1 58.0 47.5
2.0 X 10 1 70.5 74.9 49.5 62.1 52.4 2.0 X 101 63.7 66.2 52.2 60.3 48.8
3.0 X 101 77.0 80.3 58.3 69.2 naa 3.0 X 101 69.2 73.0 62.3 67.8 naa
00
en 5.0 X 101 83.1 83.9 69.6 76.7 na 5.0 X 101 76.9 79.5 74.0 76.5 na
en
..... 7.5 X 101 86.4 85.2 79.1 82.2 na 7.5 X 101 85.3 85.0 83.1 84.1 na
[--"
1.0 X 102 88.1 85.4 86.7 86.4 na 1.0 X 102 93.5 90.0 90.3 90.8 na
>0
~ 1.3 X 102 89.1 85.5 93.2 90.0 na 1.3 X 102 101 94.8 96.7 97.2 na
0
P- 1.5 X 102 89.7 85.5 99.3 93.3 na 1.5 X 102 109 99.6 103 103 na
Ol
p::: 1.8 X 102 90.2 85.5 106 97.1 na 1.8 X 102 118 105 110 111 na
:;J
p::: a Not available. a Not available.

-
Co)

116
TABLE A.37 - Remainder absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence, TABLE A.38 - Skin absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence, DT / <1>, '"
~

~
DT / <1>, in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in in units ofpGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in
various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational
model. These data are presented graphically in model. These data are presented graphically in C\i
~
Fig. A.31 (Annex 1) Fig. A.32 (Annex 1) ~
I'i
Energy Energy ~
(MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO

1.0 X 10- 9 0.80 0.85 0.29 0.57 0.44 1.0 X 10- 9 1.35 1.30 0.66 1.00 0.82
1.0 X 10- 8 1.00 1.11 0.43 0.72 0.57 1.0 X 10- 8 1.38 1.34 0.68 1.02 0.83
2.5 X 10- 8 1.20 1.27 0.53 0.88 0.67 2.5 X 10- 8 1.43 1.40 0.70 1.06 0.84
1.0 X 10- 7 1.59 1.64 0.71 1.18 0.86 1.0 X 10- 7 1.54 1.51 0.73 1.15 0.86
2.0 X 10- 7 1.79 1.84 0.79 1.34 0.95 2.0 X 10- 7 1.61 1.58 0.75 1.19 0.87
5.0 X 10- 7 2.05 2.09 0.90 1.53 1.07 5.0 X 10- 7 1.68 1.66 0.77 1.24 0.89
1.0 X 10- 6 2.21 2.26 0.96 1.65 1.14 1.0 X 10- 6 1.72 1.71 0.78 1.27 0.90
2.0 X 10- 6 2.33 2.40 1.01 1.74 1.21 2.0 X 10- 6 1.75 1.74 0.78 1.29 0.91
5.0 X 10- 6 2.43 2.54 1.05 1.80 1.27 5.0 X 10- 6 1.76 1.75 0.78 1.29 0.92
1.0 X 10- 5 2.45 2.61 1.07 1.82 1.29 1.0 X 10- 5 1.75 1.74 0.77 1.28 0.92
2.0 X 10- 5 2.45 2.64 1.07 1.80 1.30 2.0 X 10- 5 1.72 1.71 0.75 1.26 0.91

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

5.0 X 10- 5 2.42 2.64 1.05 1.77 1.30 5.0 X 10- 5 1.67 1.66 0.73 1.22 0.89
1.0 X 10- 4 2.38 2.62 1.04 1.73 1.28 1.0 X 10- 4 1.62 1.61 0.71 1.18 0.87
2.0 X 10- 4 2.33 2.55 1.01 1.70 1.24 2.0 X 10- 4 1.56 1.55 0.68 1.12 0.83
5.0 X 10- 4 2.29 2.47 0.97 1.67 1.18 5.0 X 10- 4 1.49 1.48 0.66 1.06 0.79
1.0 X 10- 3 2.27 2.42 0.95 1.66 1.15 1.0 X 10- 3 1.46 1.45 0.66 1.06 0.79
2.0 X 10- 3 2.27 2.39 0.93 1.67 1.13 2.0 X 10- 3 1.48 1.48 0.69 1.11 0.82
5.0 X 10- 3 2.31 2.41 0.94 1.70 1.14 5.0 X 10- 3 1.66 1.65 0.80 1.27 0.93
1.0 X 10- 2 2.37 2.48 0.97 1.74 1.18 1.0 X 10- 2 1.94 1.93 0.98 1.50 1.10
2.0 X 10- 2 2.46 2.61 1.03 1.80 1.24 2.0 X 10- 2 2.38 2.38 1.31 1.89 1.52
3.0 X 10- 2 2.53 2.73 1.08 1.84 1.31 3.0 X 10- 2 2.73 2.72 1.59 2.22 1.87
5.0 X 10- 2 2.67 2.95 1.19 1.92 1.44 5.0 X 10- 2 3.35 3.34 2.08 2.79 2.48
7.0 X 10- 2 2.84 3.17 1.29 2.03 1.56 7.0 X 10- 2 3.92 3.90 2.52 3.30 3.02
1.0 X 10- 1 3.10 3.48 1.43 2.20 1.72 1.0 X 10- 1 4.72 4.70 3.11 3.99 3.74
1.5 X 10- 1 3.53 3.94 1.65 2.51 1.97 1.5 X 10- 1 5.94 5.92 4.02 5.11 4.78
2.0 X 10- 1 3.94 4.39 1.85 2.81 2.20 2.0 X 10- 1 7.03 7.01 4.84 6.13 5.69
3.0 X 10- 1 4.71 5.23 2.22 3.38 2.66 3.0 X 10- 1 8.95 8.93 6.29 7.89 7.24
5.0 X 10- 1 6.23 6.88 3.00 4.57 3.53 5.0 X 10- 1 12.0 12.0 8.67 10.8 9.78
7.0 X 10- 1 7.82 8.60 3.89 5.88 4.37 7.0 X 10- 1 14.5 14.4 10.6 13.1 11.9
9.0 X 10- 1 9.43 10.3 4.83 7.25 5.21 9.0 X 10- 1 16.5 16.5 12.3 15.1 13.7
1.0 X 10° 10.2 11.1 5.31 7.94 5.63 1.0 X 10° 17.4 17.3 13.1 15.9 14.5
1.2 X 10° 11.8 12.9 6.30 9.33 6.71 1.2 X 10° 19.0 18.9 14.5 17.4 16.0
2.0 X 10° 17.8 19.6 10.3 14.6 11.1 2.0 X 10° 23.9 23.9 19.0 22.2 20.7
3.0 X 10° 24.3 26.8 14.9 20.6 16.3 3.0 X 10° 28.5 28.4 23.5 26.7 25.3
4.0 X 10° 29.9 32.8 19.0 25.7 21.0 4.0 X 10° 32.5 32.4 27.4 30.6 29.0
5.0 X 10° 34.7 37.7 22.6 30.0 25.1 5.0 X 10° 36.4 36.3 30.9 34.6 32.2
6.0 X 10° 38.9 41.8 25.6 33.9 28.0 6.0 X 10° 40.2 40.1 34.1 38.3 34.9
7.0 X 10° 42.7 45.4 28.4 37.3 30.6 7.0 X 10° 43.9 43.8 37.1 41.7 37.3
8.0 X 10° 46.1 48.6 30.8 40.4 33.0 8.0 X 10° 47.4 47.4 39.8 44.9 39.7
9.0 X 10° 49.1 51.5 33.1 43.1 35.3 9.0 X 10° 50.7 50.7 42.3 47.8 41.9
1.0 X 101 51.8 54.1 35.2 45.6 37.5 1.0 X 10 1 53.6 53.6 44.5 50.3 44.1
1.2 X 10 1 56.5 58.7 39.0 49.8 41.9 1.2 X 10 1 58.2 58.2 48.3 54.2 48.5
1.4 X 10 1 60.4 62.4 42.5 53.3 45.9 1.4 X 10 1 61.2 61.3 51.4 57.0 52.5
1.5 X 10 1 62.1 63.9 44.1 54.8 47.8 1.5 X 10 1 62.3 62.4 52.7 58.0 54.3
1.6 X 10 1 63.6 65.3 45.7 56.2 49.6 1.6 X 10 1 63.0 63.1 53.9 58.9 56.0
1.8 X 10 1 66.3 67.7 48.4 58.6 52.1 1.8 X 10 1 63.8 63.9 56.0 60.1 58.3
2.0 X 10 1 68.6 69.7 50.5 60.7 53.0 2.0 X 10 1 64.1 64.1 57.7 60.8 59.0
3.0 X 10 1 76.6 76.5 58.2 68.4 naa 3.0 X 10 1 61.6 61.6 57.0 57.5 naa
r:L)
5.0 X 10 1 85.3 83.9 70.6 77.9 na 5.0 X 10 1 55.1 54.9 55.4 53.1 na O"l
O"l
7.5 X 10 1 91.3 89.8 81.9 86.3 na 7.5 X 10 1 51.5 51.2 55.1 52.3 na .....
1.0 X 102 95.3 94.6 91.3 93.1 na 1.0 X 102 51.8 51.5 56.8 54.1 na r:-"
>t:>
1.3 X 102 98.4 98.9 99.6 99.1 na 1.3 X 102 54.7 54.4 59.8 57.3 na t:0
1.5 X 102 101 103 107 105 na 1.5 X 102 59.1 59.0 63.8 61.6 na 0.
1.8 X 102 103 107 116 111 na 1.8 X 102 65.7 65.8 69.5 67.8 na ~
p::
a Not available. Not available. ~
a p::
....
U

117
 s::0 TABLE A.39-Stomach absorbed dose per unit neutron flu ence, TABLE A.40- Thyroid absorbed dose per unit neutron fluence ,
:;3
OJ
DT / <P, in units of pGy cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in DT / <P, in units ofpGy cm 2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in
;a various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational various geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational
OJ
~ model. These data are presented graphically in model. These data are presented graphically in
til Fig. A.33 (Annex 1) Fig. A.34 (Annex 1)
E
.2S~ Energy Energy
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO (MeV) AP PA LAT ROT ISO
ril
...,
.~
'"s:: 1.0 X 10- 9 1.23 0.50 0.11 0.49 0.59 0.45 1.0 X 10- 9 1.41 0.29 0.51 0.74 0.59
bIl
1.0 X 10- 8 1.60 0.64 0.14 0.55 0.73 0.58 1.0 X 10- 8 1.77 0.36 0.58 0.81 0.64
<s:: 2.5 X 10- 8 1.90 0.77 0.16 0.60 0.87 0.67 2.5 X 10- 8 1.99 0.41 0.64 0.90 0.69
0 1.0 X 10- 7 2.59 1.03 0.21 0.72 1.17 0.84 1.0 X 10- 7 2.37 0.51 0.76 1.10 0.77
:;3
<..> 2.0 X 10- 7 2.97 1.16 0.23 0.82 1.32 0.93 2.0 X 10- 7 2.56 0.56 0.86 1.22 0.84
.2S
0 5.0 X 10- 7 3.46 1.35 0.27 0.99 1.51 1.06 5.0 X 10- 7 2.78 0.63 1.01 1.39 0.93
I-<
p.. 1.0 X 10- 6 3.78 1.48 0.29 1.13 1.64 1.15 1.0 X 10- 6 2.91 0.69 1.12 1.50 1.00
til<..> 2.0 X 10- 6 4.01 1.59 0.31 1.21 1.75 1.23 2.0 X 10- 6 3.00 0.75 1.18 1.57 1.05
.6b 5.0 X 10- 6 4.17 1.71 0.33 1.29 1.86 1.31 5.0 X 10- 6 3.04 0.82 1.23 1.62 1.11
0
'0 1.0 X 10- 5 4.20 1.77 0.34 1.32 1.91 1.35 1.0 X 10- 5 3.02 0.87 1.24 1.63 1.14
;a 2.0 X 10- 5 4.17 1.82 0.35 1.33 1.91 1.38 2.0 X 10- 5 2.97 0.91 1.24 1.61 1.15
OJ
~ 5.0 X 10- 5 4.08 1.85 0.35 1.34 1.89 1.40 5.0 X 10- 5 2.88 0.95 1.24 1.57 1.15

