Organisation of a European interlaboratory comparison on whole-body counting : EIVIC-2020.
Date: 2024-01-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy
Subjects: EU research policy, health risk, medical research, nuclear research, radiation protection, radiobiology, research method

Radiation
   Protection

No 202
Organisation of a European Interlaboratory 
Comparison on Whole-Body Counting

EIVIC-2020

Energy

ISSN 2315-2826

 
Disclaimer

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  authors  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not 
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any 
person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may 
be made of the information contained therein.

This project has received funding from the European Commission under Service Contract 
ENER/2019/NUCL/SI2.811157

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible 
for the use that might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023

© European Union, 2023

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU
(OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission
must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Print 

ISBN 978-92-68-10841-3  1681-6803 

doi:10.2833/621260  MJ-XA-23-002-EN-C

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-68-10842-0  2315-2826 

doi:10.2833/439964  MJ-XA-23-002-EN-N

Getting in touch with the EU

In person

On the phone or by email

contact this service:

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can

find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the

Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/

publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or

your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official

language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the

EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial

purposes.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

RADIATION PROTECTION N° 202 

Organisation of a European 
Interlaboratory Comparison on Whole-
Body Counting 

EIVIC-2020 

Directorate-General for Energy 

Directorate D — Nuclear Energy, Safety and ITER 

Unit D3 — Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety 

2023 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

EIVIC-2020 
European In-Vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 
Organisation of a European Interlaboratory 
Comparison on Whole-Body Counting 

Final Report of the project funded by the European Commission 
(Directorate-General for Energy) in Luxembourg under the 
contract ENER/2019/NUCL/SI2.811157 

Didier Franck1, Oliver Meisenberg2,  
María Antonia López3, Tiffany Beaumont1,  
Werner Buchholz2, Juan Francisco Navarro3,  
Begoña Pérez3, Kerstin Hürkamp4, Filip Vanhavere5 

1 Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), 92260 
Fontenay-aux-Roses, France 
2 Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), 85764 Oberschleißheim, 
Germany 
3 Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas 
(CIEMAT), 28040 Madrid, Spain 
4 European Radiation Dosimetry Group e.V. (EURADOS), 85764 
Oberschleißheim, Germany 
5 Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK CEN), 2400 Mol, Belgium 

Directorate-General for Energy 
Directorate D — Nuclear Energy, Safety and ITER 
Unit D3 — Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety 
2023 

- iii - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

Content ............................................................................................................... v 

List of figures .................................................................................................. viii 

List of tables ...................................................................................................... xi 

Abstract ........................................................................................................... xiv 

1. Introduction and context ................................................................................ 1 

2. General organisation ...................................................................................... 2 

3. Phantoms and sources .................................................................................... 6 

3.1 Phantoms .................................................................................................... 6 

3.2 Radionuclides, sources and tasks .................................................................... 7 

3.2.1 Description of the measurement tasks ....................................................... 7 

3.2.2 Production of the sources ......................................................................... 9 

3.2.3 Quality assurance ...................................................................................10 

4. Methodology of data evaluation .................................................................... 12 

4.1 Assigned value (ISO 13 528) .........................................................................12 

4.2 Estimated bias (ISO 28 218) .........................................................................14 

4.3 Outliers (Grubbs Test) ..................................................................................14 

4.4 Z-Score estimation (ISO 13 528) ...................................................................15 

4.5 Expression of the results ..............................................................................15 

5. Results of the EIVIC exercise ....................................................................... 17 

5.1 Participation in the EIVIC intercomparison for the different tasks .......................17 

5.2 Task 1 – Victor: 60Co, 133Ba, 137Cs and 40K .......................................................19 

5.2.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters ....................................................19 

5.2.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) .................................................................22 

5.2.3 Z-score .................................................................................................25 

5.3 Task 2 – Emergency (90 kg): 134Cs, 137Cs and 40K ............................................28 

5.3.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters ....................................................28 

5.3.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) .................................................................30 

5.3.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) .............................................................................34 

5.4 Task 3 – Medicine #1: 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K ..................................................37 

5.4.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters ....................................................37 

5.4.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) .................................................................39 

5.4.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) .............................................................................41 

5.5 Task 3 – Medicine #2: 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K ..................................................43 

5.5.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters ....................................................43 

5.5.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) .................................................................45 

5.5.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) .............................................................................48 

- v - 

 
5.6 Task 4a – Calibration 70 kg: 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K .............................................50 

5.6.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters ....................................................50 

5.6.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) .................................................................53 

5.6.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) .............................................................................55 

5.7 Task 4b – Calibration 90 kg: 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K .............................................57 

5.7.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters ....................................................57 

5.7.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) .................................................................59 

5.7.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) .............................................................................63 

5.8 Conclusion on the results for the measurement Tasks 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 4a and 4b ...66 

6.  Review  of  the  main  metrological  and  organisational  characteristics  of  the 
facilities ............................................................................................................ 74 

6.1 Type of participation in the intercomparison (visitation or shipment) ..................75 

6.2 Type of detector ..........................................................................................77 

6.3 Measurement of a 90 kg phantom with a 70 kg calibration ................................82 

6.4 Measurement geometry ................................................................................83 

6.5 Type of calibration phantom ..........................................................................84 

6.6 Identification of the 1077 keV peak of 68Ge .....................................................86 

6.7 Accreditation of the laboratory ......................................................................87 

7. General conclusion of the intercomparison ................................................... 90 

7.1 Standard ISO 28 218 ...................................................................................90 

For Task 1: 60Co, 133Ba and 137Cs. P4/70 kg .......................................................90 

For Task 2: 134Cs and 137Cs. P5/90 kg................................................................90 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #1 ..............................................................91 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #2 ..............................................................91 

For Task 4a: 133Ba and 152Eu. P4/70 kg..............................................................91 

For Task 4b: 133Ba and 152Eu. P5/90 kg .............................................................91 

7.2 Standard ISO 13 528 ...................................................................................91 

For Task 1: 60Co, 133Ba and 137Cs. P4/70 kg .......................................................91 

For Task 2: 134Cs and 137Cs. P5/90 kg................................................................92 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #1 ..............................................................92 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #2 ..............................................................92 

For Task 4a: 133Ba and 152Eu. P4/70 kg..............................................................92 

For Task 4b: 133Ba and 152Eu. P5/90 kg .............................................................92 

7.3 Statistical evaluation ....................................................................................93 

8. References .................................................................................................... 94 

Annexes ............................................................................................................ 95 

Annex I: Invitation letter for potential participants ................................................96 

Annex II: Letter accompanying shipment of phantoms and sources .........................97 

- vi - 

 
Annex III: Instructions about EIVIC phantoms assembly ........................................98 

Annex IV: Template for the Certificate of Attendance ........................................... 100 

- vii - 

 
 
 
 
List of figures 

Figure  1:  Distribution  of  participating  laboratories,  in  red  circuit  organised  by  attended 

transport,  in  blue  circuit  organised  by  shipment.    Map  data:  ©  2022  Google,  GeoBasis-

DE/BKG, Inst. Geogr. Nacional. ............................................................................... 5 

Figure  2:  Photo  of  the  phantom  in  the  P4/70  kg  configuration,  erected  in  a  whole-body 

counter with stretcher geometry. ............................................................................. 6 

Figure  3:  Sketch  of  the  phantom  in  the  P4/70  kg  configuration  (adapted  from  Kovtun, 

1995)................................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 4: Graphical example of the representation of the raw data. Red lines:  -25% and 

+50% performance criteria. ...................................................................................13 

Figure 5: Graphical example of the representation of laboratory bias estimate. ............14 

Figure 6: Graphical example of the representation of the z-score. Yellow: warning signal, 

red: action signal..................................................................................................15 

Figure  7:  Representation  of  the  raw  data  of  participants  and  the  assigned  value:  60Co, 

133Ba, 137Cs and 40K for Task 1 “Victor”. Red lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria.

 ..........................................................................................................................21 

Figure  8:  Representation  of  the  bias  (%)  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  1  “Victor”.  Black 

lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. ...........................................................24 

Figure  9:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  1  “Victor”.  Yellow: 

warning signal, red: action signal. ..........................................................................27 

Figure 10: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned value:  134Cs, 

137Cs and  40K for Task 2 “Emergency”. Red lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria.

 ..........................................................................................................................29 

Figure  11:  Representation  of  the  bias  (%)  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  2  “Emergency”. 

Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. ...................................................33 

Figure  12:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  2  “Emergency”. 

Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. ...............................................................36 

Figure  13:  Representation  of  the  raw  data  of  participants  and  the  assigned  value: 

68Ge/68Ga  and  88Y  and  40K  for  Task  3  “Medicine”  #1.  Red  lines:  -25%  and  +50% 

performance criteria. ............................................................................................38 

Figure  14:  Representation  of  the  bias  (%)  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  3  “Medicine”. 

Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. ...................................................41 

Figure  15:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  3  “Medicine”  #1. 

Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. ...............................................................43 

- viii - 

 
Figure  16:  Representation  of  the  raw  data  of  participants  and  the  assigned  value: 

68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. Red lines: -25% and +50% performance 

criteria. ...............................................................................................................45 

Figure 17: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of the Task 3 "Medicine" 

#2. Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. .............................................47 

Figure  18:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  3  “Medicine”  #2. 

Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. ...............................................................48 

Figure 19: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned value:  133Ba, 

152Eu and 40K for Task 4a "Calibration". Red lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria.

 ..........................................................................................................................52 

Figure 20: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of Task 4a "Calibration". 

Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. ...................................................55 

Figure  21:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  4a  "Calibration". 

Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. ...............................................................57 

Figure 22: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned value:  133Ba, 

152Eu and 40K for Task 4b "'Calibration". Red lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria.

 ..........................................................................................................................60 

Figure  23:  Representation  of  the  bias  (%)  for  the  radionuclides  of  the  Task  4b 

"Calibration". Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. ...............................62 

Figure  24:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  4b  "Calibration". 

Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. ...............................................................65 

Figure  25:  Quantile-quantile  plot  of  all  z-scores  except  outliers.  The  straight  line  marks 

the plot that is expected for a normal distribution. The data with sample quantiles smaller 

than about -1.5 and greater than about +1 deviate from the straight line. ...................74 

Figure 26: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the type of participation. 76 

Figure 27: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the type of detector. ......78 

Figure  28:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of  detector  for 

134Cs in the Emergency task. ..................................................................................79 

Figure  29:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of  detector  for 

137Cs in the Emergency task, in which also 134Cs was present. ....................................80 

Figure  30:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of  detector  for 

137Cs in the Victor task. .........................................................................................81 

Figure  31:  Box  plot  of  the  z  scores  discriminated  according  to  the  phantom  masses  for 

calibration measurements. .....................................................................................83 

Figure 32: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the type of geometry. ....84 

- ix - 

 
Figure  33:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of  calibration 

phantom. ............................................................................................................86 

Figure 34: Box plot of the z-scores for  68Ge discriminated according to those peaks that 

were applied for the calculation of the activity. .........................................................87 

Figure 35: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the fact if the laboratories 

were accredited or not. .........................................................................................88 

Figure  36:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  number  of  annual 

routine measurements. .........................................................................................89 

- x - 

 
 
 
 
 
List of tables 

Table 1: Schedule followed for the organisation of the whole-body intercomparison. ...... 2 

Table 2: List of participants of the EIVIC exercise. ..................................................... 3 

Table  3:  Nuclides  and 

reference  activities 

(based  on  gamma-spectroscopy 

measurements) for the different tasks...................................................................... 9 

Table  4:  Summary  of  participation  at  the  EIVIC  intercomparison  for  the  different  tasks 

(*) ......................................................................................................................17 

Table 5: List of radionuclide parameters and sources reference dates of the Task 1. .....19 

Table  6:  Comparison  between  the  reference  value  and  the  robust  mean  of  participants 

for Task 1 “Victor”. ...............................................................................................19 

Table 7: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 1 “Victor”. .........................................20 

Table 8: Bias of participants for Task 1 “Victor” ........................................................22 

Table 9: Z-score of participants for Task 1 “Victor”. ..................................................26 

Table  10:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of  Task  2 

“Emergency”. .......................................................................................................28 

Table 11: Comparison between the reference  value and the robust mean of participants 

for Task 2 “Emergency”. ........................................................................................28 

Table 12: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 2 “Emergency”.................................30 

Table 13: Bias of participants for Task 2 “Emergency”. ..............................................30 

Table 14: Z-scores of participants for Task 2 “Emergency”. .......................................34 

Table  15:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of  Task  3 

“Medicine”. ..........................................................................................................37 

Table 16: Comparison between the reference  value and the robust mean of participants 

for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. ......................................................................................37 

Table 17: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. ..............................39 

Table 18: Bias of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. ............................................40 

Table 19: Z-score of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. .......................................42 

Table  20:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of  Task  3 

“Medicine” #2. .....................................................................................................43 

Table 21: Comparison between the  reference  value and the robust mean of participants 

for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. ......................................................................................44 

Table 22: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. ..............................44 

- xi - 

 
Table 23: Bias of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. ............................................46 

Table 24: Z-score of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. .......................................49 

Table  25:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of  Task  4a 

“Calibration”. .......................................................................................................50 

Table 26: Comparison between the reference  value and the robust mean of participants 

for Task 4a “Calibration”. .......................................................................................50 

Table 27: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 4a “Calibration”. ..............................51 

Table 28: Bias of participants for Task 4a “Calibration”. .............................................53 

Table 29: Z-score of participants for Task 4a "Calibration". ........................................56 

Table  30:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of  Task  4b 

“Calibration”. .......................................................................................................57 

Table 31: Comparison between the reference  value and the robust mean of participants 

for Task 4b “Calibration”........................................................................................58 

Table 32: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 4b “Calibration”. ..............................58 

Table 33: Bias of participants for Task 4b “Calibration”..............................................61 

Table 34: Z-score of participants for Task 4b "Calibration". ........................................63 

Table 35: Compliance report for Task 1 “Victor”. ......................................................66 

Table 36: Compliance report for Task 2 “Emergency”. ...............................................68 

Table 37: Compliance report for Task 3.1 “Medicine”.................................................70 

Table 38: Compliance report for Task 3.2 “Medicine”.................................................70 

Table 39: Compliance report for Task 4a “Calibration” (P4). .......................................71 

Table 40: Compliance report for Task 4b “Calibration” (P5). .......................................72 

Table  41:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the  type  of 

participation. .......................................................................................................76 

Table  42:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the  type  of 

participation. .......................................................................................................77 

Table  43:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the  type  of  detector 

for 134Cs in the Emergency task. .............................................................................78 

Table  44:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the  type  of  detector 

for 137Cs in the Emergency task, in which also 134Cs was present. ...............................80 

Table  45:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the  type  of  detector 

for 137Cs in the Victor task. ....................................................................................81 

- xii - 

 
Table 46: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the phantom masses 

for calibration measurements. ................................................................................82 

Table 47: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type of geometry.

