Utilization of CAM, CAF, MAX, and FAX for space radiation analyses using HZETRN
Abstract
To estimate astronaut health risk due to space radiation, one must have the ability to calculate various exposure-related quantities that are averaged over specific organs and tissue types. Such calculations require computational models of the ambient space radiation environment, particle transport, nuclear and atomic physics, and the human body. While significant efforts have been made to verify, validate, and quantify the uncertainties associated with many of these models and tools, relatively little work has focused on the uncertainties associated with the representation and utilization of the human phantoms. In this study, we first examine the anatomical properties of the Computerized Anatomical Man (CAM), Computerized Anatomical Female (CAF), Male Adult voXel (MAX), and Female Adult voXel (FAX) models by comparing the masses of various model tissues used to calculate effective dose to the reference values specified by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The MAX and FAX tissue masses are found to be in good agreement with the reference data, while major discrepancies are found between the CAM and CAF tissue masses and the reference data for almost all of the effective dose tissues. We next examine the distribution of target points used with the deterministic transport code HZETRN (High charge (Z) and Energy TRaNsport) to compute mass averaged exposure quantities. A numerical algorithm is presented and used to generate multiple point distributions of varying fidelity for many of the effective dose tissues identified in CAM, CAF, MAX, and FAX. The point distributions are used to compute mass averaged dose equivalent values under both a galactic cosmic ray (GCR) and solar particle event (SPE) environment impinging isotropically on three spherical aluminum shells with areal densities of 0.4 g/cm2, 2.0 g/cm2, and 10.0 g/cm2. The dose equivalent values are examined to identify a recommended set of target points for each of the tissues and to further assess the differences between CAM, CAF, MAX, and FAX. It is concluded that the previously published CAM and CAF point distributions were significantly under-sampled and that the set of point distributions presented here should be adequate for future studies involving CAM, CAF, MAX, or FAX. It is also found that the errors associated with the mass and location of certain tissues in CAM and CAF have a significant impact on the mass averaged dose equivalent values, and it is concluded that MAX and FAX are more accurate than CAM and CAF for space radiation analyses.
- Publication:
-
Advances in Space Research
- Pub Date:
- April 2010
- DOI:
- 10.1016/j.asr.2009.08.017
- Bibcode:
- 2010AdSpR..45..866S