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S 1.0 X 10- 4 4.00 1.85 0.35 1.34 1.86 1.39 1.0 X 10- 4 2.80 0.97 1.24 1.54 1.14
Q)
2.0 X 10- 4 3.95 1.83 0.35 1.34 1.84 1.37 2.0 X 10- 4 2.74 0.98 1.23 1.52 1.11
'"::l 5.0 X 10- 4 3.91 1.80 0.34 1.35 1.82 1.33 5.0 X 10- 4 2.67 0.98 1.22 1.49 1.07
I-<
..s 1.0 X 10- 3 3.91 1.77 0.34 1.35 1.80 1.31 1.0 X 10- 3 2.66 0.98 1.21 1.49 1.04
..,'" 2.0 X 10- 3 3.92 1.76 0.34 1.35 1.78 1.28 2.0 X 10- 3 2.67 0.97 1.20 1.46 1.01
s::
Q)
.<) 5.0 X 10- 3 3.90 1.76 0.34 1.36 1.77 1.27 5.0 X 10- 3 2.74 0.96 1.20 1.47 1.01
!E 1.0 X 10- 2 3.87 1.77 0.34 1.38 1.79 1.29 1.0 X 10- 2 2.85 0.96 1.23 1.52 1.04
Q)
0 2.0 X 10- 2 3.87 1.79 0.34 1.38 1.79 1.32 2.0 X 10- 2 3.00 0.96 1.24 1.62 1.11
U 3.0 X 10- 2 3.85 1.81 0.34 1.39 1.82 1.36 3.0 X 10- 2 3.11 0.97 1.28 1.70 1.17
s::0
5.0 X 10- 2 3.94 1.86 0.35 1.44 1.90 1.43 5.0 X 10- 2 3.44 0.99 1.38 1.88 1.30
·fii
I-<
Q)
7.0 X 10- 2 4.05 1.91 0.36 1.50 1.99 1.51 7.0 X 10- 2 3.89 0.99 1.49 2.07 1.42
s::0> 1.0 X 10- 1 4.32 1.98 0.37 1.60 2.13 1.61 1.0 X 10- 1 4.68 1.01 1.67 2.35 1.59
1.5 X 10- 1 5.09 2.07 0.38 1.73 2.34 1.72 1.5 X 10- 1 6.10 1.04 2.04 2.90 1.89
u
2.0 X 10- 1 5.85 2.17 0.39 1.87 2.55 1.85 2.0 X 10- 1 7.52 1.08 2.43 3.44 2.17
3.0 X 10- 1 7.39 2.32 0.42 2.20 3.04 2.14 3.0 X 10- 1 10.2 1.17 3.22 4.51 2.72
5.0 X 10- 1 10.3 2.65 0.49 2.94 4.06 2.81 5.0 X 10- 1 14.7 1.37 4.91 6.55 3.74
7.0 X 10- 1 12.9 2.95 0.54 3.83 5.14 3.62 7.0 X 10- 1 18.3 1.59 6.80 8.48 4.69
9.0 X 10- 1 15.4 3.42 0.63 4.81 6.21 4.45 9.0 X 10- 1 21.3 1.93 8.62 10.3 5.60
1.0 X 10° 16.6 3.72 0.70 5.32 6.75 4.88 1.0 X 10° 22.6 2.14 9.51 11.2 6.05
1.2 X 10° 18.8 4.64 0.90 6.43 7.87 5.76 1.2 X 10° 24.9 2.70 11.1 12.8 6.97
2.0 X 10° 26.4 8.82 2.09 11.3 12.3 9.40 2.0 X 10° 32.1 5.67 17.2 18.7 10.5
3.0 X 10° 34.1 14.5 3.99 16.8 17.5 13.8 3.0 X 10° 38.2 10.2 23.7 24.9 14.7
4.0 X 10° 40.4 19.8 5.87 21.8 22.1 17.9 4.0 X 10° 43.1 14.0 29.2 30.1 18.5
5.0 X 10° 45.6 24.2 7.77 26.3 26.1 21.5 5.0 X 10° 47.3 17.5 34.1 34.6 22.0
6.0 X 10° 50.1 28.0 9.65 30.6 29.5 24.3 6.0 X 10° 51.2 20.6 38.5 38.7 24.9
7.0 X 10° 54.0 31.6 11.5 34.6 32.7 26.8 7.0 X 10° 54.7 23.3 42.4 42.3 27.7
8.0 X 10° 57.4 34.8 13.3 38.2 35.7 29.2 8.0 X 10° 58.0 25.7 46.0 45.5 30.4
9.0 X 10° 60.5 37.8 15.1 41.5 38.5 31.4 9.0 X 10° 61.0 27.8 49.2 48.4 33.2
1.0 X 10 1 63.2 40.5 16.8 44.5 41.2 33.6 1.0 X 10 1 63.7 29.7 52.1 51.0 36.0
1.2 X 10 1 67.8 45.4 20.1 49.7 46.1 38.1 1.2 X 10 1 68.1 33.3 57.2 55.5 41.4
1.4 X 10 1 71.4 49.5 23.1 53.9 50.2 42.0 1.4 X 10 1 71.4 36.7 61.3 59.3 47.5
1.5 X 10 1 72.9 51.4 24.6 55.6 51.9 43.7 1.5 X 10 1 72.7 38.4 63.1 61.0 50.9
1.6 X 101 74.3 53.0 26.0 57.1 53.5 45.2 1.6 X 10 1 73.8 40.1 64.7 62.5 54.6
1.8 X 101 76.5 56.0 28.7 59.7 56.2 47.7 1.8 X 10 1 75.5 43.3 67.4 65.4 58.2
2.0 X 10 1 78.4 58.6 31.2 61.7 58.5 49.5 2.0 X 10 1 76.7 46.5 69.6 67.9 57.0
3.0 X 10 1 84.1 68.5 41.9 na· 65.6 na' 3.0 X 10 1 78.9 60.6 79.3 76.3 na'
CO
5.0 X 10 1 87.7 81.1 58.2 na 73.6 na 5.0 X 10 1 77.3 81.8 88.1 84.4 na
'"'"
..-<
too"
7.5 X
1.0 X
10 1
102
88.0
86.8
92.5
102
74.0
87.5
na
na
81.5
89.2
na
na
7.5 X 10 1
1.0 X 102
73.6
70.3
99.2
111
91.7
91.1
88.6
90.2
na
na
>t:l
1:0 1.3 X 102 85.1 110 99.9 na 97.1 na 1.3 X 102 67.5 120 88.8 90.8 na
Po 1.5 X 102 83.3 117 112 na 105 na 1.5 X 102 65.2 127 85.7 90.8 na
~ 1.8 X 102 81.0 125 125 na 115 na 1.8 X 102 63.0 133 81.7 90.3 na
~
~ , Not available. ' Not available.
U
......

118
TABLE A.41-Effective dose per unit neutron fiuence, E I <1>, in units TABLE A.42 - Ambient and personal dose equivalent per unit
ofpSv cm2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in various neutron fiuence, H*(lO) I <1> and Hp.slarf10, a) 1<1>, in units ofpSv
geometries on an adult anthropomorphic computational model. cm 2 for monoenergetic neutrons incident in various geometries on
These reference values are presented graphically in Figs. 22 and the ICRU sphere and slab. See Figs. 21 and 31-33
A.35 (Annex 1)
H* Hp,slab Hp,slab H p,slab H p,81ab Hp,slab Hp,aJab
Energy (10)1 (10,0°)1 (10, 15°)1 (10,30°)1 (10,45°)1 (10,60°)1 (10,75°)1
Energy
(MeV) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(MeV) AP PA RLAT LLAT ROT ISO

1.0 X 10- 9 5.24 3.52 1.36 1.68 2.99 2.40 1.00 X 10- 9 6.60 8.19 7.64 6.57 4.23 2.61 1.13
1.0 X 10- 8 6.55 4.39 1.70 2.04 3.72 2.89 1.00 X 10- 8 9.00 9.97 9.35 7.90 5.38 3.37 1.50
2.5 X 10- 8 7.60 1.99 2.31 4.40 3.30 2.53 X 10- 8 10.6 11.4 10.6 9.11 6.61 4.04 1.73
5.16
1.0 X 10- 7 9.95 2.58 2.86 5.75 4.13 1.00 X 10- 7 12.9 12.6 11.7 10.3 7.84 4.70 1.94
6.77
2.0 X 10- 7 11.2 2.92 3.21 6.43 4.59 2.00 X 10- 7 13.5 13.5 12.6 11.1 8.73 5.21 2.12
7.63
5.0 X 10- 7 12.8 3.35 3.72 7.27 5.20 5.00 X 10- 7 13.6 14.2 13.5 11.8 9.40 5.65 2.31
8.76
1.00 X 10- 6 13.3 14.4 13.9 12.0 9.56 5.82 2.40
1.0 X 10- 6 13.8 9.55 3.67 4.12 7.84 5.63
2.0 X 10- 6 14.5 10.2 3.89 4.39 8.31 5.96 2.00 X 10- 6 12.9 14.3 14.0 11.9 9.49 5.85 2.46
5.0 X 10- 6 15.0 10.7 4.08 4.66 8.72 6.28 5.00 X 10- 6 12.0 13.8 13.9 11.5 9.11 5.71 2.48
1.0 X 10- 5 15.1 4.16 4.80 8.90 6.44 1.00 X 10- 5 11.3 13.2 13.4 11.0 8.65 5.47 2.44
11.0
2.0 X 10- 5 15.1 4.20 4.89 8.92 6.51 2.00 X 10- 5 10.6 12.4 12.6 10.4 8.10 5.14 2.35
ILl