 ..........................................................................................................................83 

Table 48: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type of calibration 

phantom. ............................................................................................................85 

Table 49: Statistical parameters of the attribution  of z-scores for  68Ge with those peaks 

that were applied for the calculation of the activity. ..................................................87 

Table  50:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the  accreditation  of 

laboratories. ........................................................................................................88 

Table 51: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the number of annual 

routine measurements. .........................................................................................89 

Table 52: Materials provided to the participants on the BfS project data cloud. ............99 

- xiii - 

 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The  objective  of  the  EIVIC-2020  project  was  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the 
individual  monitoring  requirements  of  the  Basic  Safety  Standards  (BSS)  Directive  in  EU 
Member  States  based  on  in-vivo  measurements  and  receive  an  overview  of  the 
capabilities and performance of whole-body counters in Europe.  

This  exercise  was  supported  by  the  European  Commission  (Directorate-General  for 
Energy) in Luxembourg under the contract ENER/2019/NUCL/SI2.811157 and organised 
by  EURADOS  (European  Radiation  Dosimetry  Group),  the  Institut  de  Radioprotection  et 
de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN, France) and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS, 
Germany) 
Investigaciones  Energéticas, 
Medioambientales  y  Tecnológicas  (CIEMAT,  Spain)  and  the  Karlsruhe  Institute  of 
Technology (KIT, Germany).  

in  collaboration  with 

the  Centro  de 

It  was  organised  between  October  2019  and  June  2022  and  dedicated  to  whole-body 
measurement of gamma emitters in several tasks selected that cover the range of such 
possible measurements associated to different intake scenarios. In total, 43 installations 
from 21 countries took part in the intercomparison exercise. 

The  measured  data  were  compared  with  reference  activity  values  to  evaluate  the 
corresponding  bias  according  to  the  standards  ISO  28218  and  ISO  13528.  This  report 
gives  a  summary  of  the  results  of  the  different  tasks.  In  general,  the  results  are  good, 
and most facilities are in conformity with the criteria for the bias and z-scores in the ISO 
standards.  Additionally,  it  was  tested  if  the  results  can  be  attributed  to  several 
laboratories
organisational  and  metrological  properties  of 

the  participating 

- xiv - 

 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

1. Introduction and context 

In  2018,  the  European  Commission  published  in  its  Radiation  Protection  Series  the 
document  Technical  Recommendations  for  Monitoring  Individuals  for  Occupational 
Intakes of Radionuclides as RP 188 [RP 2018]. This guidance document emphasises that 
for  quality  assurance  of  the  measurement  results,  it  is  essential  that  the  laboratories 
interlaboratory 
performing  whole-body  counting  regularly  participate 
comparisons.  

in  suitable 

In  this  frame,  the  European  Commission  decided  in  2019  to  launch  a  call  for  tender 
(ENER/D3/2019-158),  with  the  objective  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  individual 
monitoring  requirements  of  the  BSS  Directive  in  EU  Member  States  based  on  in-vivo 
measurements  and  receive  an  overview  of  the  performance  of  in-vivo  measurements 
using whole-body counters. 

the 

In  accordance  with 
In-vivo 
Intercomparison  Exercise  2020”  (EIVIC-2020)  was  initiated  jointly  by  the  European 
Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS, 
Germany) and the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN, France).  

the  project  “European 

tender  specifications 

The objective of the present report is to present the results of the exercises put in place 
and the conclusion of the European intercomparison of in-vivo monitoring in Europe. 

- 1 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

2. General organisation 

The  principle  of  intercomparison  for  in-vivo  measurement  is  to  circulate  the  object 
subjected to the test from one laboratory to another. The duration of the intercomparison 
is therefore dependent on the number of participants and the availability of facilities. The 
schedule  followed  for  the  organisation  of  the  whole-body  intercomparison  is  detailed  in 
Table 1. 

Table 1: Schedule followed for the organisation of the whole-body 
intercomparison. 

Description 

Date of 
accomplishment 

Inception Report including description of methodology of the 
intercomparison exercise 

Kick-off meeting in Luxembourg 

List of participants and further contacts of whole-body 
counting laboratories in Europe 

Phantoms prepared and ready for transport/shipment 

Participants’ meeting (online) 

Progress Report including reports on source production, 
their quality assurance and the final schedule of the 
measurement campaign 

End of measurement campaign 

Analysis of the results provided by participants from the 
questionnaires and communication of their results to 
participants 

Participants’ final workshop 

Draft final report including compilation of results, their 
statistical evaluation and a summary of the participants’ 
workshop 

Report: Proceedings of the Participants’ workshop including 
lessons learned from the intercomparison exercise 

Presentation of the results to the Article 31 group of experts 
in Luxembourg report) 

Final reports (publishable scientific report and 
administrative report) 

10/2019 

10/2019 

02/2021 

04/2021 

06/2021 

07/2021 

12/2021 

02/2022 

06/2022 

06/2022 

07/2022 

11/2022 

03/2023 

- 2 - 

 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

37  laboratories  were  contacted  from  21  countries  (+  European  Commission  and  IAEA) 
and  were  officially  registered  (see  Table  2).  Several 
laboratories  conducted 
measurements  with  more  than  one  whole-body  counter,  so  that  more  than  37  results 
were received. 

The circuit was organised by shipment and by attended transport. Principal point for the 
decision  between  attended  transport  or  shipment  were  the  distance,  prospective 
travelling  time,  the  accessibility  (possibly  also  of  nearby  facilities),  temporal  availability 
and  ideally  an  in-line  connection  of  the  institutions  in  one  of  the  tours,  as  well  as  the 
possible requirements of customs clearance. The geographical distribution of participating 
laboratories in Europe can be seen in Figure 1. 

The measurement campaign started in the first week of May 2021 and finished at the end 
of November 2021. 

Table 2: List of participants of the EIVIC exercise. 

Institution 

City 

Country 

V/S* 

Seibersdorf Labor GmbH 

Seibersdorf 

Austria 

LKH University Hospital Graz 

SCKCEN Belgian Nuclear Research 
Centre 

Graz 

Mol 

Austria 

Belgium 

Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant 

Kozloduy 

Bulgaria 

University of Zagreb School of Medicine  Zagreb 

Croatia 

SÚRO National Radiation Protection 
Institute 

Prague 

Czech Republic 

SIS National Institute of Radiation 
Protection 

Herlev 

Denmark 

EC Joint Research Centre 

Ispra 

European 
Commission (Italy) 

STUK Finnish Radiation and Nuclear 
Safety Authority 

Helsinki 

Finland 

SPRA French Defense Radiation 
Protection Service 

Clamart 

France 

V 

V 

V 

S 

V 

V 

V 

V 

S 

V 

ORANO 

La Hague 

France 

cancelled 

CEA French Alternative Energies and 
Atomic Energy Commission 

Saclay 

France 

FZJ Research Centre Jülich 

Jülich 

Germany 

S 

V 

- 3 - 

 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Institution 

City 

Country 

V/S* 

LIA Institute for Work Design 

Düsseldorf 

Germany 

University Hospital Leipzig 

Leipzig 

Germany 

MTA Hungarian Academy of Sciences 

Budapest 

Hungary 

National Public Health Centre 

Budapest 

Hungary 

IAEA 

SOGIN 

ENEA 

Vienna 

IAEA (Austria) 

Caorso 

Italy 

Rome 

Italy 

Radiation Protection Centre 

Vilnius 

Lithuania 

NRG Nuclear Research and Consultancy 
Group 

Petten 

Netherlands 

IFE Institute of Energy and Technology  Kjeller 

Norway 

National Centre for Nuclear Reseach 

Otwock 

Poland 

V 

V 

S 

V 

V 

V 

S 

S 

V 

V 

S 

IFIN-HH National Institute of Physics 
and Nuclear Engineering 

Magurele 

Romania 

cancelled 

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant 

Mochovce 

Slovakia 

JAVYS Nuclear and Decommissioning 
Company 

Bratislava 

Slovakia 

Tecnatom 

Madrid 

Spain 

FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency  Umeå 

Sweden 

University of Lund 

Malmö 

Sweden 

Ringhals Nuclear Power Plant 

Väröbacka 

Sweden 

Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant 

Forsmark 

Sweden 

Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant 

Löddeköpinge  Sweden 

Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz 

Spiez 

Switzerland 

PSI Paul Scherrer Institute 

Villigen 

Switzerland 

AWE Atomic Weapons Establishment 

Reading 

United Kingdom 

- 4 - 

S 

V 

S 

S 

V 

V 

S 

V 

V 

V 

V 

 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Institution 

City 

Country 

V/S* 

UKHSA UK Health Security Agency 

Chilton 

United Kingdom 

V 

*V: visitation, S: shipment. 

When registering participants, a specific programme for this intercomparison was sent. It 
specified in particular the assembly procedure of the phantom under test (Annex I to III). 

Figure 1: Distribution of participating laboratories, in red circuit organised 
by attended transport, in blue circuit organised by shipment.  
Map data: © 2022 Google, GeoBasis-DE/BKG, Inst. Geogr. Nacional. 

- 5 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

3. Phantoms and sources 

3.1 Phantoms 

The  intercomparison  has  been  carried  out  using  anthropomorphic  phantoms  equipped 
with sealed radioactive sources. The use of such phantoms is a common method for the 
calibration  of  whole-body  counters  and  the  examination  of  their  proficiency.  These 
phantoms can be set up in various heights and masses to simulate a variety of different 
human  shapes  and  sizes  and  can  be  equipped  with  various  radionuclides.  The  type  of 
phantom  selected  is  the  Saint-Petersburg  brick  phantom  [Kovtun  2000].  This  phantom 
consists of rectangular bricks made from polyethylene, which can be set up in six shapes 
(P1–P6) resembling persons  of weight 12  kg to 110 kg. The bricks contain holes,  which 
can  be  filled  with  rod  sources  of  known  activities.  These  phantoms  are  an  unofficial  de-
facto standard that is used worldwide by many laboratories for their calibrations and that 
is  considered  an  appropriate  method  for  calibration  also  by  ICRU  [ICRU  1992,  ICRU 
2003].  In  contrast  to  a  bottle  phantom  like  the  Bottle  Mannequin  Absorber  (BOMAB) 
phantom with a liquid content of radionuclide solution, the brick phantom comprises solid 
radioactive sources and therefore offers better protection against the  risk of spills.  With 
its  larger  number  of  components,  it  is  also  more  suitable  to  be  set  up  in  different 
postures  such  as  lying  in  a  stretcher  geometry,  sitting  in  chair  and  inclined  chair 
geometries or standing. 

For  the  EIVIC  intercomparison  two  sizes  of  phantoms  have  been  chosen:  P4  and  P5 
corresponding  to  70  kg  and  90  kg  persons  respectively  in  order  to  correspond  to  the 
weight  ranges  generally  observed  for  the  workers  measured  in  the  whole-body 
laboratories. Photographs and diagrams illustrate the construction of the phantom in the 
stretcher  (and  likewise  in  the  standing)  geometry  in  Figure  2  and  Figure  3.  Each 
participant  received  a  booklet  detailing  instructions  about  phantoms  assembly  (see 
Annex III). 

For each of the two circuits (shipment and attended transport), one phantom was used. 
The  two  phantoms  featured  identical  properties  and  the  radioactive  sources  for  each  of 
the  phantoms  were  selected  in  such  way  that  the  differences  of  their  activities  were 
negligible. 

Figure 2: Photo of the phantom in the P4/70 kg configuration, erected in 
a whole-body counter with stretcher geometry. 

- 6 - 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 3: Sketch of the phantom in the P4/70 kg configuration 
(adapted from Kovtun, 1995). 

3.2 Radionuclides, sources and tasks 

3.2.1 Description of the measurement tasks 

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  intercomparison  was  to  simulate  measurements  that  are 
relevant for the occupational monitoring programmes of individuals exposed to intakes of 
gamma emitters at the workplace. Several tasks have been selected that cover the range 
of  possible  measurements  associated  to  different  intake  scenarios.  In  order  to  simulate 
occupational  internal  exposures,  different  phantoms  regarding  their  size  (limited  to 
phantoms resembling adults) and different radionuclides have been chosen. The selected 
radionuclides  are  realistic  for  the  internal  monitoring  of  individuals  (Tasks  2  and  3) 
and/or  feature  characteristics  that  are  advantageous  for  the  assessment  of  the 
proficiency of whole-body counters (all tasks). 

For this intercomparison, four tasks were defined concerning measurements of phantoms 
equipped  with  radionuclide  sources.  For  each  phantom  measurement  task,  one  specific 
set  of  radionuclide  sources  has  been  used.  Each  set  contains  a  mixture  of  those 
radionuclides  that  are  to  be  measured  in  the  respective  measurement  task.  The 
measurement tasks comprise the following nuclides: 

•  Task  1:  60Co,  133Ba  and  137Cs.  Phantom  size  P4/70  kg  (called  Victor  as  these  are 

the usual sources for the IRSN proficiency test phantom called Victor), 

•  Task 2: 134Cs and 137Cs. P5/90 kg (called Emergency), 
•  Task 3: 68Ge (with its daughter nuclide 68Ga in secular equilibrium) and  88Y P4/70 

kg (called Medicine), 

•  Task 4: 133Ba and 152Eu. P4 and P5 configurations (called Calibration). 

Task  1  comprises  radionuclides  that  are  frequently  used  in  proficiency  tests  of  whole-
body counters because their gamma-ray emissions cover a wide range of energy (80 to 
1332 keV) and do not interfere with each other, even when measured with low-resolution 
sodium iodide (NaI(Tl)) detectors. 

Task  2  comprises  radionuclides  that  are  relevant  for  the  monitoring  of  members  of  the 
population after nuclear accidents. A metrological challenge is the correction of the peak 
area of  137Cs at 662 keV taking into account the overlapping contribution of the 605 keV 
emission of 134Cs when measured with NaI(Tl) detectors. 

- 7 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Task  3  featured  68Ge  and  its  decay  product  68Ga  in  secular  equilibrium,  which  are 
common  radionuclides  in  nuclear  medical  diagnostics.  These  radionuclides  emit  positron 
radiation, resulting in the production of annihilation radiation of 511 keV at an abundance 
of 178%. They also emit gamma radiation at an energy of 1077 keV with an abundance 
of 3.2%. A definite identification of the radionuclides is only possible from the 1077 keV 
emission,  but  this  emission  was  not  observed  by  all  participants  because  of  the  small 
abundance.  At  511 keV,  background  counts  must  be  subtracted  from  the  gross  peak 
area.  Additionally,  the  peak  shape  differs  from  the  shape  of  usual  gamma  radiation 
peaks. 

This  task  also  featured  88Y,  which  emits  gamma  radiation  at  energies  of  898 keV 
(abundance  93.7%)  and  1836 keV  (99.3%).  Whereas  898 keV  might  be  well  within  the 
energy  range that is taken into account in the efficiency  calibration  of most  whole-body 
counters,  1836 keV  is  beyond  the  upper  limit  of  the  energy  range  of  the  efficiency 
calibration if 133Ba and 152Eu are used for the calibration (highest energy 1408 keV). This 
task was suitable both for NaI(Tl) and for HPGe detectors. 

