Analisis Perbandingan Detektor Geiger Muller dan Scintillation dalam Aplikasi Klinik dan Proteksi Radiasi di Rumah Sakit
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30872/k1ygrd80Keywords:
Geiger–Müller Detector, Radiation Monitoring, Clinical Applications, Radiation Protection, Scintillation DetectorAbstract
The use of ionizing radiation in medical procedures requires accurate and reliable monitoring to ensure the safety of healthcare workers and patients. Radiation detectors such as Geiger–Müller (GM) and scintillation detectors are widely utilized in hospitals, yet they differ significantly in their working principles, sensitivity, and suitability for clinical and protection purposes. This study aims to compare the performance of GM and scintillation detectors through a literature review approach. Articles were collected from Google Scholar using keywords related to GM detectors, scintillation detectors, clinical applications, and radiation protection. Selected studies were examined based on operational mechanisms, sensitivity, dose-rate range, energy discrimination capability, and practical use in hospital settings. The analysis shows that GM detectors operate through gas ionization and produce pulses of uniform amplitude, enabling only the counting of radiation events without providing energy information. These characteristics make GM detectors more appropriate for environmental surveillance, background monitoring, and high-dose alert systems due to their wide measurement range and stable response. In contrast, scintillation detectors such as NaI(Tl) generate light output proportional to the absorbed energy, allowing spectral analysis, radionuclide identification, and more accurate dose assessment. Their high sensitivity and superior energy resolution make them more suitable for clinical tasks, including gamma spectroscopy, nuclear medicine imaging, radiotherapy dose verification, and beam quality assessment. Overall, GM detectors are advantageous for routine radiation protection monitoring, while scintillation detectors are preferred for clinical applications requiring precise measurement and energy characterization.
Downloads
References
[1] M. K. Hameed and W. A. Abdulwahid, The effect of radiation protection provided by lead aprons in orthopedic theater, Kirkuk Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 36–41, 2024. doi:10.32894/kjms.2024.143948.1078.
[2] K. L. Chia, S. J. Ong, M. Ong, M. Tong, H. Y. Loi, B. Ang, and S. T. Quek, A targeted radionuclide therapy facility at a university teaching hospital in Singapore, Cureus, vol. 17, no. 9, e92308, 2025. doi: 10.7759/cureus.92308.
[3] A. Patel and H. Mazumdar, A review on Radiation Detectors for Various Radiation Detection Applications, Journal of Radiation and Nuclear Applications, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 93-111, May 2023. doi: 10.18576/jrna/080201.
[4] H. Suzuki, Characterization of Scintillation Detector Response for Photon Beam Dosimetry. Sensors and Materials, 35(8), 2961-2970, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.18494/SAM4439
[5] A. Alharbi, “Attenuation of gamma radiation in different materials, Nature and Science, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 40–47, 2024. doi: 10.7537/marsnsj220324.04.
[6] G. Yock. Investigating The Potential Of Conical Scintillation Detectors For Patient-Specific Verification Of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Plans. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 14, 67-73, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2020.06.001
[7] C. Michail, C. Liaparinos, P. Kalyvas, N. Kandarakis, I. Fountos, and I. Valais, Radiation detectors and sensors in medical imaging, Sensors, vol. 24, art. no. 6251, 2024. doi: 10.3390/s24196251.
[8] E. Leidermark, E. Aneheim, T. Bäck, S. Lindegren, H. Jensen, C. Dulieu, and S. Palm, On-site activity determination of 211 At using absolute 4π-alpha liquid scintillation counting and HPGe, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 221, art. no. 111781, 2025.
[9] L. Liu, H. Hu, W. Pan, H. Gao, J. Song, X. Feng, et al., Robust organogel scintillator for self-healing and ultra-flexible X-ray imaging, Advanced Materials, vol. 36, no. 13, art. no. 2311206, 2024.