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

5.0 X 10- 5 14.8 ILl 4.19 4.95 8.82 6.51 5.00 X 10- 5 9.90 11.2 11.2 9.42 7.32 4.57 2.16
1.0 X 10- 4 14.6 4.15 4.95 8.69 6.45 1.00 X 10- 4 9.40 10.3 9.85 8.64 6.74 4.10 1.99
11.0
2.0 X 10- 4 14.4 10.9 4.10 4.92 8.56 6.32 2.00 X 10-4 8.90 9.84 9.41 8.22 6.21 3.91 1.83
5.0 X 10- 4 14.2 4.03 4.86 8.40 6.14 5.00 X 10- 4 8.30 9.34 8.66 7.66 5.67 3.58 1.68
10.7
1.00 X 10- 3 7.90 8.78 8.20 7.29 5.43 3.46 1.66
1.0 X 10- 3 14.2 10.7 4.00 4.84 8.34 6.04
2.00 X 10- 3 7.70 8.72 8.22 7.27 5.43 3.46 1.67
2.0 X 10- 3 14.4 10.8 4.00 4.87 8 .39 6 .05
5.0 X 10- 3 15.7 4.29 5.25 9.06 6.52 5.00 X 10- 3 8.00 9.36 8.79 7.46 5.71 3.59 1.69
11.6
1.0 X 10- 2 18.3 5.02 6.14 10.6 7.70 1.00 X 10- 2 10.5 11.2 10.8 9.18 7.09 4.32 1.77
13.5
2.0 X 10- 2 23.8 6.48 7.95 13.8 10.2 2.00 X 10- 2 16.6 17.1 17.0 14.6 11.6 6.64 2.11
17.3
3.0 X 10- 2 29.0 7.93 9.74 16.9 12.7 3.00 X 10- 2 23.7 24.9 24.1 21.3 16.7 9.81 2.85
21.0
5.0 X 10- 2 38.5 27.6 10.6 13.1 22.7 17.3 5.00 X 10- 2 41.1 39.0 36.0 34.4 27.5 16.7 4.78
7.0 X 10 2 47.2 13.1 16.1 27.8 21.5 7.00 X 10- 2 60.0 59.0 55.8 52.6 42.9 27.3 8.10
33.5
1.0 X 10- 1 59.8 16.4 20.1 34.8 27.2 1.00 X 10- 1 88.0 90.6 87.8 81.3 67.1 44.6 13.7
41.3
1.50 X 10- 1 132 139 137 126 106 73.3 24.2
1.5 X 10- 1 80.2 52.2 21.2 25.5 45.4 35.2
2.0 X 10- 1 99.0 25.6 30.3 54.8 42.4 2.00 X 10- 1 170 180 179 166 141 100 35.5
61.5
3.0 X 10- 1 133 38.6 71.6 54.7 3.00 X 10- 1 233 246 244 232 201 149 58.5
77.1 33.4
5.0 X 10- 1 188 46.8 53.2 99.4 75.0 5.00 X 10- 1 322 335 330 326 291 226 102
103
7.00 X 10- 1 375 386 379 382 348 279 139
7.0 X 10- 1 231 124 58.3 66.6 123 92.8
9.0 X 10- 1 267 79.6 144 108 9.00 X 10- 1 400 414 407 415 383 317 171
144 69.1
1.0 X 10° 282 154 74.5 86.0 154 116 1.00 X 10° 416 422 416 426 395 332 180
1.2 X 10° 310 175 85.8 99.8 173 130 1.20 X 10° 425 433 427 440 412 355 210
2.0 X 10° 383 247 129 153 234 178 2.00 X 10° 420 442 438 457 439 402 274
3.0 X 10° 432 308 171 195 283 220 3.00 X 10° 412 431 429 449 440 412 306
4.0 X 10° 458 345 198 224 315 250 4.00 X 10° 408 422 421 440 435 409 320
5.0 X 10° 474 366 217 244 335 272 5.00 X 10° 405 420 418 437 435 409 331
6.0 X 10° 483 380 232 261 348 282 6.00 X 10° 400 423 422 440 439 414 345
7.0 X 10° 490 391 244 274 358 290 7.00 X 10° 405 432 432 449 448 425 361
8.0 X 10° 494 399 253 285 366 297 8.00 X 10° 409 445 445 462 460 440 379
9.0 X 10° 497 406 261 294 373 303 9.00 X 10° 420 461 462 478 476 458 399
1.0 X 101 499 412 268 302 378 309 1.00 X 101 440 480 481 497 493 480 421
1.2 X 10 1 499 422 278 315 385 322 1.20 X 101 480 517 519 536 529 523 464
1.4 X 10 1 496 429 286 324 390 333 1.40 X 101 520 550 552 570 561 562 503
1.5 X 10 1 494 431 290 328 391 338 1.50 X 10 1 540 564 565 584 575 579 520
1.6 X 10 1 491 433 293 331 393 342 1.60 X 10 1 555 576 577 597 588 593 535
1.8 X 10 1 486 435 299 335 394 345 1.80 X 10 1 570 595 593 617 609 615 561
2.0 X 10 1 480 436 338 395 343 2.00 X 101 600 600 595 619 615 619 570
305
3.0 X 10 1 458 437 324 naa 395 na8 3.00 X 10 1 515 na8 na na na na na8
5.0 X 10 1 437 444 358 na 404 na 5.00 X 101 400 na na na na na na
7.5 X 10 1 429 459 397 na 422 na 7.50 X 101 330 na na na na na na
1.0 X 102 429 477 433 na 443 na 1.00 X 102 285 na na na na na na
1.3 X 102 432 495 467 na 465 na 1.25 X 102 260 na na na na na na
1.5 X 102 438 514 501 na 489 na 1.50 X 102 245 na na na na na na
1.8 X 102 445 535 542 na 517 na 1. 75 X 102 250 na na na na na na
2.01 X 102 260 na na na na na na
a Not available.
a Not available.

119
 1'1
...,
.S
oj
Electron Data
;.a TABLEA.43-0rgan absorbed dose per unit fluence, DT/ <1>, in TABLE A.44 - Reference conversion coefficients from fluence to
oj
~ units of pGy cm2 and effective dose per unit fluence, E / <1>, in units directional dose equivalent for monoenergetic electrons and
til ofpSv cm2 for monoenergetic electrons incident in the AP normal incidence
e geometry on an adult anthropomorphic computational model
~ Energy H'(0.07,O')/<1>
(nSvcm 2 )
H'(3,O')/<1>
(nSvcm 2 )
H'(10, 0')/<1>
(nSvcm 2 )
r:il
...,rn Energy (MeV)
(MeV) 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 10.0
.§ 0.07 0.221
Organ 0.08 1.056
~ Skin 8 98 171 164 158 153 150 165 0.09 1.527
1'1
0
:p Testes 0 1 14 37 214 345 0.10 1.661
u
.s
0
Bone marrow
Stomach
0 1 5 11 28 52
0 3 184
0.1125
0.125
1.627
1.513
&:: Breast 0 14 43 75 200 325 0.15 1.229
tilu Liver 0 97 0.20 0.834
'6h Thyroid 0 121 297 0.30 0.542
0

~ Effective dose 0.1 1 1.5 2.7 5.9 11 44 131 0.40 0.455

oj 0.50 0.403

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

~ 0.60 0.366
.S 0.70 0.344 0.000
<Il
rn 0.80 0.329 0.045
::I
1.00 0.312 0.301
oS'"' 1.25 0.296 0.486
rn
~ 1.50 0.287 0.524
'0 1.75 0.282 0.512 0.000
IS<Il 2.00 0.279 0.481 0.005
0 0.417 0.156
Co) 2.50 0.278
1'1 3.00 0.276 0.373 0.336
.S
rn 3.50 0.274 0.351 0.421
'"'
<Il
>
4.00 0.272 0.334 0.447
1'1
0
5.00 0.271 0.317 0.430
Co) 6.00 0.271 0.309 0.389
7.00 0.271 0.306 0.360
8.00 0.271 0.305 0.341
10.00 0.275 0.303 0.330

TABLEA.45-Reference values of the angular-dependence factor, R(d, a.), at a depth, d, of 0.07 mm as a function of electron energy and
angle of incidence, a.

Energy R(0.07,cx)
(MeV) 0' IS' 30' 45' 60' 67.5' 75' 82.5' 85' 89'

0.07 1.000 0.813 0.461 0.170 0.041 naa 0.005

0.08 1.000 0.903 0.645 0.348 0.132 na 0.028 0.007 0.003
00 0.09 1.000 0.926 0.709 0.445 0.201 na 0.055 0.017 0.010 0.001
Ol 0.10 1.000 0.938 0.760 0.509 0.258 na 0.081 0.027 0.016 0.002
Ol
M
0.15 1.000 0.989 0.945 0.771 0.486 na 0.180 0.064 na na
r:--
LO 0.20 1.000 1.046 1.120 1.072 0.751 na 0.295 0.106 0.060 0.008
t0 0.40 1.000 1.039 1.143 1.330 1.348 1.082 0.661 0.245 0.133 0.015
Po 0.70 1.000 1.028 1.110 1.266 1.517 1.502 1.085 0.426 0.216 0.023
~ 1.00 1.000 1.017 1.087 1.227 1.469 1.583 1.308 0.552 0.294 0.030
~ 1.50 1.000 1.027 1.075 1.191 1.401 1.574 1.572 0.756 na na
~
Co)
..... 2.00 1.000 1.022 1.066 1.163 1.338 1.510 1.654 0.950 0.530 0.053
3.00 1.000 1.004 1.038 1.113 1.264 1.390 1.612 1.277 0.731 0.072
4.00 1.000 1.007 1.042 1.097 1.239 1.369 1.546 1.479 0.952 0.093
7.00 1.000 1.005 1.019 1.071 1.180 1.274 1.419 1.736 1.412 0.151
10.00 1.000 1.010 1.016 1.050 1.126 1.220 1.345 1.661 1.646 0.210
120 a Not available.
TABLE A.46- Reference values of the angular-dependence factor, R(d, a), at a depth, d, of 3 mm as a function of electron energy and angle
of incidence, ex

Energy R(3.a)
(MeV) 0° 15' 30° 45° 60' 67.5° 75° 82.5° 85° 89°

0.08 1.000 0.839 0.465 0.167 0.037 na" 0.003

1.00 1.000 0.905 0.657 0.346 0.127 0.063 0.027 0.007 0.004
1.50 1.000 0.951 0.798 0.548 0.276 0.172 0.086 0.029 0.015 0.002
2.00 1.000 1.000 0.940 0.746 0.425 0.267 0.138 0.047 0.026 0.003
4.00 1.000 1.036 1.134 1.272 1.039 0.741 0.412 0.142 0.078 0.007
7.00 1.000 1.009 1.052 1.177 1.399 1.215 0.762 0.274 na na
10.00 1.000 1.005 1.025 1.092 1.347 1.419 1.048 0.402 0.215 0.019
• Not available.

TABLEA.47 -Reference values of the angular-dependence factor, R(d, a), at a depth, d, of 10 mm as a function of electron energy and angle
of incidence, ex

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Energy R(lO.a)
(M eV) 0° 15° 30° 45° 60° 67.5° 75' 82.5° 85° 89'

2.00 1.000 0.720 0.308 0.088 0.029 na" 0.010

3.00 1.000 0.898 0.636 0.334 0.115 0.056 0.022 0.005 0.003
5.00 1.000 1.011 1.939 0.718 0.363 0.212 0.101 0.031 0.016 na
7.00 1.000 1.023 1.113 1.041 0.664 0.407 0.202 0.064 0.034 na
10.00 1.000 1.017 1.083 1.211 1.008 0.694 0.360 0.114 0.060 na
" Not available.