The sets of sources were replaced in the middle of the campaign by new sources in the 
attended  tour  as  well  as  for  the  shipment  because  of  the  short  half-lives  of  these 
radionuclides.  Thus,  activities  in  a  similar  order  of  magnitude  could  be  offered  to  all 
participants. However, inevitably those participants at the end of the application period of 
each  set  had  to  measure  sources  with  significantly  smaller  activities  than  those  at  the 
beginning.  This  allowed  to  assess  the  influence  of  the  activities  at  the  time  of  the 
measurement on the measurement results. 

The 70 kg phantom (P4) was used for this task. 

Task  4  comprises  radionuclides  that  feature  a  large  variety  of  gamma-ray  emissions 
over a wide range  of  energies (80 to 1408 keV). Therefore, measuring the phantoms of 
this task enables the participating laboratories to establish an efficiency calibration based 
on the reported reference activities. 

During all measurement tasks, the phantoms were also prepared with 40K rods in order to 
simulate  the  natural  radiation  background  of  human  bodies.  Tasks  1  and  3  (as  well  as 
Task 4a on a voluntary basis) were conducted with the P4/70 kg phantom, Tasks 2 and 
4b were conducted with the P5/90 kg phantom.  

Table  3  reports  the  activities  of  the  different  phantoms  used  for  this  work,  based  on 
gamma-spectroscopy  measurements.  As  described  in  Section  4.1,  these  activities  were 
not  used  as  the  reference  activities  for  the  calculation  of  the  z-scores.  For  the 
measurement  Tasks  1,  2,  3  (set  1)  and  4,  the  reference  date  was  01/05/2021,  and  for 
the Task 3 (set 2) it was 10/08/2021. 

- 8 - 

 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 3: Nuclides and reference activities (based on gamma-spectroscopy 
measurements) for the different tasks. 

3.2.2 Production of the sources 

Rod sources  for Task 1 were taken from the  stock  of IRSN, which uses them  frequently 
for proficiency tests with their brick phantom “Victor”. Rod sources for Tasks 2, 3 and 4 
were  produced  specifically  for  EIVIC-2020  in  the  laboratories  of  BfS  according  to  the 
method  described  by  Woidy  and  Meisenberg  [Woidy  2022].  The  sources  produced 
according  to  this  method  consist  of  tubes  of  rigid  polyvinyl  chloride  that  are  filled  with 
hardened  epoxy  resin  blended  with  radionuclide  solution.  Both  ends  of  the  tubes  are 
plugged  with  inactive  epoxy  resin.  The  sources  featured  a  length  of  16.5 cm,  of  which 
about 14 cm were radioactive filling, an outer diameter of 6 mm and an inner diameter of 
5.4 mm.  For  the  production  of  each  single  source,  radionuclide  solution  (with  volumes 
between 10 and 100 µl) was pipetted into epoxy resin, blended with hardener and filled 
into the tubes where the resin was left for hardening. This method allowed the production 
of about 10 sources per day, with a complete set for one phantom consisting of up to 108 
sources.  The  radionuclide  solutions  were  purchased  from  Eckert  &  Ziegler  Nuclitec, 
Germany.  Their  activities  were  traceable  to  national  standards  of  the  United  States 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

An additional exemplary set of sources was tested for certification as sealed radionuclide 
sources according to ISO 2919 [ISO 2012]. The following tests were conducted: 

Impact test with a weight of 57 g dropped from a height of 1 m, 
• 
•  Puncture test with a weight of 57 g dropped from a height of 1 m, 
•  Temperature tests at -66 °C and +80 °C, 
•  External pressure test at 14 kPa, 

- 9 - 

 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

•  Bending test with a mass of 12 kg acting on the middle of the sources. 

All tests were passed so that the sources qualify as sealed sources according to Class 2 
as  defined  in  ISO  2919  [ISO  2012].  Beside  the  practical  advantages  of  using  solid 
sources rather than liquid ones, this certification facilitates the application of the sources 
regarding legal aspects since e.g. some participating laboratories might be authorised to 
handle  only  sealed  radionuclide  sources  and  no  contamination  tests  of  worktops  are 
required. 

3.2.3 Quality assurance 

During  the  production  and  quality-assurance  process,  the  activities  of  all  produced  rod 
sources were determined by several independent methods: 

•  Calculation of the activities based on the net weight of the radionuclide standard: 

After  each  step  of  the  preparation  of  the  blend  of  radionuclide  solution  and  epoxy 
resin,  the  blend  was  weighed  with  a  precision  balance  (CP124S  with  draught  shield, 
resolution  0.1 mg,  Sartorius,  Germany),  which  was  subject  to  annual  quality-
assurance checks by an accredited service. Additionally, the amount of blend that was 
left  in  the  mixing  vessel  after  pipetting  the  blend  into  the  tubes  was  weighed  and 
taken  into  account  in  the  calculation  of  the  amount  of  radionuclide  solution  in  each 
single  rod  source.  Since  the  activity  of  the  radionuclide  solution  was  traceable,  this 
yields a traceable activity of each single source. 

•  Measurement of each single source on a gamma-spectroscopy detector: 

Each  single  produced  rod  source  was  measured  with  an  HPGe  gamma-spectroscopy 
detector  (GMX  series,  n-type,  Ortec,  USA,  calibrated  with  60Co,  133Ba  and  137Cs  with 
traceability). For this purpose, two geometries were used: a high-efficiency geometry 
where  the  source  was  placed  in  close  contact  horizontally  on  the  detector,  with  its 
ends protruding over the edge of the detector (diameter of detector crystal: 7.4 cm, 
length of the sources: 16.5 cm); a low-efficiency geometry with approximately 13 cm 
between  the  horizontal  source  and  the  detector.  The  high-efficiency  geometry  was 
possible because additionally the spatial homogeneity of the activity along the length 
of the sources was checked and confirmed with an exemplary selection of sources of 
each set by measuring single section of the sources using a collimator. This geometry 
featured  smaller  counting  uncertainties  than  the  low-efficiency  geometry,  but  the 
measurement  was  subject  to  the  effect  of  coincidence  summing,  which  affects  the 
measurement  of  radionuclides  that  emit  gamma  radiation  in  several  steps  one  after 
the other (in the selected tasks all nuclides except of 137Cs). 

•  Measurement  of  phantoms  equipped  with  a  whole  set  of  sources  in  whole-body 

counters: 
All  sets  of  sources  were  measured  inside  the  phantoms  that  were  assembled 
according  to  the  respective  measurement  tasks.  The  measurements  were  conducted 
with the whole-body counters of the organisers of the project. 

BfS  and  IRSN  performed  measurements  with  germanium  detectors  (HPGe)  and 
CIEMAT and KIT performed measurements with HPGe detectors (broad-energy/BEGe 
model) and with NaI(Tl) detectors. Measurement times  and calibration curves (P4 or 
P5) were those that are usually used at the respective laboratory. The results of the 
for  the 
quality  assurance  (QA)  measurements  show  acceptable  agreement 
radionuclides of study when comparing with reference values. 

- 10 - 

 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Although  all  of  these  methods  were  found  suitable  for  the  quality  assurance  of  the 
produced sources (e.g. in order to identify sources that needed to be discarded because 
of  deviating  activity),  they  did  not  prove  sufficiently  precise  in  order  to  determine  the 
reference  activities.  The  calculation  based  on  the  net  weight  was  affected  by  the 
uncertainty of the weighing of small masses in the order of 10 mg. The measurement of 
single sources on gamma-spectroscopy detectors was subject to the mentioned effect of 
coincidence summing and also of a possible slightly inhomogeneous spatial distribution of 
the activity in each single source.  

Besides, measurements of the phantoms with the whole-body counters of the organisers 
were  subject  to  the  usual  influences  of  slightly  different  geometries  between 
measurement  and  calibration.  Therefore,  the  results  of  the  single  different  methods 
differed  by  up  to  10%.  This  was  deemed  sufficiently  small  to  confirm  the  quality  of  the 
sources  and  in  particular  the  homogeneity  of  the  activities  throughout  the  different 
sources of each set. However, it led to the conclusion not to use the activities determined 
by  one  of  the  described  quality-assurance  methods  as  the  reference  activity  for  the 
certification of the proficiency of the participants. As shown in the next chapter the use of 
robust mean was preferred to be used as target value.   

As a result, as presented in the next chapter the use of robust mean was preferred to be 
used as target value.   

- 11 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

4. Methodology of data evaluation 

The  data  provided  by  the  participating  laboratories  have  been  treated  statistically  by 
IRSN  using  the  software  ProLab™.  For  the  whole-body  intercomparison,  the  statistical 
processing was the following: 

•  Distribution of the results (chart of the population), 
•  Search for aberrant values (GrubbsGrubbs test), 
•  Relative  bias:  assessment  of  the  laboratory  performances  according  to  standard 

ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010], 

•  Z  score:  assessment  of  the  laboratory  performances  according  to  standard  ISO 

13 528 [ISO 2022]. 

The  relative  bias  is  a  measure  of  how  close  the  assessed  activity  is  to  the  measured 
activity. According to the standard ISO 28 218, in the service laboratory internal quality 
control, the bias shall be between  -25% and +50%. When the bias is outside the range 
of  
-25%  to  +50%  in  internal  quality  control  checks  of  service  laboratories,  the  service 
laboratory  shall  make  appropriate  corrections  in  phantom  calibration  or  measurement 
protocols to reduce or eliminate the bias. 

Another estimator, called zeta-score, could be used as recommended in the standard ISO 
13 528.  This  estimator  is  based  on  the  uncertainties  of  measurement  and  relevant  only 
for measurement done in the same condition (measurement and calibration). In the case 
of  this  intercomparison,  it  was  decided  not  to  use  this  estimator  because  of  the  large 
diversity of the whole-body facilities in terms of detection system (NaI(Tl) or HPGe), kind 
of phantom and protocols used.  

The  performance  criteria  used  are  detailed  below.  The  conformity  of  the  results  with 
these  various  criteria  helps  to  qualify  the  proficiency  of  the  laboratories  and  to  identify 
ways to improve the methods used. 

4.1 Assigned value (ISO 13 528) 

According to the ISO 13528 [ISO 2022],  four  methods to determine the assigned value 
can be considered for this kind of intercomparison:  

-  The reference value of the certificate,  
-  The value from one laboratory, 
-  The consensus value from expert laboratories, 
-  The consensus value from participants, using a robust statistical method.  

The  choice  between  these  methods  is  crucial  and  required  for  a  realistic  analysis  of 
results. 

As  explained  in  the  section  3,  excepted  for  the  “Victor”  sources,  the  rod  sources  have 
been produced specifically for the EIVIC-2020 by the laboratory of BfS. This laboratory is 
not accredited to produce sealed sources. Regarding the rod sources of Task 1, it will be 
possible  to  use  the  reference  value  of  the  certificate.  Nevertheless,  to  guarantee  a 
homogeneous  analysis  between  the  tasks,  this  method  was  not  adopted.  Consequently, 
the method using the reference value with a certificate was not used. 

Because of the discrepancies up to 10% between the activities of the sources calculated 
from  the  weight  of  the  radionuclide  solutions,  measured  on  gamma  spectrometry 

- 12 - 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

systems and measured in complete phantoms during the QA process, it was decided that 
the reference values given by BfS were not used as assigned value.  

Regarding  the  consensus  value  method  from  expert  laboratories,  the  measurement  of 
Tasks 1, 2 and 4 were  performed by 3 experts (KIT, CIEMAT and IRSN). Unfortunately, 
for  the  Task  3,  due  to  the  short  half-life  of  the  radionuclide,  only  one  expert  (CIEMAT) 
performed  the  measurement.  As  the  result,  this  method  cannot  guarantee  the 
homogeneous analysis between the tasks and was not used.  

Because of the high statistic (43 facilities) and because no additional measurements are 
required  to  obtain  the  assigned  value,  it  was  decided  to  use  the  consensus  value  from 
participants, determined with a robust method.  

Robust  mean  refers  to  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  reported  values  without  outliers  and 
was calculated using the Q/Hampel method1. The method known as Q/Hampel uses the Q 
method for the calculation of the robust standard deviation s* together with the Hampel 
estimator for the calculation of the robust location parameter x*. This method is applied 
for  the  statistical  analysis  of  interlaboratory  studies.  It  was  used  to  guarantee  a 
homogeneous and robust analysis between the tasks.  

According  to  the  ISO  13 528  [ISO  2022],  the  assigned  value  (robust  mean)  was 
compared with an independent reference value for each task and each radionuclide. The 
difference  (%)  was  calculated  using  the  BfS  value  (from  gamma  spectroscopy 
measurements) as the reference for the Task 2,3 and 4 and using the IRSN value (from 
the  certificate  of  the  sources)  as  the  reference  for  the  Task  1.  For  each  task,  the 
differences between the robust mean and the reference value were noted in Section 5. 

As  recommended  in  the  ISO  13 528,  an  additional  action  was  carried  out  to  check  the 
validity of the method used to determine the assigned value. For example, for the  137Cs 
(Task 2), the arithmetic mean of the expert laboratories (3040 ± 128 Bq) is very close to 
the value of robust mean (2996 ± 60 Bq). This observation is verified in the other tasks.  

A  graphical  example  of  the  representation  of  the  raw  data  and  the  assigned  value  are 
presented in Figure 4. 

Figure 4: Graphical example of the representation of the raw data. Red 
lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. 

1 Q/Hampel method according to the ISO 13 528: 
https://quodata.de/en/web%C2%ADservices/QHampel.html#0 

- 13 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

4.2 Estimated bias (ISO 28 218)  

The  laboratory  bias  estimate  is  defined  as  a  percentage.  This  performance  test  is 
calculated as follows: 

𝐵𝑖𝑎𝑠(%) =

𝑥 − 𝑋
𝑋

× 100 

𝑥: Result of the participating facility 

• 
•  𝑋: Activity of the target value (assigned value) 

According  to  the  recommendations  of  ISO  28  218  “Performance  criteria 
for 
radiobioassay”  [ISO  2010],  the  relative  bias  error  must  be  within  a  range  of  -25%  to 
+50% relative to the target value. 

A graphical example of the representation of the laboratory bias estimate is presented in 
Figure 5.  

Figure 5: Graphical example of the representation of laboratory bias 
estimate. 

4.3 Outliers (Grubbs Test) 

Each data set was subjected to the Grubbs test in order to detect possible outliers at the 
ends of the distribution. 

The test consists in calculating, for n values classified in ascending order of 𝑥1, 𝑥2, ..., 𝑥n, 
the test statistic 𝐺𝑝: 

to test 𝑥1 

with  

to test 𝑥n 

•  S: inter-laboratory standard deviation 
• 
• 
• 

𝑥1: Lowest population value  
𝑥n: Highest population value 
𝑥: Mean of the n values of the population 

The value of 𝐺𝑝 is compared with a critical value that depends on the number n of values. 
If  one  of  the  extreme  values  is  identified  as  an  outlier,  this  value  is  discarded  and  the 
test is repeated with the remaining set of values until no value is identified as an outlier 
anymore. 

- 14 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

4.4 Z-Score estimation (ISO 13 528) 

The  z-score  is  an  indicator  of  the  laboratory  proficiency  compared  to  that  of  the  other 
laboratories because it is correlated with the robust standard deviation. Thus, it depends 
directly on the dispersion of the results from the laboratories.  