[10] S. Sihotang, Karakterisasi Detektor Radiasi untuk Aplikasi Dosimetri. Jurnal Teori dan Aplikasi Fisika, 13(2), 51-61, 2022.
[11] S. Andriati, F. H. Irka, N. Firmawati, A. Wahyuni, and R. Fardela, Determination of radiation dose rate in radiology installations using Raysafe X2 surveymeter, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 458–470, 2024. doi: 10.29303/jpft.v10i2.7841.
[12] N. H. Wijaya, W. Kartika, and A. R. D. Utari, Deteksi radiasi gelombang elektromagnetik dari peralatan medis dan elektronik di rumah sakit, Jurnal ECOTIPE, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 102–106, 2019. doi: 10.33019/ecotipe.v6i2.1393.
[13] G. K. Barends, B. Utomo, and T. B. Indrato, Design of instrument measurement for X-ray radiation with Geiger Muller, Journal of Electronics, Electromedical Engineering and Medical Informatics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 2020. doi: 10.35882/ijeeemi.v2i1.93.
[14] D. Arbutina, M. Pejović, B. Ž. Arbutina, and M. M. Milošević, The influence of the GM tube insulation parameters on the GM counter characteristics, Vacuum, vol. 196, art. no. 110755, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2021.110755.
[15] P. Mitra, S.K. Sahu, A. V. Kumar. A comparative study of long‑term measurements of natural gamma absorbed dose rate in outdoor air by TLD and GM detectors. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 334, 2391–2396, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-024-09946-0
[16] W. Pratama, M. R. Mak'ruf, T. B. Indrato, E. Yulianto, L. Lamidi, M. Nosike, and S. Srivastava, Analysis of the Geiger Muller Ability on the Effect of Collimation Area and Irradiation Distance on the Dose of X-Ray Machine Measurements, Journal of Electronics, Electromedical Engineering, and Medical Informatics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 161–169, 2022.
[17] M. Gosek, M. Jędrzejowski, G. Poręba, K. Kłosok, T. Błachowicz, and K. Tudyka. Dose Rate Measurements With Correlated U, Th And K Uncertainties Using Full Nai Tl Gamma Spectrum Analysis. Geochronometria, vol. 52, no. 1, 2025.
[18] F. Cui, T. Jin, M. Li, L. Zhu, X. Di, and H. Zhu, Assessment Of Scintillation And Cherenkov Imaging As Beam Shape Verification Method In Cyberknife Radiotherapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 25, no. 12, e14508, 2024.
[19] M. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Gu, H. Gong, H. M. Lu, Z. Tang, and Y. Yang, Development of a proton CT imaging system using scintillator-based range detection, Medical Physics, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 8047–8059, 2024.
[20] E. Kenneth, M. O. Collins, U, O. Anthony, E, A. Anthony. Investigating The Protective Effectiveness Of The Shielding Parameters For Diagnostic X-Ray Rooms In Some Selected Hospitals In Agbor Metropolis - Delta State. Journal Of Sciences, 6(2), 116-119, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.33003/fjs-2022-0602-914
[21] O. Y. Omogunloye, A. O. Ilori, O. T. Isaiah, and K. C. Adiukwu, Analysis of Background Radiation Doses and Their Potential Radiological Effects in Hospitals Across Southwestern Nigeria, Coast Journal of the School of Science, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1427-1441, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.4314/coast.v7i2.18s.
[22] S. S. Hasan, A. H. Miry, and T. M. Salman, Implementation of radiation monitoring system, Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development, 2nd Online Scientific Conference for Graduate Engineering Students, 1–71, 2021. doi: 10.31272/jeasd.conf.2.1.9.
[23] Y.-H. Han, W. Zhang, Y.-T. Wang, Z.-J. Xiong, Q. Du, Y. Xie, and H. Lu, Performance evaluation of a novel 14C-urea breath test (solid scintillation) for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection, Medicine, 102, no. 9, art. no. e33107, 2023. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033107.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Progressive Physics Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