121
 References
AMBROSI, P., BOHM, J., DIETZE, G., GROSSWENDT, B.
(1991). Conversion coefficients for the dose equiva-
lent for photons in slab phantoms (Letter to the
Editor). Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 37(2), 133-134.
ANDREO, P. (1991). Monte Carlo techniques used in
medical radiation physics. Phys. Med. Biol., 36,
861-920.
ANDREO, P. and BRAHME, A. (1984). Restricted energy-
loss straggling and multiple scattering of electrons
in mixed Monte Carlo procedures. Radiat. Res.,
100,16-29.
BARTLETT, D. T., BRITCHER, A. R, BARDELL, A. G.,
THOMAS, D. J., HUDSON, I. F. (1992). Neutron
spectra, radiological quantities and instrument
and dosimeter responses at a Magnox reactor and
a fuel reprocessing installation. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim., 44, 233-238.
BERGER, M. J. (1963). Monte Carlo calculation ofthe
penetration and diffusion offast charged particles.
In Methods in Computational Physics, ed. B. Alder,
S. French and M. Rotenberg, Vol. 1, pp. 135-215.
Academic Press, New York.
BERGER, M. J. and HUBBELL, J. H. (1987). XCOM:
photon cross sections on a personal computer.
National Bureau of Standards Report NBSIR 87-
3597.
BERGER, M. J. and WANG, R (1987). Multiple-
scattering angular deflections and energy-loss
straggling. In Monte Carlo Transport of Electrons
and Photons, ed. T. M. Jenkins, W. R Nelson and
A. Rindi, Ch. 2, p. 21. Plenum Press, New York.
BERTINI, H. W. (1969). Intranuclear cascade calcula-
tion ofthe secondary nucleon spectra from nucleon-
nucleus interactions in the energy range 340-2900
MeV. Phys. Rev., 18,1711-1730.
BISKPCHUK, A. M., BORODIN, V. E., GOLOVACHIK, V. T.,
KORSHUNOVA, E. P., LEBEDEV, V. N., SANNIKOV, A. V.
(1987). Interpretation of the readings of combined
albedo-track personnel neutron dosimeters in the
terms of dose equivalent. Kernenergie, 30,419-424.
BRIESMEISTER, J. F., ED. (1986). MCNP-A general
Monte Carlo code for neutron and photon trans-
port, Thrsion 3A. Report No. LA7396-M, Revision
2. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico.
BRIESMEISTER, J. F. (1991). MCNP-4 Newsletter. Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.
BRIESMEISTER, J. F., ED. (1993). MCNP-A general
Monte Carlo N-particle transport code, Version 4A.
Report No. LA-12625-M. Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
CASWELL, R S., COYNE, J. J., RANDOLPH, M. L. (1980).
Kerma factors for neutron energies below 30 MeV.
122 Radiat. Res., 83,217-254.
CHARTIER, J-L., GROSSWENDT, B., GUALDRINI, G. F.,
HIRAYAMA, H., MA, C-M., PADOANI, F., PETOUSSI, N.,
SELTZER, S. M., TERRISSOL, M. (1996). Reference
fluence-to-dose-equivalent conversion coefficients
and angular dependence factors for 4-element
ICRU tissue, water and PMMA slab phantoms
irradiated by broad electron beams. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim., 63(1), 7-14.
CLARK, M. J., BARTLE'IT, D. T., BURGESS, P. H .,
FRANCIS, T. M., MARSHALL, T. 0., FRY, F. A. (1993).
Dose quantities for protection against external
radiations. Documents of the NRPB, 4(3), 1-51.
CRISTY, M. (1980). Mathematical phantoms represent-
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
ing children of various ages for use in estimates of
internal dose. Report No. ORNLINUREGtrM-367.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Ten-
nessee.
CRISTY, M. and ECKERMAN, K. F. (1987). Specific
absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from
internal photon sources, part I: methods. Report
No. ORNLtrM-8381N1. Oak Ridge National Labo-
ratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
CROSS, W. G. (1989). Accuracy of conversion factors
for ICRU dosimetric quantities. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim., 28,41-46.
DIETZE, G. and SIEBERT, B. R L. (1994). Photon and
neutron dose contributions and mean quality fac-
tors in phantoms of different size irradiated by
monoenergetic neutrons. Radiat. Res., 140, 130-
133.
DIMBYLOW, P. J. and FRANCIS, T. M. (1983). The effect
of photon scatter and consequent electron build-up
in air on the calculation of dose equivalent quanti-
ties in the ICRU sphere for photon energies from
0.662 to 10 MeV. Phys. Med. Biol., 28,817-828.
DIMBYLOW, P. J. and FRANCIS, T. M. (1984). The
calculation of dose equivalent quantities in the
ICRU sphere for photon energies from 0.01 to 10
MeV. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 9,49-53.
DIMBYLOW, P. J. and FRANCIS, T. M. (1989). Calibra-
tion of photon personal dosimeters in terms of the
ICRU operational quantities: calculations ofphanom
backscatter and depth-dose. Report No. NRPB-R23.
National Radiological Protection Board, U.K
DREXLER, G. (1968). Verlauf der Ionendosis an Grenz-
schichten. In Microdosimetry, Proc. Symp. Micro-
dosimetry, Ispra, 13-15 November 1967, ed. H. G.
Ebert, pp. 433-442. EUR 3747 d-f-e, European
Communities, Brussels.
DREXLER, G., ECKERL, H., ZANKL, M. (1989a). On the
influence of the exposure model on organ doses.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 28, 181-188.
EMMETT, M. B. (1975). The MORSE Monte Carlo
 radiation transport system. Report No. ORNL-
4972. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
FERRARI, A P. and GUARALDI, P. (1992). An improved
multiple scattering model for charged particle
transport. Nucl. Instr. Meth., B71, 412-426.
FERRARI, A and PELLICCIONI, M. (1994a). On the
conversion coefficients from fluence to ambient
dose equivalent. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 51(4),251-
255.
FERRARI, A and PELLICCIONI, M. (1994b). Dose equiva-
lents for monoenergetic photons incident on the
ICRU sphere. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 51,207-210.
FORD, R. L. and NELSON, W. R. (1978). The EGS code
system: computer programmes for the Monte Carlo
simulation of electromagnetic cascades showers.
Report No. SLAC-210, Version 3. Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.
GARBER, D. (1979). Evaluated Nuclear Data File
ENDFIB, Version IV. Brookhaven National Labo-
ratory, Upton, New York.
GOLOVACHIK, V. T., KUSTRARJOV, V. N., SAVITSKAYA,
E. N., SANNIKOV, A V. (1989). Absorbed dose and
dose equivalent depth distributions for protons
with energies from 2 to 600 MeV. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim., 28, 189-199.
GOUDSMIT, S. and SAUNDERSON, T. L. (1940). Multiple
scattering of electrons. Phys. Rev., 57,24.
GROSSWENDT, B. (1989). Conversion coefficients for
the ICRU operational quantities in a cubic water
phantom for the individual monitoring of photons.
In Intercomparison for individual monitoring. Re-
port IAEA-RC-408. International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, Austria.
GROSSWENDT, B. (1990). Conversion coefficients for
calibrating individual photon dosimeters in terms
of dose equivalents defined in an ICRU tissue cube
and PMMA slabs. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 32, 219-231.
GROSSWENDT, B. (1991). The angular dependence and
irradiation geometry factor for the dose equivalent
for photons in slab phantoms of tissue-equivalent
material and PMMA. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 31,
221-235.
GROSSWENDT, B. (1993). The fluence-to-absorbed dose
conversion factors for 4-element ICRU tissue, wa-
ter, and PMMA slab phantoms irradiated by broad
external electron beams of normal and oblique
incidence. PTB Report Dos-22. Physikalisch-Tech-
nische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig.
GROSSWENDT, B. (1994a). Determination of electron
depth-dose curves for water, ICRU tissue, and
PMMA and their application to radiation protec-
tion dosimetry. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 54,85-97.
GROSSWENDT, B. (1994b). Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, private communi-
cation.
GROSSWENDT, B. and CHARTIER, J. L. (1994). Fluence-
to-absorbed dose conversion coefficients and angu-
lar-dependence factors for 4-element ICRU tissue,
water and PMMA slab phantoms irradiated by
broad electron beams, PTB-Report Dos-24. Physi-
kalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig.
GROSSWENDT, B. and Hohlfeld, K (1982). Angular
dependence of specified depth dose equivalent
quantities in the ICRU sphere for photon radia-
tion. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 3, 169-174.
GROSSWENDT, B. and Roos, M. (1986). Zur Bestim-
mung von Elektronenreichweiten in Wasser aus
Messungen in Festktirperphantomen, Medizin
Physik,265-274.
GROSSWENDT, B., HOHLFELD, K, KRAMER, H. M.,
SELBACH, H. J. (1988). Conversion factors for ICRU
dose equivalent quantities for the calibration of
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
radiation protection dosimeters. Report PTB-DOS-
lIe. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt,
Braunschweig.
GROSSWENDT, B., BUERMANN, L., KRAMER, H. M., TILL,
E., ZANKL, M. (nd). Reference coefficients H p (0.07,a)
and H p (10,a) from air kerma to the dose equiva-
lent quantities in the ICRU slab (unpublished).
GUARALDI, R. and PADOANI, F. (1994a). Implementa-
tion ofalgorithms based on a new electron model in
MCNP (under-pinned by Moliere theory). ENEA
Report RTIERG/94/17. European Nuclear Energy
Agency, Paris.
GUARALDI, R. and PADOANI, F. (1994b). Benchmark-
ing of the code MNNP-BO-ENEA. ENEA Report
RTIERG/94/21. European Nuclear Energy Agency,
Paris.
GUALDRINI, G. F. and PADOANI, F. (nd). MCNPE-BO. A
New Version of MCNP for the Coupled Transport of
Neutrons, Photons and Electrons: User Manual
(unpublished).
GUALDRINI, G. F., DE MAIo, U., PADOANI, F. (1994).
Absorbed doses per unit fluence for tissue equiva-
lent slab phantoms for electrons from 50 ke V to 10
MeV. ENEA Report RT/AMB 94/23. European
Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris.
HALBLEIB, J. A, KENSEK, R. P., MEHLHORN, T. A,
VALDEZ, G. D., SELTZER, S. M., BERGER, M. J. (1992).
ITS version 3.0: the integrated TIGER series of
electron 1photon transport codes. Report No. SAND
91-1634. Sandia National Laboratories, Liver-
more, California.
HIRAYAMA, H. (1994). Calculation of absorbed dose at
0.07,3.0, and 10.0 mm depths in a slab phantom
for monoenergetic electrons. Radiat. Prot. Dosim.,
51,107-124.
HOLLNAGEL, R. A (1990). Effective dose equivalent
and organ doses for neutrons from thermal to 14
MeV. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 30, 149-159.
HOLLNAGEL, R. A (1992). Calculated effective doses
in anthropoid phantoms for broad neutron beams
with energies from thermal to 19 MeV. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 44, 155-158. 123
 HOLLNAGEL, R. A (1994a). Conversion functions of
effective dose, E, and effective dose equivalent, HE
for neutrons with energies from thermal to 20
MeV. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 54,209-212.
HOLLNAGEL, R. A (1994b). Conversion functions of
the dose equivalent H s\(10) in the ICRU slab used
for the calibration of personal neutron dosimeters.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 54,227-230.
HOLLNAGEL, R. A, JAHR, R., SIEBERT, B. R. L. (1984).
Influence of charged particle build-up on dosimet-
ric quantities in the surface layer of the ICRU
spherical phantom. In Radiation-Risk-Protec-
tion, Compacts of the 6th Int. Congr. IRPA, 7-12
May 1984, Berlin, Vol. III, pp. 970-973.
HOLLNAGEL, R. A, ALBERTS, W. G., DIETZE, G. (1994).
On the definition of the remainder in ICRP 60 with
respect to external neutron irradiation. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 51,93-97.
HUBBELL, J. H. (1982). Photon mass attenuation and
energy-absorption coefficients from 1 keV to 20
MeV. Int. J. Appl. Radiat. Isot., 33, 1269-1290.
HUBBELL, J. H. and SELTZER, S. M. (1995). Tables of
X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass en-
ergy-absorption coefficients from 1 keV to 20 MeV
for elements Z = 1 to Z = 92 and 48 additional
substances of dosimetric interest. NIST Report
NISTIR 5632, May 1995. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Mary-
land.
ICRP (1958). Recommendations of the ICRp, ICRP
Publication 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1964). Protection Against Electromagnetic Ra-
diation above 3 MeV and Electrons, Neutrons and
Protons, ICRP Publication 4. Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
ICRP (1970). Protection Against Ionizing Radiation
from External Sources, ICRP Publication 15. Per-
gamon Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1973). Data for Protection Against Ionizing
Radiation from External Sources (Supplement to
ICRP Publication 15), ICRP Publication 21. Per-
gamon Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1975). Report of the Task Group on Reference
Man, ICRP Publication 23. Pergamon Press, Ox-
ford.
ICRP (1977). Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Pub-
lication 26. Annals of the ICRP 1(3). Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1978). Statement from the 1978 Stockholm
Meeting of the International Commission on Radio-
logical Protection. Annals of the ICRP 2(1). Per-
gamon Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1980). Statement and Recommendations of the
International Commission on Radiological Protec-
tion from its 1980 Stockholm Meeting. Annals of
the ICRP 4(3/4). Pergamon Press, Oxford.
124 ICRP (1985). Statement from the 1985 Paris Meeting
of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Annals of the ICRP 15(2/3). Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1987). Data for Use in Radiological Protection
Against External Radiation, ICRP Publication 51.
Annals of the ICRP 17(2/3). Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
ICRP (1991a). Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Pub-
lication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21(1-3). Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1991b). Annual Limits on Intake of Radionu-
clides by Workers Based on the 1990 Recommenda-
tions, ICRP Publication 61. Annals of the ICRP
21(1--4). Pergamon Press, Oxford.
ICRP (1995a). Age-dependent Doses to Members of
the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 3.
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
Ingestion Dose Coefficients. ICRP Publication 69.
Annals of the ICRP 25(1). Elsevier Science, Ox-
ford.
ICRP (1995b). Age-dependent Doses to Members of
the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 4.
Inhalation Dose Coefficients. ICRP Publication 71.
Annals of the ICRP 25(3--4). Elsevier Science,
Oxford.
ICRPIICRU (1963). Report of the ICRPIICRU Com-
mittee on RBE, Health Phys., 9,357.
ICRU (1971). Radiation protection instrumentation
and its application. ICRU Report 20. International
Commission on Radiation Units and Measure-
ments, Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1976). Conceptual basis for the determination
of dose equivalent. ICRU Report 25. International
Commission on Radiation Units and Measure-
ments, Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1977). Neutron dosimetry for biology and
medicine. ICRU Report 26. International Commis-
sion on Radiation Units and Measurements,
Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1980). Radiation quantities and units. ICRU
Report 33. International Commission on Radia-
tion Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Mary-
land.
ICRU (1984). Stopping powers for electrons and
positrons. ICRU Report 37. International Commis-
sion on Radiation Units and Measurements,
Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1985). Determination of dose equivalents re-
sulting from external radiation sources. ICRU
Report 39. International Commission on Radia-
tion Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Mary-
land.
ICRU (1986). The quality factor in radiation protec-
tion. ICRU Report 40. International Commission
on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda,
Maryland.
ICRU (1988). Determination of dose equivalents from
external radiation sources-part 2. ICRU Report
 43. International Commission on Radiation Units
and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1992a). Measurement of dose equivalents from
external photon and electron radiations. ICRU
Report 47. International Commission on Radia-
tion Units and Measurements, Bethesda, Mary-
land.
ICRU (1992b). Phantoms and computational models
in therapy, diagnosis and protection. ICRU Report
48. International Commission on Radiation Units
and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1993a). Stopping powers and ranges for pro-
tons and alpha-particles. ICRU Report 49. Interna-
tional Commission on Radiation Units and Mea-
surements, Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1993b). Quantities and units in radiation
protection dosimetry. ICRU Report 51. Interna-
tional Commission on Radiation Units and Mea-
surements, Bethesda, Maryland.
ICRU (1996). Dosimetry of external beta-rays for
radiation protection. ICRU Report 56. Interna-
tional Commission on Radiation Units and Mea-
surements, Bethesda, Maryland.
ISO (1992). X- and gamma-reference radiations for
calibrating dosimeters and dose rate meters and for
determining their response as a function of photon
energy - part 1: characteristics of the radiation
and their methods of production. ISO Report/CD
4037-1 (International Organization for Standard-
ization, Geneva).
ISO (1993). Reference beta-radiations for calibrating
dosimeters and dose rate meters and for determin-
ing their response as a function of beta-radiation
energy. ISO ReportJDIS 6980 (International Orga-
nization for Standardization, Geneva).
ISO (1995a). Reference photon radiations: calibra-
tion of area and personal dosimeters and the
determination of their response as a function of
photon energy and angle of incidence. ISO Report!
CDV 4037-3 (International Organization for Stan-
dardization, Geneva).
ISO (1995b). Reference neutron radiations: calibra-
tion of area and personal dosimeters and the
determination of their response as a function of
neutron energy and angle of incidence. ISO Report!
