A performance comparison of Thermo Fisher EPD-MK2 and TLD (LiF:Mg,Cu,P) as part of accreditation proficiency testing

•Compare and contrast proficiency testing of EPD-Mk2 and LiF:Mg,Cu,P.•M150 beam code showed −30% bias for EPD-Mk2.•LiF:Mg,Cu, P showed a significant under response in Beta-low energy category.•EPD-Mk2 showed a greater BIAS in all categories when compared to LiF:Mg, Cu, P.•EPD-Mk2 and LiF:Mg,Cu,P systems passed the proficiency testing.

In this study we compared the proficiency testing performance of the Thermo Fisher active electronic personal dosimeter (EPD-Mk2) to the passive Thermoluminescent (TLD) dosimetry (LiF:Mg, Cu, P) in four testing categories as part of proficiency testing. One hundred and thirty two EPDs and comparable number of TLDs were submitted to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and were subsequently irradiated with four categories of radiations in accordance with ANSI HPS 13.11-2009 criteria. The TLD performance was significantly better than EPDs in all categories. In addition, the EPD-Mk2 under responded in the accident category for M150 X-ray beam primarily due to the dose rate. The EPD-Mk2 was unable to respond to the exposure rate increase associated with accident category. The study showed that while the performance of EPD-Mk2 has improved to the point of passing ANSI HPS 13.11-2009, it requires that the user has a significant knowledge of the exposure scenario and radiation field.