The z-score is calculated by means of the following formula: 

𝑧 =

𝑥 − 𝑋
𝜎^

with: 

𝑥: Result of the participating facility, 

• 
•  𝑋: Activity of the target value, 
•  𝜎^: Robust standard deviation for proficiency evaluation. 

According  to  the  recommendations  of  ISO  13  528  “Statistical  methods  for  use  in 
proficiency testing by intercomparison” [ISO 2022], the current z-score criteria are:  

|𝑧 − 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒|≤ 2: the result is satisfactory, 

• 
•  2 < |𝑧 − 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒|< 3: The result is considered to give a warning signal, 
|𝑧 − 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒|≥ 3: The result is considered unacceptable (action signal). 
• 

It should be noted that the presence of a single action signal or several warning signals 
in  two  successive  cycles  must  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  an  abnormality  that  requires 
remedial action. The z-score (Figure 6) depends directly on the dispersion of the results 
from the facilities.  

Figure 6: Graphical example of the representation of the z-score. 
Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. 

4.5 Expression of the results 

The  laboratories  had  to  identify  and  quantify  the  radionuclides  present  in  the  phantom. 
The activity and the uncertainty related to each result had to be expressed in becquerel 
(Bq). The latter is given as the expanded uncertainty at 2σ indicating a coverage factor k 
equivalent to 2. 

The laboratories reported results that were valid at the date of the measurement.  

- 15 - 

 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

To  compare  all  the  results,  decay  correction  to  a  reference  date  was  conducted  by  the 
EIVIC-2020 team. This was done because decay correction is not a task that is required 
in  in-vivo  internal  monitoring.  Decay  correction  by  the  EIVIC-2020  team  based  on  an 
identical  half-life  for  all  laboratories  and  each  radionuclide  ensured  that  no  additional 
source of possible errors was introduced in this step. 

For  Task  1,  2  and  4  (a  and  b)  the  results  of  activity  and  their  associated  uncertainties 
were calculated at the reference date set at 01/05/2021. 

For  the  Task  3,  given  the  short  half-life,  it  was  impossible  to  conduct  the  whole  circuit 
with  unique  set  of  radionuclides.  The  first  part  of  the  EIVIC  campaign  was  carried  out 
with the set 1, as follows:  

•  Shipment tour: 01/05/21 to 30/09/2021 
•  Attended tour: 01/07/2021 to 06/08/2021 

The reference date for the radionuclides of set 1 (68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K) is 01/05/2021. 

The second part of the EIVIC campaign was carried out with the set 2, as follows:  

•  Shipment tour: 01/10/2021 to 20/11/2021  
•  Attended tour: 10/08/2021 to 31/10/2021 

The reference date for the short half-life radionuclides (68Ge/68Ga and 88Y) is 10/08/2021. 
For the 40K, the reference date is 01/05/2021, as in the previous tasks. 

It  has  to  be  noted  for  the  facility  ‘15’,  the  measurements  of  Task  3  were  carried  out  at 
the  end  of  the  EIVIC  campaign  with  both  sets  together.  The  results  of  Task  3  are  not 
included in the analysis for this facility. 

- 16 - 

 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

5. Results of the EIVIC exercise 

5.1  Participation  in  the  EIVIC  intercomparison  for  the  different 
tasks 

The  EIVIC  intercomparison  exercise  was  performed  by  35  facilities  from  21  countries. 
During  this  intercomparison,  each  participant  laboratory  had  to  choose  the  tasks  they 
wanted  to  participate  in  function  of  their  technical  possibilities  and  skills.  The 
participation of the facilities for the different tasks proposed is given in Table 4.  

Each  facility  is  represented  by  an  anonymous  code  which  has  been  assigned  for  the 
presentation of the results called ‘ID Lab’ in this report and sent to each participant. 

Table 4: Summary of participation at the EIVIC intercomparison for the 
different tasks (*) 

ID 
Lab. 

Task 1 - 
Victor 

Task 2 - 
Emergency 

Task 3.1 – 
Medicine 

Task 3.2 - 
Medicine 

Task 4a – 
Calib.  
70 kg 

Task 4b – 
Calib.  
90 kg 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

- 17 - 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ID 
Lab. 

Task 1 - 
Victor 

Task 2 - 
Emergency 

Task 3.1 – 
Medicine 

Task 3.2 - 
Medicine 

Task 4a – 
Calib.  
70 kg 

Task 4b – 
Calib.  
90 kg 

Franck et al. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26* 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40* 

41 

42 

43 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(*) no data submitted by labs 26 and 40 after conducting the measurements. 

- 18 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

5.2 Task 1 – Victor: 60Co, 133Ba, 137Cs and 40K  

The  sources  of  the  Task  1  contained  three  radionuclides:  60Co,  133Ba  and  137Cs.  Most 
facilities have also submitted results of 40K.  

The  activity  has  been  reported  by  the  participant  at  measurement  date.  Nevertheless, 
the EIVIC team used the date of the start of measurement campaign as ‘reference date’. 
The activities have been corrected by the radioactive decay. The radionuclide parameters 
[BIPM, 2020] and the sources reference dates are given in Table 5. 

Table 5: List of radionuclide parameters and sources reference dates of the 
Task 1. 

Radionuclide 

Half-life (y) 

60Co 

5.27 

133Ba 

10.54 

137Cs 

40K 

30.05 

1.25x109 

Energy of γ emissions 
(keV) 

1173, 1332 

81, 276, 302, 
356, 384 

662 

1461 

Reference date 
(EIVIC) 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

5.2.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters 

The reference value (Bq) of sources, given in section 3.2, was compared with the robust 
mean  (Bq)  of  participants  for  each  radionuclide,  as  recommended  in  ISO  13 528  [ISO 
2022] (cf. Table 6). The robust mean was determined with the Q/Hampel robust method 
implemented  in  the  ‘ProLab™’  intercomparison  software.  The  statistic  parameters  used 
are summarised in the Table 7.  

Table 6: Comparison between the reference value and the robust mean of 
participants for Task 1 “Victor”. 

Task 1 – Victor 

60Co 

133Ba 

137Cs 

40K 

Reference value (IRSN) (Bq) 

1100 ± 20 

2720 ± 60 

3850 ± 90  4210 ± 210 

Robust mean (Bq) 

1183 ± 25 

2836 ± 62 

3787 ± 65  3941 ± 137 

Difference (%) 

7.12 

4.19 

-1.52 

-6.41 

The difference between the reference value and the robust mean does not exceed 7%.  

Even if these differences do not reflect a systematic bias, the robust mean of participants 
was used as the assigned value, for each radionuclide to ensure a uniform treatment of 
results between the various tasks. 

- 19 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Table 7: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 1 “Victor”. 

ProLab™ statistic parameters – P4 
Victor 

60Co 

133Ba 

137Cs 

40K 

Statistic method 

Q / 
Hampel 

Q / 
Hampel 

Q / 
Hampel 

Q / 
Hampel 

Number of facilities reporting results 

Number of participants (following plan) 

39 

43 

39 

43 

40 

43 

28 

43 

Assigned value (Bq) 

1183 

2836 

3787 

3941 

Robust mean (Bq) 

1183 

2836 

3787 

3941 

Standard Deviation (SD) (Bq) 

155 

388 

412 

725 

Relative SD (%) 

13.12 

13.68 

10.87 

18.38 

Uncertainty of assigned value (Bq) 

25 

62 

65 

137 

The raw data of participants are represented for 60Co, 133Ba, 137Cs and 40K in  

Figure 7. 

- 20 - 

 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 7: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned value:  60Co, 
133Ba, 137Cs and 40K for Task 1 “Victor”. Red lines: -25% and +50% performance 
criteria. 

- 21 - 

 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

5.2.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) 

The  results  of  the  participants,  treated  with  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010],  are 
compared  to  the  robust  mean  corresponding  to  the  assigned  value  as  described  in 
section 5.2.1. 

Table 8 summarises the bias obtained for the measurement of  60Co, 133Ba, 137Cs and 40K. 
The bias of participants is shown in Figure 8. 

Table 8: Bias of participants for Task 1 “Victor” 

133Ba 

137Cs 

40K 

ID 
Lab. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

60Co 

9.8% 

4.2% 

-9.0% 

4.5% 

16.6% 

-1.1% 

10.0% 

3.8% 

-13.9% 

-13.2% 

-3.5% 

-4.3% 

9.6% 

-7.3% 

4.5% 

0.0% 

12.7% 

38.1% 

-18.6% 

-3.0% 

9.6% 

10.0% 

-9.4% 

0.0% 

-4.0% 

-3.0% 

16.9% 

-7.0% 

1.4% 

3.9% 

0.0% 

20.5% 

-11.0% 

-18.5% 

-6.3% 

5.2% 

-14.4% 

5.2% 

5.1% 

- 22 - 

-0.3% 

7.0% 

-9.2% 

0.9% 

-7.9% 

1.0% 

1.6% 

21.9% 

-10.0% 

2.5% 

2.1% 

5.7% 

21.4% 

-3.9% 

4.7% 

-3.2% 

9.0% 

-8.3% 

11.8% 

2.3% 

17.6% 

-20.2% 

-6.1% 

-3.6% 

-6.1% 

20.0% 

0.6% 

23.9% 

-26.0% 

1.6% 

-16.6% 

15.5% 

4.3% 

3.8% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

41 

42 

43 

EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID 
Lab. 

60Co 

133Ba 

137Cs 

40K 

-0.6% 

-17.8% 

-5.8% 

-11.9% 

57.9% 

Suspicious (Grubbs) 

-7.1% 

20.7% 

-3.0% 

-3.4% 

-10.4% 

0.4% 

-7.4% 

-9.4% 

-8.5% 

-47.2% 

6.2% 

-56.5% 

-50.2% 

Suspicious (Grubbs) 

Suspicious (Grubbs) 

-17.6% 

25.1% 

-6.0% 

0.8% 

34.8% 

-8.5% 

27.4% 

-3.0% 

4.2% 

67.4% 

Outlier (Grubbs) 

-7.4% 

9.3% 

-1.5% 

-3.7% 

25.0% 

-47.8% 

-48.7% 

-7.0% 

-21.3% 

-39.4% 

45.2% 

12.6% 

-0.8% 

3.6% 

29.7% 

-6.3% 

21.8% 

-15.1% 

5.2% 

-1.8% 

39.4% 

84.3% 

Outlier (Grubbs) 

1.3% 

1.1% 

-11.8% 

0.4% 

15.1% 

3.4% 

-0.4% 

88.8% 

144.1% 

124.7% 

Outlier (Grubbs) 

Outlier (Grubbs) 

Outlier (Grubbs) 

-6.1% 

-2.7% 

7.2% 

-9.0% 

-9.7% 

-11.6% 

-12.8% 

-9.9% 

-5.8% 

- 23 - 

26.9% 

-4.3% 

-0.7% 

1.4% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure 8: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of Task 1 “Victor”. 
Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. 

- 24 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

The  60Co  results  show  that  three  facilities  [27,  28  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity 
according  to  the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  ISO  28  218.  The  other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. The facilities ‘27’ and ‘28’ have been detected as a suspicious value and the 
facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

The  133Ba  results  show  that  four  facilities  [27,  28,  31  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity 
according to the [-25%; +50%] criteria ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. The other facilities are 
in conformity. Facility ‘28’ has been detected as a suspicious value and the facilities ‘31’ 
and ‘39’ have been detected as outliers (Grubbs test). 

The  137Cs  results  show  that  three  facilities  [28,  30  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity 
according to the [-25%; +50%] criteria ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. The other facilities are 
in conformity. The facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

The 40K results show that three facilities [14, 28 and 37] are in non-conformity according 
to  the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  The  other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. The facility ‘37’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

5.2.3 Z-score 

Table  9  summarises  the  z-scores  obtained  for  the  60Co,  133Ba,  137Cs  and  40K 
measurements.  The  z-scores  indicated  in  yellow  and  red,  respectively  represent  the 
results to be considered as giving a warning signal and an action signal. The z-scores are 
shown in Figure 9. 

The  results  for  60Co  show  that  the  z-score  of  the  facilities  ‘27’,  ‘28’  and  ‘39’  are  larger 
than 3 (|z|≥3), give an action signal and the facilities ‘13’,  ‘34’ and ‘36’ give a warning 
signal (2<|z|<3) according to ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are considered 
satisfactory (|z|≤2). 

The results for 133Ba show that the z-score of the facilities ‘27’, ‘28’, ‘31’ and ‘39’ over 3 
(|z|≥3) give an action signal according to ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are 
considered satisfactory (|z|≤2). 

The  results  for  137Cs  show  that  the  z-score  of  the  facilities  ‘28’,’30’,  ‘31’  and  ‘39’  are 
larger than 3 (|z|≥3) and give an action signal and the facilities ‘8’, ‘34’ and ‘36’ give a 
warning  signal  (2<|z|<3)  according  to  ISO  13  528  [ISO  2022].  All  other  facilities  are 
considered satisfactory (|z|≤2). 

The  results for  40K show that the z-score of the facility ‘37’ is over 3 (|z|≥3), giving an 
action signal and the facilities ‘28’ and ‘36’ give a warning signal (2<|z|<3) according to 
ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2). 

- 25 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 9: Z-score of participants for Task 1 “Victor”. 

Franck et al. 

ID Lab. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

60Co 

0.75 

0.32 

-0.68 

0.34 

-1.06 

-0.27 

-0.33 

0.73 

-0.55 

0.34 

0.00 

0.97 

2.91 

-1.42 

-0.23 

0.73 

0.76 

-0.72 

0.00 

-0.30 

-0.04 

-1.36 

-0.44 

-0.91 

4.41 

-4.30 

-1.34 

1.91 

-0.46 

0.06 

2.66 

133Ba 

1.22 

-0.08 

0.73 

0.28 

-0.97 

-0.22 

1.23 

-0.51 

0.10 

0.28 

0.00 

1.50 

-0.80 

-1.36 

-0.46 

0.38 

-1.05 

0.38 

0.37 

-0.52 

1.51 

-0.22 

-0.25 

-3.45 

-3.67 

-0.22 

0.31 

4.93 

-0.54 

0.68 

-0.11 

- 26 - 

137Cs 

-0.03 

0.64 

-0.84 

0.08 

-0.73 

0.09 

0.15 

2.01 

-0.92 

0.23 

0.19 

0.52 

1.97 

-0.36 

0.43 

-0.29 

0.83 

-0.76 

1.08 

0.21 

-0.95 

-0.68 

-0.86 

-0.78 

0.57 

-4.40 

-0.64 

-3.62 

4.16 

-0.07 

0.33 

2.74 

40K 

0.96 

-1.10 

-0.33 

-0.20 

-0.33 

1.09 

0.03 

1.30 

-1.42 

0.09 

-0.90 

0.84 

0.23 

0.21 

0.02 

-2.65 

-1.16 

0.69 

-0.82 

0.28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID Lab. 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

41 

42 

43 

60Co 

-0.65 

2.09 

0.03 

-0.03 

6.77 

-0.46 

-0.21 

0.55 

133Ba 

-0.27 

1.83 

1.10 

0.10 

10.54 

-0.66 

-0.71 

-0.84 

137Cs 

-0.58 

2.00 

0.31 

0.10 

11.47 

-1.18 

-0.91 

-0.53 

40K 

-0.10 

2.14 

4.59 

-0.64 

1.46 

-0.24 

-0.04 

0.07 

Figure 9: Representation of the z-score for the radionuclides of Task 1 
“Victor”. Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. 