CDV 8529-3 (International Organization for Stan-
dardization, Geneva).
ISO (nd). X and gamma reference radiation for
calibrating dose meters and dose rate meters and
for determining their response as a function of
photon energy - Part 3: Area and personal doseme-
ters. Draft International Standard ISOID15 4037-3
(International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva).
JAHR, R and SIEBERT, B. R L. (1991). Some consider-
ations on radiation weighting factors for neutrons.
Letter to the Editor. Rad. Prot. Dosim., 35,271-272.
JAHR, R, HOLLNAGEL, R, SIEBERT, B. R L. '(1985).
Calculations of specified depth dose equivalent in
the ICRU sphere resulting from external neutron
irradiation with energies ranging from thermal to
20 MeV. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 10,75-87.
KALINOYSKII, AN., MOI{HOY, N. v., NIKITIN, Yu. P.,
TRANs. S. Y. AMORETTI (1989). Passage of High-
Energy Particles through Matter. American Insti-
tute of Physics, New York.
KNIGHT, J. N. and ROUSSIN, R W. (1983). Photon
interaction data. Report No. DLC-99/HUGO. Ra-
diation Shielding Information Center, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
KRAMER, R (1979). Ermittlung von Konversionsfak-
toren zwischen Korperdosen und relevanten Strahl-
ungskenngrossen bei externer Rontgen- und Gam-
mabestrahlung, GSF-Bericht S-556. Gesellschaft
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
fUr Strahlen- und Umweltforschung mbH, Mu-
nich, Germany.
KRAMER, R and DREXLER, G. (1982). On the calcula-
tion of the effective dose equivalent. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim., 3, 13-24.
KRAMER, R, ZANKL, M., WILLIAMS, G., DREXLER, G.
(1982). The calculation of dose from external pho-
ton exposures using reference human phantoms
and Monte Carlo methods. Part I: the male (ADAM)
and female (EVA) adult mathematical phantoms.
GSF-Bericht S-885. Gesellschaft fUr Strahlen- und
Umweltforschung mbH, Munich, Germany.
KUROCHKIN, I. (1994). Institute for High Energy
Physics, Serpukhov, private communication.
LANDAU, L. (1944). On the energy loss of fast par-
ticles by ionization. T Phys. (USSR), 8,201.
LEUTHOLD, G. and SCHRAUBE, H. (1992). GSF-
Forschungszentrum fur Umwelt und Gesundheit,
Neuherberg, private communication.
LEUTHOLD, G., MARES, v., SCHRAUBE, H. (1992). Calcu-
lation of the neutron ambient dose equivalent on
the basis of the ICRP revised quality factors.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 40, 77-84.
LEUTHOLD, G., MARES, V., SCHRAUBE, H. (nd). Monte
Carlo Calculation ofDose Equivalents for Neutrons
in Anthropomorphic Phantoms using ICRP-60 Rec-
ommendations. GSF-Bericht, private communica-
tion.
LEWIS, C. A and ELLIS, R E. (1979). Additions to the
Snyder mathematical phantom. Phys. Med. Biol.,
24,1019-1024.
LICHTENSTEIN, H., COHEN, M. 0., STEINBER, H . A,
TRUBETZKOY, E. S., BEER, M. (1979). The SAM-CE
Monte Carlo System for Radiation Transport and
Criticality Calculations in Complex Configura-
tions, Revision 7.0. Computer Code Manual of the
Electric Power Research Institute (MAGI) EPRI-
CCM-8. Mathematical Application Group Inc., Palo
Alto, California.
Lux, I. and KOBLINGER, L. (1991). Monte Carlo Par-
ticle Transport Methods: Neutron and Photon Cal-
culations. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 125
 MA, C. M. (1992). Monte-Carlo simulation of doseme-
ter response using transputers-Joint Depart-
ment of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research
and The Royal Marsden Hospital. [CR-PHYS,
1,92.
MA, C. M. (1995). The fluence-to-dose-equivalent
conversion factors for 4-element [CRU tissue, wa-
ter and PMAA slab phantoms irradiated by exter-
nal electron beams. NRCC Report PIRS-0490, Na-
tional Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
MARSHALL, M., THOMAS, D. J., PERKS, C. A., NAISMITH,
O. F. (1994). Radiation quantities: significance of
the angular and energy distribution of the radia-
tion field. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 54(3/4), 239-248.
MOLIERE, G. (1948). Theorie der Streuung schneller
geladener Teilchen, II Mehrfach-und Vielfach-
streuung-Z. Naturforsch. A, 3A, 78-97.
MORSTIN, K, KOPEC, M., SCHMITZ, TH. (1992). Equiva-
lent dose versus dose equivalent for neutrons
based on new ICRP recommendations. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 44, 159-164.
NABELSSI, B. K and HERTEL, N. E. (1993a). Ambient
dose equivalents, effective dose equivalents and
effective doses for neutrons from 10 to 20 MeV.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 48, 153-168.
NABELSSI, B. K and HERTEL, N. E. (1993b). Effective
dose equivalent and effective dose for neutrons
from 30 to 180 MeV. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 48,
227-243.
NABELSSI, B. K and HERTEL, N. E. (1994). Ambient
dose equivalent, deep dose equivalent index and
ICRU sphere depth-dose calculations for neutrons
from 30 to 180 MeV. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 51,
169-182.
NAHUM, A. E. (1976). Calculations of electron flux
spectra in water irradiated with megavoltage elec-
tron and photon beams with applications to dosim-
etry. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, U.K
NCRP (1957). Protection against neutron radiation
up to 30 MeV. NCRP Report No. 20. National
Committee on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ment, Washington D.C.
NCRP (1991). Conceptual basis for calculations of
absorbed dose. NCRP Report No. 108. National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments, Bethesda, Maryland.
NELSON, W. R, HIRAYAMA, H., ROGERS, D. W. O.
(1985). The EGS4 code-system. Report No. SLAC
235. Stanford Linear Accelerator, Stanford, Califor-
nIa.
NNCSC (1974). Evaluated nuclear data file ENDF 1B,
version Iv. Prepared by the National Neutron
Cross Section Center, Upton, Long Island, New
York.
PADOANI, F. (1993). ENEA, Centro Richerche Energia
'Ezio ClementeI', Bologna, Italy, private communi-
126 cation.
PATTERSON, H. W. and THOMAS, R H. (1973). Accelera-
tor Health Physics. Academic Press, New York.
PETOUSSI, N., ZANKL, M., FEHRENBACHER, G., DREX-
LER, G. (1993). Dose distribution in the [CRU
sphere for monoenergetic photons and electrons
and for ca. 800 radionuclides. GSF-Bericht
D-85748. GSF-Forschungszen-trum fUr Umwelt
und Gesundheit, N euherberg, Germany.
PETOUSSI-HENSS, N., ZANKL, M., DREXLER, G. (1994).
Depth-dose distribution for electrons and beta
rays in the ICRU sphere. In Strahlenschutz: Physik
und Messtechnik, Proc. 26th Jahrestagung des
Fachverbandes Strahlenschutz e.v., Karlsruhe,
Germany, 24--26 May, pp. 260-265. Publikationsre-
ihe 'Fortschritte im Strahlenschutz,'W. Koelzer, R
Maushart.
POSNY, F., CHARTIER, J-L., BUXEROLLE, M. (1992).
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
Neutron spectrometry system for radiation protec-
tion: measurements at workplaces and in calibra-
tion fields. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 44, 239-242.
PRAEL, R E. and LICHTENSTEIN, H. (1989). User guide
to LSC: the LAHET code system. Report No. LA- UR-
89-3014. Radiation Transport Group, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
REECE, W. D., POSTON, J. w., Xu, X. G. (1993).
Assessment of the effective dose equivalent for
external photon radiation, volume 1: calculational
results for beam and point source geometries. Re-
port No. TR-101909. Electric Power Research Insti-
tute, Palo Alto, California.
ROHRLICH, F. and CARLSON, B. C. (1954). Positron-
electron differences in energy loss and multiple
scattering. Phys. Rev., 93,38-44.
ROUSSIN, R W., KNIGHT, J. R, HUBBELL, J. H.,
HOWERTON, R (1983). Description of the DLC-991
HUGO package of photon interaction data in
ENDFIB-V format. Report No. ORNL-RSIC-46
(ENDF-335). Radiation Shielding Information Cen-
ter, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
SANNIKOV, A. V. and SAVITSKAYA, E. N. (1993). Ambi-
ent dose and ambient dose equivalent conversion
factors for high energy neutrons. Report CERNITIS-
RP/93-14. CERN, Geneva.
SANNIKOV, A. V. and SAVITSKAYA, E. N. (nd). Ambient
dose and ambient dose equivalent conversion fac-
tors for high energy neutrons. In Proceedings of
the Eighth Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry,
Paris, 13-17 November 1995. European Centre for
Nuclear Research, Geneva.
SCHULTZ, F. W. and ZOETELIEF, J. (1996). Organ and
effective doses in the male phantom ADAM ex-
posed in AP direction to broad beams of monoener-
getic electrons. Health Phys., 70(4),498-504.
SCHULTZ, F. W. and ZOETELIEF, J. (nd). Organ doses
per unit fluence for adult persons in broad anterior-
posterior beams of monoenergetic electrons (0.1 to
 10 Me V); Monte Carlo calculations, private commu-
nication.
SCHUHMACHER, H. and SIEBERT, B. R L. (1992).
Quality factors and ambient dose equivalent for
neutrons based on the new ICRP recommenda-
tions. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 40(2), 85-89.
SCHUHMACHER, H., HOLLNAGEL, R, SIEBERT, B. R L.
(1994). Sensitivity study of parameters influenc-
ing calculations offtuence-to-ambient dose equiva-
lent conversion coefficients for neutrons. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 54,221-225.
SELBACH, H-J., GROSSWENDT, B., HOHLFELD, K., KRA-
MER, H. M. (1985). Experimental and computa-
tional determination ofthe dose equivalent distri-
bution in the ICRU sphere. Radiat. Prot. Dosim.,
12(2),129-133.
SELTZER, S. M. (1991). Electron-photon Monte Carlo
calculations. The ETRAN code. Appl. Radiat. Isot.,
42(10),917-94l.
SELTZER, S. M. and BERGER, M. J. (1986). Bremstrahl-
ung energy spectra from electrons with kinetic
energy 1 keV-10 GeV incident on screened nuclei
and orbital electrons. Atomic Data Nucl. Data
Tables, 35, 345.
SHIBATA, K., NAKAGAWA, T., ASAMI, T., FUKAHORI, T.,
NARITA, T., CHIBA, S., MIZUMOTO, M., HASEGAWA,A,
KIKUCHI, Y., NAKAYIMA, Y., IGARASI, S. (1990). Japa-
nese evaluated nuclear data library. Report No.
JEARI 1319, Version 3. Japan Atomic Energy Re-
search Institute, Tokai-mura, Naka-gun, Ibarakl,
Japan.
SIEBERT, B. R L. (1994a). Radiation quantities; their
interrelationships. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. , 54, 193-
202.
SIEBERT, B. R L. (1994b). Some considerations on the
interrelation of stopping power data for heavy ions
in water and quality factors for neutrons. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 51,301-303.
SIEBERT, B. R L. and SCHUHMACHER, H. (1994).
Calculated ftuence-to-directional and personal dose
equivalent conversion coefficients for neutrons.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 54,231-238.
SIEBERT, B. R L. and SCHUHMACHER, H. (1995).
Quality factors, ambient and personal dose equiva-
lent for neutrons, based on the new ICRU stopping
power data for protons and alpha particles. Ra-
diat. Prot. Dosim., 58, 177-183.
SIEBERT, B. R L., ALBERTS, W. G., HOLLNAGEL, R A,
LEUTHOLD, G., SCHRAUBE, H. (1995). A proposal to
revise the radiation weighting factors for neutrons
on the basis of new calculations. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim., 58, 69-71.
SIEBERT, B. R L., DIETZE, G., HOLLNAGEL, R A,
LEUTHOLD, G., MORSTIN, K., PERKS, C.A, SCHRAUBE,
H. (nd). Neutron fluence-to-protection and -to-
operational quantities coefficients. EURADOS Re-
port PTB-ND. Physikalisch-Technische Bunde-
sanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany.
SNYDER, W S., FORD, M. R, WARNER, G. G., FISHER,
H. L. (1969). Estimates of absorbed fractions for
monoenergetic photon sources uniformly distrib-
uted in various organs of a heterogeneous phan-
tom, MIRD Pamphlet No.5. Society of Nuclear
Medicine, New York.
SNYDER, W S., FORD, M. R, WARNER, G. G. (1978).
Estimates of specific absorbed fractions for photon
sources uniformly distributed in various organs of
a heterogeneous phantom, MIRD Pamphlet No.5,
Revised. Society of Nuclear Medicine, New York.
SPANIER, J. and GELBARD, E. M. (1969). Monte Carlo
Principles and Neutron Transport Problem. Addi-
son-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
STERNHEIMER, R M., BERGER, M. J., SELTZER, S. M.
(1984). Density effect for the ionization loss of
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
charged particles in various substances. Atomic
Data and Nucl. Data Tables, 30, 261-27l.
STEWART, R D., TANNER, J. E., LEONOWICH, J. A
(1993). An extended tabulation of effective dose
equivalent from neutrons incident on a male an-
thropomorphic phantom. Health Phys., 65(4),405-
413.
STORM, E. and ISRAEL, H. I. (1970). Photon cross
sections from 1 ke V to 100 Me V for elements Z = 1
to Z = 100. Nucl. Data Tables, A7, 565-68l.
TILL, E., ZANKL, M., DREXLER, G. (1995). Angular
dependence of depth doses in a tissue slab irradi-
ated with monoenergetic photons, GFS-Bericht 27/
95. GSF-Forschungszentrum fUr Umwelt und Ge-
sundheit, Neuherberg, Germany.
VEIT, R, ZANKL, M., PETOUSSI, N., MANNWEILER, E.,
WILLIAMS, G., DREXLER, G. (1989). Tomographic
anthropomorphic models. Part I: construction tech-
nique and description of models of an 8-week-old
baby and a 7-year-old child, GSF-Bericht No. 3/89.
Gesellschaft fUr Strahlen und Umweltforschung
mbH, Munich, Germany.
VEIT, R, PANZER, W, ZANKL, M., SCHEURER, C. (1992).
Vergleich berechneter und gemessener Dosen an
einem anthropomorphen Phantom. Z. Med. Phys.,
2,123-126.
WAGNER, S. R (1987). The definition ofthe individual
dose equivalent. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 20, 271-
273.
WAGNER, S. R, GROSSWENDT, B., HARVEY, J. R, MILL,
A. J., SELBACH, H. J., SIEBERT, B. R L. (1985).
Unified conversion coefficients for the new ICRU
operational radiation protection quantities. Ra-
diat. Prot. Dosim., 12,231-235.
WARNER, G. G. and CRAIG, A. M. JR (1968). ALGAM, a
computer program for estimating internal dose for
gamma-ray sources in a man phantom. Report No.
ORNL-TM-2250. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
WHITE, R M., BROERSE, J. J., DELUCA, P. M. JR.,
DIETZE, G., HAIGHT, R C., KAWASHIMA, K., MENZEL,
H. G., OLSSON, N., WAMBERSIE, A. (1992). Status of 127
 nuclear data for use in neutron therapy. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 44, 11-20.
WILLIAMS, G., ZANKL, M., ECKERL, H., DREXLER, G.
(1985a). Organ doses from occupational exposures.
GSF-Bericht S-1079. Gesellschaft fUr Strahlen
und Umweltforschung mbH, Munich, Germany.
WILLIAMS, G., JANKOWSKI, J., SWANSON, W. P., DREX-
LER, G. (1985b). Comparison of experimental and
theoretical depth doses in the ICRU sphere using
137CS. Health Phys., 49, 94-99.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. (1991). DEEP code to calculate dose
equivalents in human phantom for external photon
exposure by Monte Carlo method. Report No.
JAERI-M 90-235. Japan Atomic Energy Research
Institute, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-Ken, Japan.
YAMAGUCHI, y. (1992). JEUNESSE: a computer code
to calculate photon external doses using age-
specific phantoms. Hoken Butsuri (J. Japan Health
Phys. Soc.), 27, 305-312.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. (1993). Effective dose for external
neutron exposure. Radioisotopes, 42, 35-36.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. (1994a). Dose conversion coefficients
for external photons based on ICRP 1990 recom-
mendations. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 31, 716-725.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. (1994b). Age-dependent effective doses
for external photons. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 55,
123-129.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. (1994c). Age-dependent effective doses
for neutrons from thermal to 18.3 MeV. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim., 55,257-263.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. (1994d). Calculation of effective dose
for external neutrons. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 31,
821-827.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. and YOSHIZAWA, M. (1991). Calculation
of effective dose for external photon exposure
based on ICRP new recommendations. In Proc. IV
128
Natl Congr. Radiat. Prot. Soc., Int. Cont Implica-
tions of the New ICRP Recommendations on Ra-
diat., Prot. Practices and Interventions, Sala-
manca, Spain, 6-9 November, pp. 485-495.
YAMAGUCHI, Y. and YOSHIZAWA, M. (1992). Angular
dependence of organ doses and effective dose for
external photon irradiation. In Proc. 8th World
Congr. Int. Radiat. Prot. Assoc., Montreal, Canada,
17-22 May, pp. 1237-1240, International Radia-
tion Protection Association, Montreal, Canada.
ZANKL, M. and DREXLER, G. (1995). An analysis of the
equivalent dose calculation for the remainder tis-
sues. Health Phys., 69, 346-355.
ZANKL, M., VEIT, R., WILLIAMS, G., SCHNEIDER, K,
FENDEL, H., PETOUSSI, N., DREXLER, G. (1988). The
construction of computer tomographic phantoms
and their application in radiology and radiation
Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016
protection. Radiat. Environ. Biophys., 27, 153-164.
ZANKL, M., PETOUSSI, N., DREXLER, G. (1992). Effec-
tive dose and effective dose equivalent-the im-
pact of the new ICRP definition for external pho-
ton irradiation. Health Phys., 62(51), 395-399.
ZANKL, M., DREXLER, G., PETOUSSI-HENSS, N., SAITO,
K (1997) The Calculation of Dose from External
Photon Exposures Using Reference Human Phantoms
and Monte Carlo Methods. Part VII: Organ Doses Due
to Parallel and Environmental Exposure Geometries,
GSF-Bericht 8/97. GSF-Forschungszentrum fur Um-
welt und Gesundheit, Neuherberg, Germany.
ZANKL, M., PETOUSSI, N., DREXLER, G. (nd). Tomo-
graphic Anthropomorphic Models, Part III: Organ
Doses to an Eight Week Old Baby and a Seven Year
Old Child due to Parallel and Environmental
Exposure Geometries, GSF-Bericht. GSF-For-
schungszentrum fur Umwelt und Gesundheit, Neu-
herberg, Germany (in preparation).
 ICRU Reports
ICRU Reports are distributed by the ICRU Publications' office. Information on prices and how to order
may be obtained from:

ICRU Publications
7910 WoodmontAvenue, Suite 800
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
U.S.A.
Phone (301) 657-2652
FPLK(301) 907-8768
Email: icru@icru.org
Online: http://www.icru.org

Copies ofthe reports may also be purchased from the following:

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Mrs. Brigitte Harder Dr. Minoru Takada
Konrad-Adenauer-StraBe 26 Japan Radioisotope Association
D-37075 Gottingen 28-45, Honkomagome 2-chome
Germany Bunkyoku Tokyo 113, Japan
Phone (0551) 22612
Dr. Torgil MOller
Kazuya Yamashita, Ph.D. Regionala Tumorregistrat
The Japanese Society of Radiological Technology Lasarettet
Nijyo Plaza, 88 Nishinokyo, 22185 Lund
Kitatsuboi -cho, Sweden
Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto 604
Japan
Prof. Andre Wambersie
Unite de Radiobiologie et Radioprotection
UCL-Cliniques St. Luc
Avenue Hippocrate, 54.69
B-1200 Brussels, Belgium
Phone (02) 764.54.68

The currently available ICRU Reports are listed below.

ICRU
Report No. Title
lOb Physical Aspects of Irradiation (1964)
10c Radioactivity (1963)
10f Methods of Evaluating Radiological Equipment and Ma-
terials (1963)
12 Certification of Standardized Radioactive Sources (1968)
13 Neutron Fluence, Neutron Spectra and Kerma (1969)
15 Cameras for Image Intensifier Fluorography (1969)
16 Linear Energy Transfer (1970)
17 Radiation Dosimetry: X Rays Generated at Potentials of 5
to 150kV(1970)
18 Specification of High Activity Gamma-Ray Sources (1970)
20 Radiation Protection Instrumentation and Its Application
(1970)
22 Measurement of Low-Level Radioactivity (1972)
129
 .S
~
23 Measurement ofAbsorbed Dose in a Phantom Irradiated
+'
o.:s by a Single Beam ofX or Gamma Rays (1973)
;.a
o.:s 24 Determination ofAbsorbed Dose in a Patient Irradiated
~
t; by Beams ofX or Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy Proce-
...~
<l)
dures (1976)
+'
~ 25 Conceptual Basis for the Determination of Dose Equiva-
lent (1976)
"'rn"
+'
~ 26 Neutron Dosimetry for Biology and Medicine (1977)
'ca
~ 27 An International Neutron Dosimetry Intercomparison
.S
~ (1978)
+'
u
<l)
28 Basic Aspects of High Energy Particle Interactions and
+'
...
0 Radiation Dosimetry (1978)
~ 30 Quantitative Concepts and Dosimetry in Radiobiology
t;
u
'So
(1979)
'0
0 31 Average Energy Required to Produce an Ion Pair (1979)
;.a 32 Methods ofAssessment ofAbsorbed Dose in Clinical Use
o.:s
~ of Radionuclides (1979)

