This study aims to evaluate the dosimetric performance of TLD-200 thermoluminescent dosimeters and compare them with TLD-100, evaluating their suitability for radiation monitoring applications. The research relies on key dosimetric features, including linearity, temperature sensitivity, fading, and reproducibility. All experiments were conducted under controlled environmental conditions, adhering to the ambient temperature and relative humidity specifications provided by the manufacturer. Our work began with the calibration and validation of the Harshaw 6600 TLD reader to ensure accurate dose measurements. A total of 200 dosimeters were used to obtain statistically significant results. Linearity was evaluated for various dose levels provided by the internal Sr-90 beta irradiator, while fading effects were investigated to determine signal attenuation over time. Additionally, temperature sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impact of thermal variations on dosimetric response. Advanced statistical techniques were employed to assess measurement repeatability, reproducibility homogeneity etc. The results demonstrate that both TLD-100 and TLD-200 display reliable performance, with notable variations in sensitivity and stability under different dose ranges and environmental conditions. These outcomes confirm the suitability of the TLD-200 dosimeters for accurate dose measurement for research study and other monitoring measurements, but we can’t use those TLDs in the long term as bimonthly individual monitoring.

1. IAEA, “Occupational Radiation Protection,” pp. 138 - 201, 2014, Proceedings of an International Conference Vienna, Austria, 1–5 December 2014.
   Retrieved from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/STIPUB2004web.pdf
   Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
2. Intercomparison for individual monitoring of external exposure from photon radiation, IAEA-TECDOC-1126, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 1999.
   Retrieved from: https://www.iaea.org/publications/5848/intercomparison-for-individual-monitoring-of-external-exposure-from-photon-radiation
   Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
3. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 103, ICRP, Ottawa, Canada, 2007.
   Retrieved from: https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103
   Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
4. Thermoluminescence dosimetry systems for personal and environmental monitoring, IEC 61066, Jun. 26, 2006.
5. Radiation protection instrumentation–Determination of uncertainty in measurement, IEC TR 62461, IEC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
6. Radiological protection — Criteria and performance limits for the periodic evaluation of dosimetry services for external radiation, ISO 14146, Jul. 2024.
7. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, ISO 17025, Nov. 2017.
8. Nuclear energy - Radiation protection Individual Thermoluminecient dosemeter for extremities and eyes, ISO 12794, Mar. 2000.
9. T. Y. Kong, H. G. Kim, “Application of element correction and personal dose equivalent response to extremity dosimeters used at Korean nuclear power plants,” J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 352 – 359, 2012.
   DOI: 10.1080/00223131.2012.660013
10. M. Sadeghi, S. Sina, R. Faghihi , “Investigation of LiF, Mg and Ti (TLD-100) Reproducibility,” J. Biomed. Phys. Eng., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 217 – 222, Dec. 2015.
    PMid: 26688801
    PMCid: PMC4681467
11. R. Ch. Abul-Hail, M. K. Abdallah, “Characterization of TL-D200 and TL-D100 for Thermoluminescent Radiation Dosimetry,” IJETR, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 85 - 87, May 2018.
    Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/696238451/Characterization-of-TL-D200-and-TL-D100-for-Radiation-Dosimetry
    Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
12. S. F. Alanazi, H. Alarifi, A. Alshehri, M. Almurayshid, “Response evaluation of two commercial thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) against different parameters,” BJR|Open,vol. 5, no. 1, 20220035, Nov. 2023.
    DOI: 10.1259/bjro.20220035
13. J. S. Stanković-Petrović et al., “Review of the thermoluminescent dosimetry method for the environmental dose monitoring,” Nucl. Technol. Radiat. Prot., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 150 - 162, 2021.
    DOI: 10.2298/NTRP2102150S
14. N. Kržanović et al., “Characterization of Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Systems According to the IEC 62387:2020 Standard,” Health Phys., vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 186 - 197, Sep. 2023.
    DOI: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001711
15. D. S. Kim et al., “Intercomparison Exercise at Harshaw 6600, DVG-02TM, and D-Shuttle Dosimeters for the Individual Monitoring of Ionizing Radiation,” J. Radiat. Prot. Res., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 79 - 88, Jun. 2019.
    DOI: 10.14407/jrpr.2019.44.2.79
16. S. I. Bhuiyan et al., “Quality Assurance and Quality Control in TLD Measurement,” in Proc. The Second All African IRPA Regional Radiation Protection Congress (IRPA-2007), Ismailia, Egypt, 2007, pp. 103 - 112.
    Retrieved from: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/21073073
    Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
17. K. J. Velbeck, L. Z. Luo, K. L. Streetz, “Type testing the Model 6600 plus automatic TLD reader,” vol. 120, no. 1 - 4, pp. 303 - 306, Sep. 2006.
    DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncj012
18. J. F. Benavente, J. M. Gómez-Ros, A. M. Romero, “Thermoluminescence glow curve deconvolution for discrete and continuous trap distributions,” Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 153, 108843, Nov. 2019.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2019.108843
19. E. Gega, E. Bylyku, “Statistical Evaluation of Elements Correction Coefficients to Improve the Performance of TLDs in Radiation Protection Dosimeters,” EMSJ, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1 - 12, Jun. 2025.
    DOI: 10.59573/emsj.9(3).2025.01
20. M. Giglioli, V. D. Gonçalves, M. A. R. Fernandes, H. Yoriyaz, “Calculation of Correction Factors for Dosimeters Thermoluminescent of Lithium Fluoride (LiF-100) for Use in 6MV Photon Beams,” in Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Medical Physics (ICMP2011), Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2011, p. 402.
    Retrieved from: https://inis.iaea.org/records/y33wq-nsy20
    Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
21. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, vol. 21, ICRP Publication 60, ICRP, Ottawa, Canada, 1990.
    Retrieved from: https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%2060
    Retrieved on: Dec. 12, 2024
22. O. Kouakou, G. A. Monnehan, G. B. D. L. Huberson, “Evaluation of Dosimetric Performance and Global Uncertainty of the Harshaw 6600 Plus System Used to Staff Monitoring in Côte d’Ivoire,” WJNST, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 159 - 173, Oct. 2019.
    DOI: 10.4236/wjnst.2019.94012