- 27 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

5.3 Task 2 – Emergency (90 kg): 134Cs, 137Cs and 40K 

The  sources  of  the  Task  2  contained  two  radionuclides:  134Cs  and  137Cs.  Most  facilities 
have also submitted results of 40K. As for Task 1, the activities have been reported by the 
participant  at  measurement  date  and  corrected  for  the  radioactive  decay.  The 
radionuclide parameters [BIPM, 2020] and sources reference dates are given in Table 10. 

Table  10:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of 
Task 2 “Emergency”. 

Radionuclide 

Half-life (y) 

134Cs 

2.06 

Energy of γ emissions (keV) 

605, 796 

137Cs 

30.05 

662 

40K 

1.25x109 

1461 

Reference date (EIVIC) 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

5.3.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters 

The reference value of sources, given in section 3.2, was compared with the robust mean 
of  participants  for  each  radionuclide,  as  recommended  in  ISO  13 528  [ISO  2022]  (cf. 
Table  11).  The  robust  mean  was  determined  with  the  Q/Hampel  robust  method 
implemented in the ProLab™ intercomparison software. The statistic parameters used are 
summarised in the Error! Reference source not found.. 

Table 11: Comparison between the reference value and the robust mean of 
participants for Task 2 “Emergency”. 

Task 2 – Emergency 

134Cs 

137Cs 

40K 

Reference value (BfS) 
(Bq) 

3490 ± 40 

3220 ± 40 

5460 ± 270 

Robust mean (Bq) 

3455 ± 50 

2996 ± 60 

4981 ± 193 

Difference (%) 

-1.04 

-7.09 

-8.68 

The difference between the reference value and the robust mean does not exceed 9%.  

Even  if  there  is  a  small  systematic  underestimation,  these  differences  do  not  reflect  a 
systematic bias, the robust mean of participants was used as the assigned value for each 
radionuclide, to ensure a uniform treatment of results between the various tasks. 

The raw data of participants are represented for 134Cs, 137Cs and 40K in Figure 10. 

- 28 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 10: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned 
value:  134Cs,  137Cs  and  40K  for  Task  2  “Emergency”.  Red  lines:  -25%  and 
+50% performance criteria. 

- 29 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Table 12: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 2 “Emergency”. 

ProLab™ statistic parameters – P5 
Emergency 

134Cs 

137Cs 

40K 

Statistic method 

Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel 

Number of facilities reporting results 

Number of participants (following plan) 

Assigned value (Bq) 

Robust mean (Bq) 

Standard Deviation (SD) (Bq) 

Relative SD (%) 

Uncertainty of assigned value (Bq) 

40 

43 

3455 

3455 

313 

9.07 

50 

40 

43 

2996 

2996 

382 

12.75 

60 

28 

43 

4981 

4981 

1021 

20.49 

193 

5.3.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) 

The  results  of  the  participants,  treated  with  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010],  are 
compared  to  the  robust  mean  corresponding  to  the  assigned  value  as  described  in 
section 5.3.1. 

Table 13 summarises the bias obtained for the measurement of 134Cs, 137Cs and 40K. The 
bias of participants is shown in Figure 11.  

Table 13: Bias of participants for Task 2 “Emergency”. 

ID Lab. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

134Cs 

-2.2% 

3.9% 

-7.4% 

3.1% 

-14.5% 

8.0% 

1.2% 

-0.5% 

1.2% 

1.3% 

-1.1% 

6.7% 

137Cs 

-2.7% 

4.6% 

-23.3% 

7.4% 

-12.1% 

4.1% 

15.0% 

4.4% 

3.9% 

-0.1% 

4.8% 

5.3% 

- 30 - 

40K 

-16.7% 

-18.0% 

4.4% 

-3.6% 

-11.7% 

-22.9% 

-1.8% 

18.5% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID Lab. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

41 

134Cs 

14.5% 

-10.3% 

-11.7% 

16.7% 

-8.2% 

-6.1% 

1.8% 

-0.9% 

1.8% 

-0.4% 

5.7% 

1.2% 

30.7% 

-54.3% 
Suspicious (Grubbs) 

-14.1% 

-40.6% 

35.2% 

-3.4% 

45.8% 

3.6% 

-2.5% 

6.4% 

-3.0% 

-0.8% 

123.0% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

137Cs 

20.5% 

-15.2% 

-13.8% 

22.0% 

-0.3% 

-3.2% 

-5.5% 

5.2% 

2.0% 

-1.4% 

11.5% 

-1.0% 

-20.6% 

-51.9% 

-12.7% 

-41.2% 

31.2% 

-4.2% 

48.8% 

-8.2% 

3.9% 

10.1% 

-8.5% 

4.6% 

114.0% 

40K 

-12.3% 

24.0% 

-1.0% 

-1.3% 

-15.2% 

25.7% 

1.1% 

-59.0% 

-13.7% 

23.4% 

-11.2% 

33.3% 

-9.7% 

12.1% 

69.5% 

-1.3% 

183.1% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

-1.7% 

-1.2% 

4.7% 

- 31 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ID Lab. 

42 

43 

134Cs 

1.5% 

-2.9% 

137Cs 

-1.0% 

-1.7% 

Franck et al. 

40K 

1.4% 

2.2% 

The  134Cs  results  show  that  three  facilities  [28,  30  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity 
according  to  the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  The 
other facilities are in conformity. For the facility ‘28’ a suspicious value has been detected 
and the facility ‘39’ has been considered as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

The  137Cs  results  show  that  three  facilities  [28,  30  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity 
according  to  the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  The 
other facilities are in conformity.  

The 40K results show that three facilities [28, 37 and 39] are in non-conformity according 
to the [-25%; +50%] criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. The other facilities 
are in conformity. The facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

- 32 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure  11:  Representation  of  the  bias  (%)  for  the  radionuclides  of 
Task  2  “Emergency”.  Black  lines:  -25%  and  +50%  performance 
criteria. 

- 33 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

5.3.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) 

Table  14  summarises  the  z-scores  obtained  for  the  134Cs,  137Cs  and  40K  measurements. 
The  z-scores  indicated  in  yellow  and  red,  respectively,  represent  the  results  to  be 
considered  as  giving  a  warning  signal  and  an  action  signal.  The  z-scores  are  shown  in 
Figure 12. 

The results for  134Cs show that the z-scores of the facilities ‘27’, ‘28’, ‘30’, ‘31’, ‘33’ and 
‘39’  are  larger  than  3  (|z|≥3)  and  give  an  action  signal  according  to  ISO  13  528  [ISO 
2022]. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|Z|≤2).  

The  results  for  137Cs  show  that  the  z-scores  of  the  facilities  ‘28’,’30’,  ‘33’  and  ‘39’  are 
larger  than  3  (|z|≥3),  give  an  action  signal  and  the  facility  ‘31’  gives  a  warning  signal 
(2<|z|<3)  according  to  ISO  13  528  [ISO  2022].  All  other  facilities  are  considered 
satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

The results for 40K show that the z-scores of the facilities ‘37’ and ‘39’ are over 3 (|z|≥3) 
and give an action signal and the facility ‘28’ gives a warning signal (2<|z|<3) according 
to ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

Table 14: Z-scores of participants for Task 2 “Emergency”. 

ID Lab. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

134Cs 

-0.24 

0.43 

-0.82 

0.34 

-1.60 

0.89 

0.13 

-0.05 

0.14 

0.14 

-0.12 

0.74 

1.60 

-1.13 

-1.29 

137Cs 

-0.22 

0.36 

-1.83 

0.58 

-0.95 

0.32 

1.18 

0.34 

0.31 

-0.01 

0.38 

0.42 

1.61 

-1.19 

-1.08 

- 34 - 

40K 

- 

-0.81 

-0.88 

0.21 

-0.18 

-0.57 

- 

- 

- 

-1.12 

-0.09 

0.90 

- 

-0.60 

1.17 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID Lab. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

24 

25 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

41 

42 

43 

134Cs 

1.84 

-0.90 

-0.67 

0.20 

-0.10 

0.20 

-0.04 

0.63 

0.13 

3.39 

-5.98 

-1.56 

-4.47 

3.88 

-0.38 

5.05 

0.40 

-0.28 

0.71 

-0.33 

-0.09 

13.56 

-0.19 

0.17 

-0.32 

137Cs 

1.72 

-0.02 

-0.25 

-0.44 

0.41 

0.16 

-0.11 

0.90 

-0.08 

-1.62 

-4.07 

-0.99 

-3.23 

2.45 

-0.33 

3.82 

-0.64 

0.31 

0.79 

-0.67 

0.36 

8.95 

-0.09 

-0.08 

-0.13 

- 35 - 

40K 

- 

-0.05 

-0.06 

- 

-0.74 

1.26 

0.05 

- 

- 

- 

-2.88 

-0.67 

- 

1.14 

-0.55 

1.62 

- 

-0.47 

0.59 

3.39 

-0.06 

8.93 

0.23 

0.07 

0.11 

 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure 12: Representation of the z-score for the radionuclides of Task 2 
“Emergency”. Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. 

- 36 - 

 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

5.4 Task 3 – Medicine #1: 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K 
The sources of Task 2 contained two radionuclides: 68Ge/68Ga and 88Y. Most facilities have 
also received results of 40K. As for Task 1, the activities have been reported by the 
participant at measurement date and have been corrected for the radioactive decay. The 
radionuclide parameters [BIPM, 2020] and sources reference dates are given in  
Table 15. 

Table 15: List of radionuclide parameters and sources reference dates of 
Task 3 “Medicine”. 

Radionuclide 

68Ge/68Ga 

88Y 

40K 

Half-life 

270.95 d 

106.63 d 

1.25x109 y 

Energy of γ emissions (keV) 

511, 1077 

898, 1836 

1461 

Reference date (EIVIC) 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

5.4.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters 

The reference value (Bq) of sources, given in section 3.2, was compared with the robust 
mean  (Bq)  of  participants,  for  each  radionuclide,  as  recommended  in  ISO  13 528  [ISO 
2022]  (cf.  Table  16).  The  robust  mean  was  determined  with  the  Q/Hampel  robust 
method implemented in the ‘ProLab™’ intercomparison software. The statistic parameters 
used are summarised in Table 17. 

Table 16: Comparison between the reference value and the robust mean of 
participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. 

Task 3 – Medicine #1 

68Ge/68Ga 

88Y 

40K 

Reference value (BfS) (Bq) 

4192 ± 410 

4722 ± 119 

4210 ± 210 

Robust mean (Bq) 

3741 ± 114 

4707 ± 163 

3862 ± 127 

Difference (%) 

-10.76 

-0.32 

-8.27 

The difference between the reference value and the robust mean does not exceed 11%.  

Even if these differences do not reflect a systematic bias, the robust mean of participants 
was used as the assigned value, for each radionuclide, to ensure a uniform treatment of 
results between the various tasks. 

The raw data of participants are represented for 68Ge, 88Y and 40K in Figure 13. 

- 37 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure  13:  Representation  of  the  raw  data  of  participants  and  the 
assigned value:  68Ge/68Ga and 88Y and 40K for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. Red 
lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. 

- 38 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 17: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. 

ProLab™ statistic parameters –  
P4 Medicine #1 

68Ge/68Ga 

88Y 

40K 

Statistic method 

Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel 

Number of facilities reporting results 

Number of participants (following plan) 

9 

15 

15 

15 

11 

15 

Assigned value (Bq) 

3741 

4722 

3862 

Robust mean (Bq) 

3741 

4722 

3862 

Standard Deviation (SD) (Bq) 

341 

630 

422 

Relative SD (%) 

9.11 

13.38 

10.38 

Uncertainty of assigned value (Bq) 

114 

163 

127 

5.4.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) 

The  results  of  the  participants,  treated  with  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010],  are 
compared  to  the  robust  mean  corresponding  to  the  assigned  value  as  described  in 
section 5.4.1.  

Table  18  summarises  the  bias  obtained  for  the  measurement  of  68Ge/68Ga,  88Y  and  40K. 
The bias of participants is shown in Figure 14.   

The 68Ge results show that all facilities are in conformity according to the [-25%; +50%] 
criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. 

The  88Y  results show that  one facility [30] is in non-conformity  according to the [-25%; 
+50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  The  other  facilities  are  in 
conformity.  

The 40K results show that two facilities [1 and 37] are in non-conformity according to the 
[-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  Other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. The result of the facility ‘37’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

- 39 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

40K 

-40.3% 

-4.2% 

32.1% 

1.2% 

5.1% 

-24.0% 

92.2% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

4.1% 

0.9% 

-1.5% 

3.3% 

Table 18: Bias of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. 

ID Lab. 

68Ge/68Ga 

1 

4 

5 

8 

13 

22 

25 

30 

32 

34 

37 

38 

41 

42 

43 

88Y 

4.7% 

9.7% 

1.9% 

12.5% 

12.9% 

-13.5% 

-6.4% 

-9.7% 

2.9% 

8.3% 

-9.9% 

-7.2% 

-3.3% 

14.2% 

-4.6% 

-9.9% 

-63.6% 

-1.2% 

24.5% 

-3.0% 

5.0% 

-10.9% 

-7.5% 

-4.9% 

- 40 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 14: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of Task 3 
“Medicine”. Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. 

5.4.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) 

Table 19 summarises the z-scores obtained for the 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K measurements. 
The  z-scores,  in  yellow  and  red,  respectively  represent  the  results  to  be  considered  as 
giving a warning signal and an action signal. The z-scores are shown in Figure 15 . 

- 41 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

The results for  68Ge/68Ga show, that the z-score of all facilities is considered satisfactory 
(|z|≤2). 

The results for 88Y show that the z-score of the facility ‘30’ is over 3 (|z|≥3) and give an 
action  signal  according  to  ISO  13  528.  All  other  facilities  are  considered  satisfactory 
(|z|≤2).  

The results for  40K show that the z-score of the facilities ‘1’ and ‘37’ are over 3 (|z|≥3), 
give  an  action  signal  and  the  facility  ‘5’  and  ‘32’  give  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3) 
according to ISO 13 528. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  z-score  evaluation,  for  the  68Ge/68Ga,  must  be  interpreted 
carefully, because the number of facilities reporting results is less than 10. 

Table 19: Z-score of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #1. 

ID Lab. 

68Ge/Ga 

1 

4 

5 

8 

13 

22 

25 

30 

32 

34 

37 

38 

41 

42 

43 

1.4 

1.4 

-0.7 

-1.1 

0.3 

0.9 

-1.1 

-0.8 

-0.4 

88Y 

0.4 

0.7 

0.1 

-1.0 

1.1 

-0.3 

-0.7 

-4.8 

-0.1 

1.8 

-0.2 

0.4 

-0.8 

-0.6 

-0.4 

- 42 - 

40K 

-3.7 

-0.4 

2.9 

0.1 

0.5 

-2.2 

8.4 

0.4 

0.1 

-0.1 

0.3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 15: Representation of the z-score for the radionuclides of Task 3 
“Medicine” #1. Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. 