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

.S 33 Radiation Quantities and Units (1980)
<l)
rn
;:j 34 The Dosimetry of Pulsed Radiation (1982)
... 36 Microdosimetry (1983)
<8
rn
+'
~
37 Stopping Powers for Electrons and Positrons (1984)
.~
u
38 Dose and Volume Specification for Reporting Intracavi-
!:S
<l)
tary Therapy in Gynecology (1985)
0
u 39 Determination of Dose Equivalents Resulting from Exter-
~
0 nal Radiation Sources (1985)
'00
...
<l)
40 The Quality Factor in Radiation Protection (1986)
:> 41 Modulation Transfer Function of Screen-Film Systems (1986)
~
0
u 42 Use of Computers in External Beam Radiotherapy Proce-
dures with High-Energy Photons and Electrons (1987)
43 Determination of Dose Equivalents from External Radia-
tion Sources-Part 2 (1988)
44 Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measure-
ment (1989)
45 Clinical Neutron Dosimetry - Part I: Determination of
Absorbed Dose in a Patient Treated by External Beams
of Fast Neutrons (1989)
46 Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data
for Body Tissues (1992)
46D Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data
for Body Tissues, with Data Disk (1992)
47 Measurement of Dose Equivalents from External Photon
and Electron Radiations (1992)
48 Phantoms and Computational Models in Therapy, Diag-
nosis and Protection (1992)
49 Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha
Particles (1993)
00
49D Stopping Powers and Ranges for Protons and Alpha
0>
0>
Particles, with Data Disk (1993)
,.....
rc.: 50 Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam
to Therapy (1993)
...0
+'
51 Quantities and Units in Radiation Protection Dosimetry
0..
~
<l)
(1993)
~ 52 Particle Counting in Radioactivity Measurement (1994)
~
u
...... 53 Gamma-Ray Spectrometry in the Environment (1994)
54 Medical Imaging - The Assessment ofImage Quality (1995)
55 Secondary Electron Spectra from Charged Particle Inter-
actions (1995)
130
 56 Dosimetry of External Beta Rays for Radiation Protection
57 Conversion Coefficients for Use in Radiological Protection
against External Radiation

Binders for ICRU Reports are available. Each binder will accommodate from six to eight reports. The binders
carry the identification, "ICRU Reports", and come with label holders which permit the user to attach labels
showing the Reports contained in each binder.
The following bound sets ofICRU Reports are also available:
Volume I. ICRU Reports lOb, 10c, 10f
Volume II. ICRU Reports 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,20
Volume III. ICRU Reports 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Volume IV. ICRU Reports 27, 28, 30, 31, 32
Volume V. ICRU Reports 33, 34, 35, 36
Volume VI. ICRU Reports 37,38,39,40,41

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Volume VII. ICRU Reports 42, 43, 44
Volume VIII. ICRU Reports 45, 46, 47
Volume IX. ICRU Reports 48, 49, 50, 51
(Titles of the individual Reports contained in each volume are given in the list of Reports set out above.)
The following ICRU Reports are now superseded and/or out of print:

ICRU
Report No. Title and Reference *
1 Discussion on International Units and Standards for
X-ray work, Br. J. Radiol. 23, 64 (1927).
2 International X-Ray Unit of Intensity, Br. J. Radiol. (new
series) 1,363 (1928).
3 Report of Committee on Standardization ofX-ray Mea-
surements, Radiology 22,289 (1934).
4 Recommendations of the International Committee for Ra-
diological Units, Radiology 23,580 (1934).
5 Recommendations of the International Committee for Ra-
diological Units, Radiology 29,634 (1937).
6 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection and of the International Com-
mission on Radiological Units, National Bureau of
Standards Handbook 47 (U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1951).
7 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Units, Radiology 62, 106 (1954).
8 Report of the International Commission on Radiological
Units and Measurements (lCRU) 1956, National Bu-
reau of Standards Handbook 62 (U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1957).
9 Report of the International Commission on Radiological
Units and Measurements (lCRU) 1959, National Bu-
reau of Standards Handbook 78 (U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1961).
lOa Radiation Quantities and Units, National Bureau of
Standards Handbook 84 (U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1962).
10d Clinical Dosimetry, National Bureau of Standards Hand-
book 87 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1968).
131
 10e Radiobiological Dosimetry, National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 88 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1963).
11 Radiation Quantities and Units (International Commis-
sion on Radiation Units and Measurements, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1968).
14 Radiation Dosimetry: X Rays and Gamma Rays with
Maximum Photon Energies Between 0.6 and 50 MeV
(1969).
19 Radiation Quantities and Units (International Commis-
sion on Radiation Units and Measurements, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1971).
19S Dose Equivalent [Supplement to ICRU Report 19] (Inter-
national Commission on Radiation Units and Measure-
ments, Washington, D.C., 1973).
21 Radiation Dosimetry: Electrons with Initial Energies Be-
tween 1 and 50 Me V (International Commission on Ra-
.S

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

diation Units and Measurements, Washington, D.C.,
1972).
29 Dose Specification for Reporting External Beam Therapy
with Photons and Electrons (International Commission
on Radiation Units and Measurements, Washington,
D.C., 1978)
35 Radiation Dosimetry: Electron Beams with Energies Be-
tween 1 and 50 Me V (1984).

*References given are in English. Some of the Reports were also published in other languages.

132
 Index
Absorbed dose, ix, 6 Photons, 83,106
Absorbed dose distributions, 6, 13, 16 Comparison of data, 52
Absorbed dose in the gonads as a function of energy, 41 Electrons, 52
Absorbed dose to various organs Comparisons between quantities, 61
Electrons, 120 Electrons, 60
Neutrons, 90-104, 111-118 Neutrons, 59, 63
Photons, 81-90, 105-109 Photons, 57, 58, 62
Age- and sex-specific models, 15 Comparison of conversion coefficients for effective dose and the
Age dependence of effective dose effective dose equivalent
Electrons, 50 Photons, 58, 67
Photons, 30 Comparison of effective dose, ambient dose equivalent and per-
Aligned field, 10 sonal equivalent, 64
Ambient dose equivalent, ix, 11 Neutrons, 64
Electrons, 50 Comparison of effective dose and a mbient dose equivalent

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Neutrons, 49, 63, 119 Neutrons, 68
Performance, 65 Photons, 67
Personal dose equivalent, 119 Comparison of effective dose and effective dose equivalent
Photons, 31 , 67 Electrons, 62
Angle ex for H ' (d, ex) and Hp(d, ex ), 11 Neutrons, 60
Angular dependence Comparison of dose equivalent determinations in the ICRU
Electrons, 52, 54, 55 sphere and ICRU slab, 50
Angular dependence factors, 63 Electrons, 50
Electrons, 120, 121 Comparison of effective dose and other quantities, 68
Angular dependence of the conversion coefficient, 50 Photons, 69, 70,71,72, 73
Neutrons, 50 Comparison of protection and operational quantities, 65
Angular dependence of effective dose, 29, 41, 50 Irradiation geometries, 65
Electrons, 50 Computer codes
Photons, 29, 30 Electrons, 47
Angular variation, 45 Neutrons, 35
Neutrons, 45 Photons, 23
Angular variation of effective dose for photons, 29, 30 Transport codes, 23
Annexes, 78 Contents, iii
Contents, 78 Continuous slowing-down approximation, 17
Anthropomorphic models, 15 Contributions of specific organs and tissue to effective dose, 34,
Approximation of Hp for neutrons, 74 44,50
Equivalent doses to small organs, 74 Electrons, 50
Approximations to H p for photons, 72 Neutrons, 42
Area monitoring, 66 Photons, 30, 32, 33
Photons, 66 Contributions of specific organs to effective dose and to the effec-
Neutrons, 66 tive dose equivalent
Neutrons, 61
Baby model, 16 Photons, 59
Bladder absorbed dose Contributions of specific organs to effective dose as a function of
Neutrons, 90, 111 energy for neutrons , 43, 45, 46, 47, 48
Photons, 105 Conversion coefficients, 2, 3, 4, 22, 23
Bone, 17 Age dependence, 30, 42
Bone (red marrow) absorbed dose Ambient dose equivalent, 31, 43
Neutrons, 91, 112 Angular dependence, 41 , 45
Photons, 105 Calculations, 51
Bone (surface) absorbed dose Directional dose equivalent, 33, 44
Neutrons, 91, 112 Effective dose, 27, 28, 31, 38, 40
Photons, 82, 105 Electrons, 47, 48, 49, 52,120
Breast (female) absorbed dose, 82 Energy dependence, 28, 40, 41
Neutrons, 113 Methods of calculation, 23, 35, 47
Photons, 82, 106 Models, 25, 36, 48
Broad spectra, 14, 22 Neutrons, 34,37, 40, 41 , 42, 43, 45, 49, 63
Operational quantities, 26, 30, 37, 39, 42
Calculating absorbed dose distributions, 16 Personal dose equivalent, 33, 44
Calibration quantities, 3 Phantoms, 25, 36, 48
Changes in the protection quantities, 61 Photons,23,27,31,33, 58,105,llO-lll
Charged particle equilibrium, 14 Physical data, 25, 36, 49
Child models, 15, 16 Protection quantities, 25, 27, 36, 39, 49
Colon absorbed dose Reference conversion coefficients, 22
Neutrons, 92, 113 Remainder, 40 133
 Selected organs, 37 Organ absorbed dose, 120
Statical uncertainties, 26, 37 Organ and tissue doses, 49
Variability of the data, 26, 37 Personal dose equivalent, 64, 75, 76
Conversion coefficients for the ambient dose equivalent, 110 Protection quantities, 49, 60
Photons, 110 Ratio of the skin dose Hp,sltin, t the directional dose equivalent,
Conversion coefficients for ambient dose equivalent and effective H'(0.07;OO), 77
dose in various irradiation geometries as a function of pho- Reference conversion coefficients, 54, 56, 120
ton energy, 67 Reference values ofthe angular-dependence factor, 56, 120,
Conversion coefficient for directional dose equivalent, 110 121
Photons, 110 Skin dose, 75
Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective Special considerations, 46
dose as a function of photon energy, 69, 73 Uncertainties, 52
Conversion coefficients for H p,slab(10, <X ) as a function of energy Variability of the data, 52, 53, 54
and angle of incidence for neutrons, 49 Energy dependence, 54
Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective Electrons, 54
dose as a function of photon energy, 71, 72 Energy dependence of effective dose, 28, 40
Electrons, 50
Data Energies for conversion coefficients, 22
Electrons, 49 Energy imparted, ix
Neutrons, 36 Equivalent dose, x
Photons, 25 Equivalent dose , 9, 57

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

Data for effective dose from neutrons in various geometries, 102- Equivalent doses to small organs, 72
104 Evolution of quantities, 3
Data for mean absorbed dose to various organs, 96 Expanded and aligned fields, 10
Neutrons, 96-102 Eye lens absorbed dose
DEEP transport code, 18 Photons, 89, 109
Determination of absorbed dose distributions, 13
Directional dose equivalent, ix, 11 Female models, 15
Electrons, 50, 63, 75 Field quantities, 13, 14
Neutrons, 44, 63 Fluence, x
Photons, 62 Foreword, v
Distribution of the absorbed dose, 13
Dose equivalent, ix, 3, 10, 57 Geometries used with the ICRU sphere, 21
Dose equivalent index, ix, 4 Geometries used with the ICRU slab, 21
Dose in bone, 17 Glossary of terms and definitions of quantities, ix
Gonads, female (ovaries) absorbed dose
Effective dose, ix, 9, 10, 28, 29, 38, 57 Neutrons, 92, 114
Age dependence, 30, 42 Photons, 83
Angular dependence, 29, 41 Gonads, male (testes) absorbed dose
Conversion coefficients, 29, 40 Neutrons, 92, 114
Electrons, 75, 120 Photons, 84, 106
Neutrons, 40, 50, 74 Gonads absorbed dose (mean of ovaries and testes), 93
Photons, 26, 27, 67, 68 Neutrons, 92, 114
Specific tissue and organs, 30, 42 Photons, 84, 106
Effective dose as a function of energy and age, 42 Gonads absorbed dose (mean of ovaries and testes), 93
Effective dose equivalent, ix, 5, 57 Neutrons, 93, 115
Effective dose from neutrons in various geometries, 102-104 Photons, 84
Effective dose per unit air kerma, 31 Gonads absorbed dose, 107
Photons, 88, 109 Photons, 107
Effective dose per unit neutron fiuence GSF - national research center for environment and health
Neutrons, 95, 119 codes, 19
EGS4,18
Electrons, 46-56 HADRON code, 19
Absorbed dose to various organs, 120 History of quantities, 3
Age dependence of the effective dose, 50 HL-PH code, 19
Angular dependence, 52, 54 Human body models and phantoms, 15
Angular-dependence factor, 120, 121
Angular dependence of effective dose, 50 ICRP Publication 51,5
Comparison of effective dose and effective dose equivalent, 62 ICRP Publication 60, 5
Contribution of specific organs and tissues to the effective dose, ICRU Report 51, 6
50 ICRU Report 40, 5
Conversion coefficients, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52,120 ICRU Report 47, 6
Data, 49,120--121 ICRU slab, 16, 21 , 50
Directional dose equivalent, 62, 63,75 ICRU sphere, 16, 21, 50
Effective dose, 50, 75, 76 ICRU sphere, 50
Energy dependence, 54 ICRU sphere model, 16
Energy dependence of effective dose, 50 Individual monitoring
Methods for calculating conversion coefficients, 47 Neutrons, 74
Models and phantoms, 48 Photons, 68
134 Operational quantities, 52 Individual dose equivalent, x
Infant models, 15 Energy dependence of effective dose, 40, 42
Introduction, 1 Evaluated and original data for effective dose from neutrons in
Irradiation geometries, 20, 41 various geometries, 102-104
Photons, 26 Evaluated and original data for mean absorbed dose to various
Isotropic geometry, 20 organs, 96--102
Individual monitoring, 74
Kerma,x Methods for calculating conversion coefficients, 35
Kerma approximation, 14, 17 Organ absorbed dose, 37
Organ dose, 37
LAHET code, 19 Operational quantities, 37
Lateral geometry, 20 Performance of ambient dose equivalent, 65
Linear energy transfer, x, 8 Personal dose equivalent, 44, 63, 74, 119
Liver absorbed dose Protection quantities, 39, 59
Neutrons, 93, 115 Ratio of EIH* (10) and E IHp,slab (10), 68
Photons, 85, 107 Ratio EIHp,testes for several irradiation geometries, 76
Lung absorbed dose Ratio EIHp,tbymus for several irradiation geometries, 76
Neutrons, 85, 107 Reference conversion coefficients, 40, 41, 49
Photons, 85, 107 Special considerations, 34
Specific organs and tissues, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 61

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

MADE,4 Skin dose and directional dose equivalent, 75
MCNP code, 19 Transport codes, 35
MCNPE-BO Code, 19 Tissue dose, 37
MCNP4 code, 19 Uncertainties, 37
MORSE-CG code, 19 Variability of the data, 37, 39
Male models, 15 Variability of organ absorbed dose conversion coefficients, 38
Mathematical model phantom, 15
Maximum dose equivalent, 4 Oesophagus absorbed dose
Mean quality factor, xi Neutrons, 94, 116
Mean absorbed dose, 6, 9 Photons, 86, 107
Mean absorbed dose to various organs, 96 Organ absorbed dose, 9
Neutrons, 96--102 Electrons, 120
Mean quality factor, 7, 8, 9 Neutrons, 37
Methods for calculating conversion coefficients Organ and tissue doses
Electrons, 47, 51 Electrons, 49
Neutrons, 24, 35 Neutrons, 39
Photons, 23 Organ dose, x
MIRD phantom, 15 Neutrons, 37
Mixed radiation fields, 14, 22 Photons, 27
Models and phantoms, 25 Organ equivalent doses, 27
Electrons, 48 Organs, xi, 32, 33
Human body, 15 Neutrons, 43, 44, 46,47, 48,61
Neutrons, 36 Photons, 30, 34, 59
Model conformity with ICRP specifications, 16 Operational quantities, x, 1,3,5, 10, 22, 26, 30, 39, 62
Monitoring, 11 Electrons, 52
Monte Carlo technique, 17 Neutrons, 37, 42
Summary, 76
Neutron conversion coefficients, 24, 25
Neutrons Pediatric model, 16
Absorbed dose in gonads, as a function of energy, 41 Paris statement ofthe ICRP, 5
Absorbed dose to various organs, 111-118 Performance of ambient dose equivalent, 65
Age dependence of effective dose, 42 Neutrons, 65
Ambient dose equivalent, 42, 63, 119 Performance of operational quantities, 64
Analysis, 39 Personal dose equivalent, xi, 11, 33, 44, 119
Angular dependence, 45 Electrons, 56, 64, 75, 76
Angular dependence of conversion coefficient, 50 Neutrons, 63,74, 119
Angular dependence of effective dose, 41 Photons, 63, 78, 72
Area monitoring, 66 Phantoms of the human body, 15
Calculations, 24 Photon conversion coefficients, 22, 23
Comparison of effective dose, ambient dose equivalent and per- Photons, 22-33
sonal dose equivalent, 64 Absorbed dose to various organs, 105-109
Comparison of effective dose and effective dose equivalent, 60 Absorbed dose to various organs per unit air kerma, 81-90
Comparison of effective dose and other quantities, 68 Age dependence of effective dose, 30
Computer codes, 35 Ambient dose equivalent, 31, 62, 110
Contribution of specific organs and tissues to effective dose, 42 Angular dependence of effective dose , 29
Conversion Coefficients, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 49, 50, 63 Area monitoring, 66
Data, 36, 112-118 Calculations, 23
Directional dose equivalent, 44, 63 Comparison of effective dose and ambient dose equivalent, 67
Effective dose, 38, 41,74 Comparison of effective dose and other quantities, 69, 72, 73
Effective dose as a function of energy and age, 42 Contributions of specific organs to effective dose, 32
Effective dose per unit neutron fiuence, 95, 119 Conversion coefficients, 27, 58, 67,105,110,111 135
 Conversion coefficients for the ambient dose equivalent, 110 Ratios EIHp,Blob (10) and EIH'(10) for several irradiation geom-
Conversion coefficient for directional dose equivalent, 110 etries
Conversion coefficients for operational quantities and effective Photons, 74
dose as a function of photon energy, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 Ratio EIHp,slab for several irradiation geometries
Data, 25, 105-109 Photons, 75
Directional dose equivalent, 33, 110 Ratio EIHp,testes for several irradiation geometries
Effective dose, 27, 68 Neutrons, 76
Effective dose per unit air kerma, 109 Ratio EIHp,testes for several irradiation geometries
Energy dependence of effective dose, 28 Neutrons, 76
Individual monitoring, 68 Ratio E IH*(1 0)
Operational quantities, 26 Neutrons, 68
Personal dose equivalent, 33, 63, 72 Photons, 67
Protection quantities, 57 Ratio EIH*(10 ) and ElH p.s1ab(10)
Ratio of EIH*(10 ), 67 Neutrons, 68
Ratios E IH p,slob(10, 0°) and E IH'( 10, 0°) as a function of photon Ratios of effective dose, E, to H *( 10) and H p,Blab(lO, 0°)
energy, 69 Neutrons, 64
Ratios EIHp,slob(lO, 180°) and EIH' (10, 180°), 70 References, 122
Ratios E(LAT)H'(lO, 90°), 71 Reference angular dependence factors
Ratios EIHp,slob(ROT) and EIH'(10, ROT), 72 Electrons, 56
Ratio E(ISO)lH'(10, ISO), 73 Reference conversion coefficients
Ratios EIHp,slab(10) and EIH'(10) for several irradiation geom- Ambient dose equivalent, 31, 43, 49

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

etries,74 Directional Dose equivalent, 33
Ratio E IHp,slob for several irradiation geometries, 75 Effective dose, 28, 31, 41
Reference conversion coefficients, 28 Electrons, 52, 56, 120
Special considerations, 23 Neutrons , 34, 40, 41 , 43, 49
Specific organs, 59 Personal dose equivalent, 33
Variability ofthe data, 26 Photons, 22, 27,28, 31
Uncertainties, 26 Reference depth, 11
Physical data, 25 Reference man, 15
Electrons, 49 Reference models, 16
Neutrons, 36 Reference values of the angular-dependence factor for electrons,
Physical quantities, 3, 22 55,120,121
Physical phantom, 15 Relationship between Hp(d), and E, 12
Postero-anterior geometry, 20 Relationships between quantities
Preface, vii Changes in the protection and operational quantities, 57
Procedure, 10 General Conclusions, 77
Protection and Operational quantities for electrons, 52 Relationships between the protection and operational quantities:
Protection quantities, xi, 1,3, 9, 22, 25, 27, 36 the performance of the operational quantities, 64
Electrons, 60 Relative biological effectiveness, xi
Neutrons, 59 Remainder, 9, 10,40, 59
Photons, 57 Remainder absorbed dose
Summary, 61 Neutrons, 94, 117
PTBIBG code, 19 Photons, 86, 108
Remainder dose evaluation, 10
Q, xi, 7, 8, 9 Rotational geometry, 20
Q(L)-relationship,7
Q(L)-L relationship, 8, 9, 63 SAM-CE code, 20
Quality factor, xi, 1, 7 Sex-specific adult models, 15
Quality factor as a function oflinear energy transfer, 8 Simple phantoms, 15
Quantities, ix Skin absorbed dose
Quantities used in radiological protection, 3 Electrons, 75
Neutrons, 94, 117
Radiation energy spectra and mixed radiation fields, 22 Photons, 87, 108
Radiation field , 13, 14 Skin dose and directional dose equivalent, 75
Radiation quality, 1 Neutrons, 75
Radiation transport, 17 Slab phantoms, 15, 16
Radiation weighting factor, x, xi, 1, 6, 7 Specific organs and tissue, 32, 33, 42
Ratio R(0.7, a)IR(0.7, a), 54 Neutrons, 44,46,47,48,61
Ratio EIHE for incident electrons, 62 Photons, 34, 59
Ratio EIHE for several irradiation geometries Special consideration for electrons, 46
Photons, 58 Special considerations for photons, 23
Ratios EIHp,Blab(10, 0°) and EIH'(10 , 0°) as a function of photon Spherical and slab phantoms, 15
energy, 69 Spherical tissue-equivalent model, 16
Ratios EIH p,slab(10, 180°) and EIH'( 10 , 180°),70 Standard and reference models and phantoms, 16
Ratios E(LAT)H'(10, 90°) Statistical uncertainties, 26
Photons, 71 Neutrons, 37
Ratios ElHp,Blab(ROT) and EIH '(10, ROT) Stomach absorbed dose
Photons, 72 Neutrons, 95, 118
RatioE(ISO)IH'(10, ISO) Photons, 87, 108
136 Photons, 73 Stopping power, 8, 9
Tables, 105 MCNP4 Code, 19
Thymus a bsorbed dose MORSE-CG Code, 19
Photons, 89, 109 Neutrons, 35
Thyroid absorbed dose PTBIBG Code, 19
Neutrons, 95, 118 SAM-CE code, 20
Photons, 88, 108
Tissue dose Uncertainties
Photons, 27 Electrons, 53, 54
Tissue weighting factors, ix, xi Neutrons, 37
Tissues,xi,30, 32,33 Photons, 26
Neutrons,43,44,46,47,48,61 Units, ix, xi
Photons, 30, 34, 59 Uterus absorbed dose
Tissue dose Photons, 90, 109
Neutrons, 37, 39
Transport codes, 17, 18 Variability of the data
Deep,18 Electrons, 52, 54
EGS4 code, 18 Photons, 26
EGS4 (*) code, 18 Variation of effective doses with age, 30
EGS4 (**) code, 18 Variability of effective dose conversion coefficients, 39

Downloaded from http://jicru.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on July 10, 2016

ETRAN,18 Neutrons, 39
FANEUT, 18 Variation of effective dose with age
GSF-national research center for environment and health Electrons, 50
codes, 19 Neutrons, 42
HADRON. 19 Variability of operational quantity data for electrons, 53
HL-PH,19 Variability of organ absorbed dose conversion coefficients, 38
JEUNESSE, 19
LAHET code, 19 wR,7
MCNP code, 19 wT, xi
MCNPE-BO code, 19 Weighting factors , ix, xi, 7

137