5.5 Task 3 – Medicine #2: 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K 

The sources of Task 3 #2 contained two radionuclides:  68Ge/68Ga and  88Y. Most facilities 
have also received results of 40K. As for previous tasks, the activities have been reported 
by  the  participants  at  measurement  date  and  corrected  by  the  radioactive  decay.  The 
radionuclide parameters [BIPM, 2020] and sources reference dates are given in Table 20. 

Table  20:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of 
Task 3 “Medicine” #2. 

Radionuclide 

68Ge/68Ga 

88Y 

40K 

Half-life 

270.95 d 

106.63 d 

1.25x109 y 

Energy of γ emissions (keV) 

511, 1077 

898, 1836 

1461 

Reference date (EIVIC) 

10/08/2021 

10/08/2021 

01/05/2021 

5.5.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters 

The reference value (Bq) of sources, given in section 3.2, was compared with the robust 
mean  (Bq)  of  participants  for  each  radionuclide,  as  recommended  in  ISO  13 528  [ISO 
2022]  (cf.  Table  21).  The  robust  mean  was  determined  with  the  Q/Hampel  robust 
method implemented in the ‘ProLab™’ intercomparison software. The statistic parameters 
used are summarised in the Table 22. 

- 43 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Table 21: Comparison between the reference value and the robust mean of 
participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. 

Task 3 – Medicine #2 

68Ge 

88Y 

40K 

Reference value (BfS) 
(Bq) 

4625 ± 452 

4396 ± 110 

4210 ± 210 

Robust mean (Bq) 

4219 ± 15 

4263 ± 127 

4163 ± 201 

Difference (%) 

-8.79 

-3.02 

-1.13 

The difference between the reference value and the robust mean does not exceed 9%.  

Even if these differences do not reflect a systematic bias, the robust mean of participants 
was used as the assigned value for each  radionuclide, to ensure a uniform treatment of 
results between the various tasks. 

Table 22: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. 

ProLab™ statistic parameters – P4 
Medicine #2 

68Ge 

88Y 

40K 

Statistic method 

Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel 

Number of facilities reporting results 

Number of participants (following plan) 

Assigned value (Bq) 

Robust mean (Bq) 

Standard Deviation (SD) (Bq) 

8 

23 

4219 

4219 

428 

22 

23 

4263 

4263 

595 

18 

23 

4163 

4163 

853 

Relative SD (%) 

10.15 

13.96 

20.49 

Uncertainty of assigned value (Bq) 

151 

127 

201 

The raw data of participants are represented for 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K in Figure 16. 

- 44 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 16: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned 
value: 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. Red lines: -25% and 
+50% performance criteria. 

5.5.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) 

The  results  of  the  participants,  treated  with  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010],  are 
compared  to  the  robust  mean  corresponding  to  the  assigned  value  as  described  in 
section 5.5.1.  

Table  23  summarises  the  bias  obtained  for  the  measurement  of  68Ge/68Ga,  88Y  and  40K. 
The bias of participants is shown in Figure 17.   

The  68Ge  results  show  that  all  facilities  are  in  conformity  according  to  the  [-25%;  
+50%] criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. 

- 45 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 23: Bias of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. 

ID Lab. 

68Ge/68Ga 

2.3% 

-4.8% 

-3.4% 

-2.1% 

0.04% 

27.2% 

7.9% 

-16.1% 

2 

3 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

14 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

24 

27 

28 

29 

31 

33 

35 

36 

39 

Franck et al. 

40K 

16.1% 

-22.0% 

-8.7% 

13.6% 

-2.0% 

9.4% 

88Y 

-4.2% 

-7.6% 

-5.8% 

-6.8% 

-9.1% 

-1.2% 

12.8% 

-13.3% 

-36.2% 

11.8% 

3.0% 

7.1% 

9.7% 

-3.5% 

4.7% 

-8.0% 

16.2% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

21.6% 

-49.1%  
suspicious (Grubbs) 

-66.4% 

-21.8% 

15.4% 

5.1% 

-2.5% 

24.5% 

84.5%  
outlier (Grubbs) 

-6.3% 

1.2% 

-7.4% 

-3.9% 

27.9% 

52.5% 

The  88Y  results  show  that  two  facilities  [28,  39]  are  in  non-conformity  according  to  the  
[-25%; +50%] criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. The other facilities are in 

- 46 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

conformity. The facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier and ‘28’ as a suspicious value 
(Grubbs test).  

The 40K results show that three facilities [14, 28 and 39] are in non-conformity according 
to the [-25%; +50%] criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. Other facilities are 
in conformity. 

Figure 17: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of the Task 
3 "Medicine" #2. Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. 

- 47 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

5.5.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) 

Table 24 summarises the z-scores obtained for the 68Ge/68Ga, 88Y and 40K measurements. 
The  z-scores  indicated  in  yellow  and  red,  respectively,  represent  the  results  to  be 
considered  as  giving  a  warning  signal  and  an  action  signal.  The  z-scores  are  shown  in 
Figure 18. 

The  results  for  68Ge/68Ga  show  that  the  z-score  of  facility  ‘31’  gives  a  warning  signal 
(2<|z|<3). All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

The results for  88Y show that the z-score of facility ’28 and ‘39’ are over 3 (|z|≥3), give 
an  action  signal  according  to  ISO  13  528  [ISO  2022].  All  other  facilities  are  considered 
satisfactory (|z|≤ 2).  

The results for 40K show that the z-score of the facility ‘28’ is larger than 3 (|z|≥3) gives 
an action signal and the facilities ‘39’ gives a warning signal (2<|z|<3) according to ISO 
13 528. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  z-score  evaluation,  for  the  68Ge/68Ga,  must  be  interpreted 
carefully because the number of facilities reporting results is less than 10. 

Figure  18:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  3 
“Medicine” #2. Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal.  

- 48 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 24: Z-score of participants for Task 3 “Medicine” #2. 

88Y 

-0.3 

-0.5 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.7 

-0.1 

0.9 

-0.9 

-0.3 

0.3 

-0.6 

1.2 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

-3.5 

-1.6 

1.1 

0.4 

-0.2 

1.8 

6.1 

40K 

0.8 

-1.1 

-0.4 

0.7 

-0.1 

0.5 

-1.8 

-0.6 

0.1 

0.3 

0.5 

-3.2 

-0.3 

0.1 

-0.4 

-0.2 

1.4 

2.6 

ID Lab. 

68Ge/68Ga 

2 

3 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

12 

14 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

24 

27 

28 

29 

31 

33 

35 

36 

39 

0.2 

-0.5 

-0.3 

-0.2 

0.0 

2.7 

0.8 

-1.6 

- 49 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

5.6 Task 4a – Calibration 70 kg: 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K  

The sources of Task 4a contained two radionuclides:  133Ba and 152Eu. Most facilities have 
also  received  results  of  40K.  As  for  previous  tasks,  the  activities  have  been  reported  by 
the participant at measurement date and have been corrected for the radioactive decay. 
The radionuclide parameters [BIPM, 2020] and sources reference dates are given in the 
Table 25. 

Table  25:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of 
Task 4a “Calibration”. 

Radionuclide 

Half-life (y) 

133Ba 

10.54 

152Eu 

13.52 

40K 

1.25x109 

Main energy of γ emissions 
(keV) 

81, 276, 302, 
356, 384 

122, 245, 344, 779, 867, 
964, 1086, 1112, 1408 

1461 

Reference date (EIVIC) 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

5.6.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters 

The reference value (Bq) of sources, given in section 3.2, was compared with the robust 
mean  (Bq)  of  participants  for  each  radionuclide,  as  recommended  in  ISO  13 528  [ISO 
2022]  (cf.  Table  26).  The  robust  mean  was  determined  with  the  Q/Hampel  robust 
method implemented in the ProLab™ intercomparison software. The statistic parameters 
used are summarised in the Table 27. 

Table 26: Comparison between the reference value and the robust mean of 
participants for Task 4a “Calibration”. 

Task 4.a - Calibration 

133Ba 

152Eu 

40K 

Reference value (BfS) (Bq) 

21750 ± 290 

25720 ± 600 

4210 ± 210 

Robust mean (Bq) 

20535 ± 460 

25730 ± 728 

3770 ± 297 

Difference (%) 

-5.57 

-0.06 

-10.47 

- 50 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 27: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 4a “Calibration”. 

ProLab statistic parameters – P4 
Calibration A 

133Ba 

152Eu 

40K 

Statistic method 

Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel 

Number of facilities reporting results 

Number of participants (following plan) 

21 

25 

20 

25 

17 

25 

Assigned value (Bq) 

20535 

25730 

3770 

Robust mean (Bq) 

20535 

25730 

3770 

Standard Deviation (SD) (Bq) 

2106 

3258 

1225 

Relative SD (%) 

10.26 

12.66 

32.49 

Uncertainty of assigned value (Bq) 

460 

728 

297 

The difference between the reference value and the robust mean does not exceed 10%. 
Even  if  there  is  a  small  systematic  underestimation,  these  differences  do  not  reflect  a 
systematic  bias,  the  robust  mean  of  participants  was  used  as  the  assigned  value,  for 
each radionuclide, to ensure a uniform treatment of results between the various tasks. 

The raw data of participants are represented for 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K in the Figure 19. 

- 51 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure 19: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned 
value:  133Ba,  152Eu  and  40K  for  Task  4a  "Calibration".  Red  lines:  -25%  and 
+50% performance criteria. 

- 52 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

5.6.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) 

The  results  of  the  participants,  treated  with  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010],  are 
compared  to  the  robust  mean  corresponding  to  the  assigned  value  as  described  in 
section 5.6.1. 

Table 28 summarises the bias obtained for the measurement of 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K. The 
bias of participants is shown in the Figure 20.   

The 133Ba results show that all facilities are in conformity according to the [-25%; +50%] 
criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. 

The 152Eu results show that two facilities [30, 31] are in non-conformity according to the 
[-25%; +50%] criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. The other facilities are in 
conformity. The facility ‘31’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

The  40K  results  show  that  four  facilities  [14,  20,  30  and  33]  are  in  non-conformity 
according  to  the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  Other 
facilities are in conformity. 

Table 28: Bias of participants for Task 4a “Calibration”. 

ID Lab. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

12 

14 

17 

20 

21 

24 

25 

29 

30 

133Ba 

0.3% 

1.8% 

8.7% 

17.9% 

3.2% 

-9.1% 

-6.2% 

-5.3% 

-4.1% 

-5.7% 

15.6% 

2.3% 

-2.1% 

-9.9% 

-20.6% 

-5.8% 

- 53 - 

152Eu 

0.7% 

-2.8% 

6.2% 

12.3% 

3.3% 

-3.6% 

11.2% 

-9.9% 

2.9% 

12.3% 

2.0% 

-0.9% 

-7.9% 

-17.2% 

-35.7% 

40K 

-0.3% 

-16.2% 

-7.2% 

11.4% 

-1.9% 

16.0% 

-38.1% 

-14.5% 

-32.7% 

16.3% 

-20.4% 

-52.4% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ID Lab. 

31 

32 

33 

36 

41 

Franck et al. 

152Eu 

40K 

53.3% 
Suspicious (Grubbs) 

-4.4% 

0.7% 

28.8% 

-8,7% 

44.9% 

-2.3% 

52.2% 

44.8% 

0,30% 

133Ba 

36.1% 

-4.3% 

4.5% 

29.7% 

-9,0% 

- 54 - 

 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 20: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of Task 4a 
"Calibration". Black lines: -25% and +50% performance criteria. 

5.6.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) 

Table 29  summarises the z-scores obtained for  133Ba,  152Eu and  40K  measurements.  The 
z-scores indicated in yellow and red, respectively, represent the results to be considered 
as giving a warning signal and an action signal. The z-scores are shown in Figure 21. 

The results for  133Ba show that the z-score of facility ‘31’ is larger than 3 (|z|≥3), gives 
an action signal and the facilities ‘29’ and ‘36’ give a warning signal (2<|z|<3) according 
to ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

- 55 - 

 
 
 
 
The results for 152Eu show that the z-score of facility ‘31’ is over 3 (|z|≥3) gives an action 
signal  and  the  facilities  ‘30’  and  ‘36’  give  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3)  according  to  ISO 
13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

The results for 40K show that all facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|≤2). 

Franck et al. 

Table 29: Z-score of participants for Task 4a "Calibration". 

ID Lab. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

12 

14 

17 

20 

21 

24 

25 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

36 

41 

133Ba 

0.03 

0.18 

0.85 

1.75 

0.31 

-0.89 

-0.61 

-0.52 

-0.40 

-0.55 

1.52 

0.23 

-0.21 

-0.97 

-2.01 

-0.57 

3.52 

-0.42 

0.44 

2.90 

-0.87 

152Eu 

0.05 

-0.22 

0.49 

0.97 

0.26 

-0.28 

0.89 

-0.78 

0.23 

0.98 

0.16 

-0.07 

-0.62 

-1.36 

-2.82 

4.21 

-0.34 

0.05 

2.27 

-0.69 

- 56 - 

40K 

-0.01 

-0.50 

-0.22 

0.35 

-0.06 

0.49 

-1.17 

-0.45 

-1.01 

0.50 

-0.63 

-1.61 

1.38 

-0.07 

1.61 

1.38 

0.01 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure  21:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  4a 
"Calibration". Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. 

5.7 Task 4b – Calibration 90 kg: 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K  

The sources of Task 4b contained two radionuclides:  133Ba and 152Eu. Most facilities have 
also received rods of  40K. As for previous tasks, the activities have been reported by the 
participant at measurement date and have been corrected for the radioactive decay. The 
radionuclide parameters [BIPM, 2020] and sources reference dates are given in the Table 
30. 

Table  30:  List  of  radionuclide  parameters  and  sources  reference  dates  of 
Task 4b “Calibration”. 

Radionuclide 

Half-life (y) 

133Ba 

10.54 

152Eu 

13.52 

Main energy of γ emissions 
(keV) 

81, 276, 302, 356, 
384 

122, 245, 344, 779, 
867, 964, 1086, 
1112, 1408 

40K 

1.25x109 

1461 

Reference date (EIVIC) 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

01/05/2021 

5.7.1 Assigned value and statistic parameters 

The reference value (Bq) of sources, given in section 3.2, was compared with the robust 
mean  (Bq)  of  participants  for  each  radionuclide,  as  recommended  in  ISO  13 528  [ISO 
2022]  (cf.  Table  31).  The  robust  mean  was  determined  with  the  Q/Hampel  robust 
method implemented in the ProLab™ intercomparison software. The statistic parameters 
used are summarised in the Table 32. 

- 57 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Table 31: Comparison between the reference value and the robust mean of 
participants for Task 4b “Calibration”. 

Task 4.b - Calibration 

133Ba 

152Eu 

40K 

Reference value (BfS) (Bq) 

27930 ± 390 

33050 ± 750 

5460 ± 270 

Robust mean (Bq) 

25782 ± 496 

32668 ± 685 

4692 ± 240 

Difference (%) 

-7.68 

-1.14 

-14.00 

The difference between the reference value and the robust mean does not exceed 14%. 
Even  if  there  is  a  small  systematic  underestimation,  these  differences  do  not  reflect  a 
systematic bias, the robust mean of participants was used as the assigned value for each 
radionuclide, to ensure a uniform treatment of results between the various tasks. 

It must be noted that the assigned values of the Task 4b were determined using all data 
of  participants.  Even  if  several  calibration  curves  were  applied  by  the  participants  to 
quantify the activity, due to the low statistic and the chosen method (Q/Hampel), it was 
not  possible  to  determine  the  robust  mean  excluding  the  data  with  70  kg  calibration 
curve.  Nevertheless,  the  arithmetic  means  of  expert  laboratories  are  very  close  to  the 
robust mean: 26050 Bq vs 25782 Bq for  133Ba and 31807 Bq vs 32668 Bq for  152Eu.  It 
was  then  considered  that  the  robust  mean  with  all  data  is  a  good  estimator  for  this 
analysis.  

Table 32: ProLab™ statistic parameters for Task 4b “Calibration”. 

ProLab statistic parameters – P5 
Calibration 

133Ba 

152Eu 

40K 

Statistic method 

Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel  Q / Hampel 

Number of facilities reporting results 

Number of participants (following plan) 

31 

33 

30 

33 

Assigned value (Bq) 

25782 

32668 

Robust mean (Bq) 

25782 

32668 

Standard Deviation (SD) (Bq) 

2760 

3750 

21 

33 

4692 

4692 

1101 

Relative SD (%) 

10.71 

11.48 

23.47 

Uncertainty of assigned value (Bq) 

496 

685 

240 

The raw data of participants are represented for 133Ba, 152Eu and 40K in the Figure 22.  

- 58 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

5.7.2 Bias and outliers (ISO 28 218) 

The  results  of  the  participants,  treated  with  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010],  are 
compared  to  the  robust  mean  corresponding  to  the  assigned  value  as  described  in 
section 5.7.1. 

Table 33 summarises the bias obtained for the measurement of  133Ba, 152Eu and 40K. The 
bias of participants is shown in the Figure 22.   

The 133Ba results show that two facilities [33 and 39] are in non-conformity according to 
the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  The  other  facilities 
are  in  conformity.  The  values  of  three  facilities  [31,  33  and  39]  have  been  detected  as 
outliers (Grubbs test). 

The 152Eu results show that two facilities [30, 39] are in non-conformity according to the 
[-25%; +50%] criteria of the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. The other facilities are in 
conformity. The result of facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

The  40K  results  show  that  four  facilities  [1,  14,  31  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity 
according  to  the  [-25%;  +50%]  criteria  of  the  standard  ISO  28  218  [ISO  2010].  Other 
facilities  are  in  conformity.  The  value  of  facility  ‘39’  has  been  detected  as  an  outlier 
(Grubbs test). 

- 59 - 

 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure 22: Representation of the raw data of participants and the assigned 
value:  133Ba,  152Eu  and  40K  for  Task  4b  "'Calibration".  Red  lines:  -25%  and 
+50% performance criteria. 

- 60 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 33: Bias of participants for Task 4b “Calibration”. 

ID Lab. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

24 

25 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

35 

36 

38 

39 

41 

152Eu 

-3.0% 

2.8% 

-5.3% 

5.3% 

-7.8% 

7.8% 

-16.2% 

3.2% 

2.2% 

7.9% 

13.5% 

-11.9% 

23.6% 

-1.5% 

-1.4% 

-6.7% 

-4.2% 

3.0% 

3.7% 

2.1% 

-16.2% 

-29.2% 

45.4% 

-6.0% 

44.2% 

-2.9% 

12.8% 

4.2% 

133Ba 

-0.4% 

3.9% 

-3.0% 

10.2% 

-4.5% 

7.9% 

-14.4% 

-15.0% 

5.1% 

2.0% 

-6.9% 

4.9% 

-10.7% 

17.0% 

-7.9% 

1.6% 

-5.9% 

-2.1% 

-0.9% 

7.7% 

3.6% 

-17.0% 

4.7% 

40K 

-73.5% 

-0.6% 

-15.2% 

8.7% 

6.6% 

0.2% 

-15.2% 

16.6% 

-39.3% 

-1.5% 

6.2% 

-9.5% 

5.0% 

-19.0% 

43.8% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

61.3% 

-2.4% 

-21.9% 

66.1% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

-3.7% 

14.2% 

6.3% 

20.8% 

32.5% 

10.0% 

120.0% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

156.6% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

119.5% 
Outlier (Grubbs) 

0.9% 

1.1% 

8.3% 

- 61 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure 23: Representation of the bias (%) for the radionuclides of the 
Task 4b "Calibration". Black lines: -25% and +50% performance 
criteria. 

- 62 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

5.7.3 Z-score (ISO 13 528) 

Table  34  summarises  the  z-scores  obtained  for  the  133Ba,  152Eu  and  40K  measurements. 
The  z-scores  indicated  in  yellow  and  red,  respectively,  represent  the  results  to  be 
considered as giving a warning signal and an action signal. The z-scores are shown in the 
Figure 24. 

The results for  133Ba show that the z-score  of  the facilities ‘31’, ‘33’ and ‘39’ are  over 3 
(|z|≥3), give an action signal according to ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022]. All other facilities are 
considered satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

The  results for  152Eu show that the z-score of  the facilities ‘31’,  ‘33’ and ‘39’ are  over 3 
(|z|≥3)  give  an  action  signal  and  the  facilities  ‘16’  and  ‘30’  give  a  warning  signal 
(2<|z|<3)  according  to  ISO  13  528  [ISO  2022].  All  other  facilities  are  considered 
satisfactory (|z|≤2).  

The results for 40K show that the z-score of facilities ‘1’ and ‘39’ are larger than 3 (|z|≥3) 
and  gives  an  action  signal  and  the  facility  ‘31’  gives  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3) 
according  to  ISO  13  528  [ISO  2022].  All  other  facilities  are  considered  satisfactory 
(|z|≤2).  

Table 34: Z-score of participants for Task 4b "Calibration". 

ID Lab. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

152Eu 

-0.26 

0.24 

-0.46 

0.46 

-0.68 

0.68 

-1.41 

0.28 

0.19 

0.69 

1.18 

-1.04 

2.06 

-0.13 

- 63 - 

133Ba 

-0.04 

0.37 

-0.28 

0.96 

-0.42 

0.73 

-1.34 

-1.40 

0.47 

0.19 

-0.64 

0.46 

-1.00 

1.59 

-0.73 

40K 

-3.13 

-0.03 

-0.65 

0.37 

0.28 

0.01 

-0.65 

0.71 

-1.68 

-0.06 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ID Lab. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

24 

25 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

35 

36 

38 

39 

41 

152Eu 

-0.12 

-0.59 

-0.37 

0.26 

0.32 

0.19 

-1.41 

-2.54 

3.95 

-0.52 

3.85 

-0.25 

1.11 

0.37 

10.45 

0.08 

Franck et al. 

40K 

0.27 

-0.40 

0.21 

-0.81 

2.61 

-0.94 

0.89 

1.38 

0.43 

5.09 

0.35 

133Ba 

0.15 

-0.55 

-0.20 

-0.08 

0.72 

0.34 

-1.59 

0.44 

4.09 

-0.22 

6.18 

-0.35 

1.32 

0.59 

14.63 

0.10 

- 64 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure  24:  Representation  of  the  z-score  for  the  radionuclides  of  Task  4b 
"Calibration". Yellow: warning signal, red: action signal. 

- 65 - 

 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

5.8  Conclusion  on  the  results  for  the  measurement  Tasks  1,  2, 
3.1, 3.2, 4a and 4b 

The conclusion for this intercomparison can be summarised by the compliance reports for 
the different geometries for the participants of each task, with regard to the ISO 28 218 
[ISO 2010] and ISO 13 528 [ISO 2022] standards. They are summarised in  Table 35 to 
Table 40. 

Depending  on  the  normative  reference  applied,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  difference  in 
conformity  exists  for  several  installations.  Several  reasons  can  generally  explain  this 
difference: 

•  The tolerance intervals are more restrictive according to the standard ISO 13 528 

[ISO 2022] than to the standard ISO 28 218 [ISO 2010]. 

•  The bias (ISO 28 218) is a criterion which allows to assess the performance of an 
installation  in  relation  to  the  “target”  value,  and  therefore  independently  of  the 
other participants. The  z-score is a performance estimator which depends on the 
dispersion  of  the  results  of  the  participants.  It  therefore  allows  to  evaluate  a 
facility  compared  to  all  the  participating  facilities  (use  of  the  robust  standard 
deviation for capability evaluation).  

•  The  intercomparison  is  representative  of  the  variability  of  the  materials  and 
methods  used.  In  fact,  the  measurements  are  not  carried  out  under  the  same 
conditions  and  with  different  installations,  particularly  in  terms  of  detection 
system  (NaI(Tl)  or  germanium  detectors  of  different  sizes),  calibration  curves 
used  (70  kg  systematically  or  adapted  to  the  configuration),  the  duration  of  the 
measurement, the detector-patient distances and the use of more or less realistic 
anthropomorphic phantoms.  

For  the  two  laboratories  with  the  most  extreme  biases  over  all  tasks,  i.e.  facilities  ‘28’ 
and ‘39’, a discussion of the results with the laboratory staff yielded information that they 
applied a calibration for lung measurements and tried to adapt the results to the whole-
body geometry of the intercomparison. 

Non-conforming results are therefore to be interpreted with care and must be considered 
as complementary elements allowing the laboratory to evaluate itself compared to other 
participants. 

A further analysis would therefore be to categorise the participants for the calculation of 
the z-score in order to compare similar methods and measurement systems. A first study 
has  been  done  and  is  presented  in  the  Chapter  6.  Nevertheless,  to  date,  the  great 
variability of the materials and methods used does not allow us to have sufficiently large 
populations to carry out a statistical analysis for all the parameters.  

Table 35: Compliance report for Task 1 “Victor”. 

ID 

1 

2 

3 

ISO 28 218 

ISO 13 528 

Conform (60Co/133Ba/137Cs) 

Acceptable (60Co/133Ba/137Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

- 66 - 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

ISO 13 528 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

(

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Conform (

60

Co/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co)  Warning signal (

137

Cs) 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

(

Acceptable 
133

137

Ba/

Cs) 

Warning signal (

60

Co) 

Conform 
137

133

60

Co/

Ba/

Cs) 

Conform 

- 

Conform 

Conform 

Not conform 

40

K) 

(

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

- 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

- 

- 

27  Conform (

137

Cs) 

Not conform 
133

60

(

Co/

Ba) 

Accept. (

137

Cs)  Action signal (

60

Co/

133

Ba) 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Not conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs/

40

K) 

Warning signal 

Action signal 

40

K) 

(

60

Co/

(

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba) 

Not conform 
(137Cs) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba)  Action signal (

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Not conform 

Acceptable 

Action signal 

- 67 - 

 
 
Franck et al. 

ISO 28 218 
40

60

Co/

(

137

Cs/

K) 

133

Ba) 

(

60

Co/

(

40

K) 

(

Ba/

137

Cs) 

ISO 13 528 
133

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable 

Warning signal 

133

Ba) 

(

60

Co/

(

137

Cs) 

Acceptable 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform (

60

Co/

133

Ba/
40

Not conform (

K) 

Accept. (133Ba) 

137

Cs) / 

Acceptable (

Warning signal 
(60Co/137Cs/40K) 
137

133

Cs) / 

60

Co/

Ba/
40

Action signal (

K) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform 

40

K) 

(

Not conform 

Acceptable 

Action signal 

60

Co/

(

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

40

K) 

(

60

Co/

(

133

Ba/

137

Cs) 

- 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

- 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

ID 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Table 36: Compliance report for Task 2 “Emergency”. 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

ISO 13 528 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

- 68 - 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

Conform 

Conform 

ISO 13 528 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

- 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

- 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

- 

- 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

137

Cs) 

Action signal (

134

Cs) 

Not conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs/

40

K) 

Warning signal (

40

K) 

Action signal 

134

Cs/

(

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Not conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Action signal (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

40

Acceptable (
K) 
Warning signal 

137

Cs) 

(

Action signal (

134

Cs) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable (

40

K) 

Action signal 

134

Cs/

(

137

Cs) 

Conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Acceptable (

134

Cs/

137

Cs) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

134

Cs/

(

137

Cs) 

Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Action signal (

40

K) 

Acceptable 
134

137

(

Cs/

Cs) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Not conform (

134

Cs/

137

Cs/

40

K) 

Action signal (

134

Cs/

137

Cs/

40

K) 

- 

Conform 

- 

Acceptable 

- 69 - 

 
 
Franck et al. 

ID 

42 

43 

ISO 28 218 

Conform 

Conform 

ISO 13 528 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Table 37: Compliance report for Task 3.1 “Medicine”. 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

ISO 13 528 

1 

4 

5 

8 

13 

22 

25 

30 

32 

34 

Conform (

88

Y)  Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

Action signal (

40

K) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

Warning signal (

40

K) 

Conform (

68

Ge/

88

Y) 

Conform (

88

Y) 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable (

68

Ge/

88

Y) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Not conform (

88

Y) 

Action signal (

88

Y) 

Conform 

Conform (

88

Y) 

Acceptable 

Warning signal (40K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

37  Conform (

88

Y)  Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable (88Y) 

Action signal (

40

K) 

38 

41 

42 

43 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Table 38: Compliance report for Task 3.2 “Medicine”. 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

2 

3 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

Conform 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform (

88

Y) 

Conform (

68

Ge / 

88

Y) 

Conform (

40

K) 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

ISO 13 528 

Acceptable 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

Acceptable (

68

Ge/

88

Y) 

Acceptable (

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

- 70 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID 

12 

14 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

24 

27 

28 

29 

31 

33 

35 

36 

39 

ISO 28 218 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

ISO 13 528 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform (

88

Y)  Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y/40K) 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform (

88

Y) 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform 

Conform (

68

Ge/

88

Y) 

Conform (88Y) 

Not conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable (

68

Ge/

88

Y) 

Acceptable (

88

Y) 

Action signal (88Y/40K) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable (88Y/40K)  Warning signal (

68

Ge) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Acceptable (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Not conform (

88

Y/

40

K) 

Warning signal (

40

K) 

Action signal (

88

Y) 

Table 39: Compliance report for Task 4a “Calibration” (P4). 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

ISO 13 528 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

12 

14 

17 

20 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba) 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Not conform (40K) 

Acceptable 

Conform 

Conform 

Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

- 71 - 

 
 
 
ID 

21 

24 

25 

29 

30 

Franck et al. 

ISO 28 218 

ISO 13 528 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform 

Conform (

133

Ba) 

31  Conform (

133

Ba/

40

K) 

152

Not conform 
Eu/40
(
K) 
Not conform 

152

(

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

40

Acceptable 
152

(
K) 
Eu/
Acceptable 
133

Ba/40K) 

(

Acceptable (

40

K) 

133

152

Ba/

Eu) 
Warning signal 

133

Ba) 

(

Warning signal 

152

(

Eu) 

Action signal 
133

152

(

Ba/

Eu) 

32 

33 

36 

41 

Conform 

Conform 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable (40K) 

Warning signal 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Acceptable 

Table 40: Compliance report for Task 4b “Calibration” (P5). 

ID 

ISO 28 218 

ISO 13 528 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Conform 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Not conform (

40

K) 

(

Acceptable 
133

152

Ba/

Eu) 

Action signal (40K) 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform (

133

Ba) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba) 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform 

- 

Conform 

Acceptable 

- 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Not conform (

40

K) 

Acceptable 

- 72 - 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

ID 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

ISO 28 218 

- 

ISO 13 528 

- 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba) 

Warning signal 

152

(

Eu) 

Conform 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform 

Conform 

- 

- 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

- 

- 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform (

133

Ba)  Not conform (

152

Eu)  Acceptable (

133

Ba)  Warning signal (

152

Eu) 

Conform 

133

Ba/

(

152

Eu) 

Not conform (

40

K) 

Warning signal 
(40K) 

Action signal 
133

152

(

Ba/

Eu) 

Conform 

Acceptable 

Conform 
152

40

Eu/

K) 

(

Not conform (

133

Ba)  Acceptable (

40

K) 

- 

- 

Action signal 
133

152

(

Ba/

Eu) 

Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Acceptable (

133

Ba/

152

Eu) 

Conform 

- 

Conform 

Acceptable 

- 

Acceptable 

Not Conform (

133

Ba/

152

Eu/

40

K) 

Action signal (

133

Ba/

152

Eu/

40

K) 

- 

Conform 

- 

- 

- 

Acceptable 

- 

- 

- 73 - 

 
 
 
Franck et al. 

6.  Review  of  the  main  metrological  and  organisational 
characteristics of the facilities 

Additional to the results, information about technical and organisational characteristics of 
the  participating  laboratories  were  collected.  Several  of  these  characteristics  were  used 
to test if they had a significant attribution with the quality of the reported results. For this 
purpose,  certain  statistical  tests  were  applied.  The  tests  were  applied  on  the  z-scores 
except those that were identified as outliers. 

Before  conducting  the  statistical  tests,  the  complete  set  of  reported  z-scores  (except 
outliers) was tested if it features a normal distribution. For this purpose, a Shapiro-Wilk 
normality  test  was  conducted.  The  test  failed  (p-value  ≪  0.001),  leading  to  the 
assumption  that  the  set  of  data  does  not  feature  a  normal  distribution.  The  quantile-
quantile  plot  (Q-Q  plot)  (Figure  25),  in  which  data  from  a  normal  distribution  would 
exhibit a straight line, shows that extreme values occur more often in the set of z-scores 
than  it  is  expected  for  a  normal  distribution.  This  suggests  that  the  most  extremely 
biased  results  are  compromised  by  characteristics  of  the  participating  laboratories  as 
explained in Section 5.8 rather than being an outcome of random deviations. 

Figure 25: Quantile-quantile plot of all z-scores except outliers. The straight 
line marks the plot that is expected for a normal distribution. The data with 
sample quantiles smaller than about -1.5 and greater than about +1 deviate 
from the straight line. 

Because  of the deviation from a normal distribution, non-parametric tests were applied. 
These tests do not require the set of data to follow a certain distribution. The tests were 
performed  using  the  R  software  package,  version  4.0.2  [R  Core  Team  2020].  If  not 
otherwise stated below, all reported z-scores (except outliers) from all four measurement 
tasks  that  involved  phantoms  (Tasks  1–4)  were  used  for  the  tests.  The  following  tests 
were conducted: 

- 74 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Mann-Whitney  U  test  to  compare  the  central  tendency  of  the  values:  This  test 
predicates if data from the one subset are significantly greater or smaller than data from 
the other subset (alternate hypothesis) or not (null hypothesis). This test is comparable 
to a t-test for normally distributed values. A two-sided test with correction for tied values 
was conducted. 

Siegel-Tukey test to compare the dispersion of the values: This test predicates if data 
from  the  one  subset  are  significantly  more  or  less  dispersed  than  data  from  the  other 
subset  (alternate  hypothesis)  or  not  (null  hypothesis).  This  test  is  comparable  to  an  F-
test for normally distributed values. A two-sided test with correction for tied  values and 
with adjustment of the medians was applied. 

Reported results are the p-values, which are the maximum probabilities of obtaining the 
actual  samples  under  the  assumption  of  the  samples  originating  from  the  same 
population. Small p-values indicate a significant difference between the sets of data, with 
the  threshold  set  at  0.05  (i.e.  confidence  level  of  95%).  If  the  laboratories  could  be 
divided  into  more  than  two  subsets  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  the  measurement  geometry, 
which was stretcher, inclined chair, chair and standing), the first characteristic serves as 
the  reference  and  data  for  all  other  characteristics  are  compared  with  the  data  for  the 
reference characteristic. 

Beside  the  p-values,  the  number  nlab  of  laboratories  with  the  respective  characteristic, 
the  number  nresult  of  results  from  these  laboratories  that  were  applied  in  the  statistical 
tests,  the  arithmetic  mean,  the  median  and  the  standard  deviation  are  tabulated.  In 
cases where the sum of nlab is less than the number of whole-body counters that reported 
results  (41),  the  respective  characteristic  is  unknown  for  one  or  several  whole-body 
counters. Additional to these values, box plots are presented: The box indicates the first 
quartile,  median  and  third  quartile,  the  whiskers  denote  the  minimum  and  maximum 
value. 

6.1  Type  of  participation  in  the  intercomparison  (visitation  or 
shipment) 

Twenty-five whole-body counters took part in the attended tour whereas 16 whole-body 
counters received the phantom by shipment. The activities of the sources were as similar 
as  possible  in  both  phantoms  for  all  tasks  (Δ  <  0.05%).  Therefore,  possible  differences 
could have been caused in particular by the assistance during the setup of the phantoms 
in  the  attended  tour,  but  also  by  the  longer  time  that  was  available  for  the 
measurements in the shipment tour. 

The  difference  between  the  central  tendencies  between  attended  tour  and  shipment  is 
mostly caused by some very small z-scores (i.e. strong underestimation) in the attended 
tour (Table 41and Figure  26).  This might be only a  coincidence between those few labs 
that  tended  to  strongly  underestimate  the  results  and  the  participation  of  these  labs  in 
the  attended  tour  but  not  a  causal  attribution  between  underestimation  and  attended 
tour.  However,  the  greater  number  of  reported  results  per  laboratory  in  the  shipment 
tour  (12.6)  as  compared  to  the  attended  tour  (10.5)  can  be  explained:  Because  of  the 
short  time  that  was  available  in  the  attended  tour,  not  all  laboratories  conducted  both 
measurements of Task 4 “Calibration” (with a phantom of 70 kg and with one of 90 kg). 

- 75 - 

 
 
 
 
Table 41: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of participation. 

visitation 

shipment 

Franck et al. 

nlab 

nresult 

nresult/nlab 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

25 

262 

10.5 

0.04 

0.09 

1.53 

16 

201 

12.6 

0.05 

-0.13 

1.12 

0.017 sign. diff. 

0.055 not sign. diff. 

Figure  26:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of 
participation. 

- 76 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

6.2 Type of detector 

Thirty  whole-body  counters  conducted  measurements  with  high-purity  germanium 
(HPGe)  detectors,  nine  whole-body  counters  conducted  measurements  with  sodium 
iodide  (NaI(Tl))  detectors.  NaI(Tl)  detectors  feature  a  reduced  energy  resolution 
compared  to  HPGe  detectors,  impeding  the  discrimination  and  identification  of 
radionuclides  when  the  source  features  many  gamma-radiation  emissions  or  emissions 
with  similar  energies.  Two  whole-body  counters  conducted  the  identification  of  the 
radionuclides  with  HPGe  detectors  and  measured  the  activity  of  the  identified 
radionuclides with additional NaI(Tl) detectors. 

Table 42: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of participation. 

HPGe 

NaI(Tl) 

HPGe + NaI(Tl) 

nlab 

nresult 

30 

367 

nresult/nlab 

12.2 

-0.08 

-0.06 

1.33 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

9 

69 

7.7 

0.18 

-0.04 

1.22 

2 

27 

13.5 

1.33 

0.69 

1.53 

Mann-Whitney 

0.39 not sign. diff. 

Siegel-Tukey 

0.082 not sign. diff. 

It can be  seen that the performance of  HPGe  and of NaI(Tl) detectors is similar (Figure 
27).  The  differing  results  for  the  combination  of  HPGe  and  NaI  detectors  are  not 
significant because of the small number of results. 

It  was  also  tested  if  different  results  between  HPGe  and  NaI(Tl)  detectors  can  be 
identified for  134Cs (Table 43, Figure 28) and  137Cs (Table 44, Figure  29) for Emergency 
(Task 2) and for Victor (Task 1) (Table 45, Figure 30).  

- 77 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure 27: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the 
type of detector. 

Table 43: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of detector for 134Cs in the Emergency task. 

nlab 

nresult 

nresult/nlab 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

HPGe 

NaI(Tl) 

30 

28 

0.9 

-0.25 

0.04 

1.86 

9 

9 

1.0 

0.41 

-0.04 

1.39 

0.61 not sign. diff. 

0.82 not sign. diff. 

The relevance of these nuclides in emergency response makes it important that they can 
be  measured  with  NaI(Tl)  detectors,  which  are  often  held  available  for  emergency 
measurements,  with  good  accuracy.  Each  single  of  these  nuclides  should  not  pose  a 
difficulty  for  NaI(Tl)  detectors  because  of  the  small  number  of  gamma  emissions. 
However, in the Emergency task both nuclides were present together as it is usual after 

- 78 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

releases from nuclear reactors so that the peak of  137Cs is overlapped by a peak of  134Cs 
in  NaI(Tl)  spectra.  The  activity  of  134Cs  can  be  calculated  from  undisturbed  peaks 
whereas  that  is  not  possible  for  137Cs  since  this  nuclide  features  only  one  gamma 
emission. In contrast,  137Cs in the Victor task is not disturbed by the other two nuclides 
60Co and 133Ba, which are present in this task, so that it is conceivable that the activity of 
137Cs in this task could have been calculated with better precision using NaI(Tl) detectors. 

It  can  be  seen  that  137Cs  in  the  Emergency  task  was  measured  with  NaI(Tl)  detectors 
with a slight, yet not significant underestimation as compared to HPGe detectors. This is 
particularly interesting since in the Victor task, which can serve as a reference because of 
the  undisturbed  measurability  of  137Cs,  facilities  with  NaI(Tl)  detectors  tended  to  report 
slightly  bigger  results  than  facilities  with  HPGe  detectors  (although  not  significantly  dif-
ferent  either).  It  must  be  noted  that  the  reference  value  was  calculated  as  the  robust 
mean of all reported results (excluding outliers) for this nuclide so that the smaller values 
of NaI(Tl) detectors decreased the reference value. The underestimation in the Emergen-
cy  task  could  have  been  caused  by  an  excessive  subtraction  of  the  count  rate  of  the 
combined 134Cs and 137Cs peak to calculate the activity of 137Cs only, which was necessary 
with NaI(Tl) detectors. 

Figure 28: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the type of 
detector for 134Cs in the Emergency task. 

- 79 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 44: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of detector for 137Cs in the Emergency task, in which also 134Cs was present. 

Franck et al. 

nlab 

nresult 

nresult/nlab 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

HPGe 

NaI(Tl) 

30 

29 

1.0 

0.23 

0.16 

2.19 

9 

9 

1.0 

-0.25 

-0.13 

0.95 

0.26 not sign. diff. 

0.84 not sign. diff. 

Figure  29:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of 
detector for 137Cs in the Emergency task, in which also 134Cs was present. 

- 80 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 45: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of detector for 137Cs in the Victor task. 

nlab 

nresult 

nresult/nlab 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

HPGe 

NaI(Tl) 

30 

29 

1.0 

-0.23 

-0.07 

1.37 

9 

8 

0.9 

0.23 

0.25 

1.18 

0.55 not sign. diff. 

0.63 not sign. diff. 

Figure  30:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of 
detector for 137Cs in the Victor task. 

- 81 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

6.3 Measurement of a 90 kg phantom with a 70 kg calibration 

A  phantom  of  90  kg  was  used  for  the  Emergency  task.  However,  several  laboratories 
calibrate  their  whole-body  counters  only  with  a  phantom  of  70  kg  and  apply  that 
calibration  for  all  masses  of  people  and  phantoms  to  be  measured;  others  conduct 
calibrations  with  different  phantoms  of  up  to  70  kg.  On  the  other  hand,  several 
laboratories  conduct  calibrations  also  with  bigger  phantoms  of  90  kg.  For  the  results  of 
the Emergency task, the performance of laboratories with a calibration for up to 70 kg or 
70 kg only and of those with a calibration also for 90 kg was compared. 

As shown in the Table 46 and Figure 31, the z-scores of those laboratories that calibrate 
their  whole-body  counters  only  at  a  mass  of  70  kg  are  significantly  smaller  than  the  z-
scores of those labs that applied a 90 kg calibration for the 90 kg measurement. It must 
be  noted  again  that  the  reference  value  is  the  robust  mean  of  all  results  so  that  no 
information can be derived which of the two groups reported better results. It is sensible 
that smaller results are gained if a 90 kg phantom is measured with a 70 kg calibration 
because  of  the  stronger  attenuation  of  the  emitted  gamma  radiation  by  the  bigger 
phantom. 

Table  46:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the 
phantom masses for calibration measurements. 

also 90 kg 

only 70 kg 

14 

(9x HPGe, 3x NaI(Tl), 2x 
both) 

18 

(13x HPGe, 5x NaI(Tl)) 

36 

2.6 

0.84 

0.35 

1.46 

49 

2.7 

-0.14 

-0.08 

0.63 

2.52x10-4 sign. diff. 

3.39x10-2 sign. diff. 

nlab 

nresult 

nresult/nlab 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

- 82 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Figure 31: Box plot of the z scores discriminated according to the phantom 
masses for calibration measurements. 

6.4 Measurement geometry 

that  participated 

The  whole-body  counters 
intercomparison  conducted 
measurements  in  different  geometries:  stretcher/lying,  chair/sitting,  inclined  chair, 
standing.  Because  of  the  lack  of  statistical  power,  the  one  laboratory  with  standing 
geometry was excluded from the statistical analysis of the association between geometry 
and  results.  The  statistical  parameters  are  given  in  Table  47  and  the  comparison  in 
Figure  32.  As  shown  no  difference  was  found  between  the  different  type  geometries 
used. 

the 

in 

Table 47: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of geometry. 

stretcher 

inclined 

chair 

standing 

nlab 

nresult 

28 

317 

nresult/nlab 

11.3 

mean 

0.00 

median 

-0.05 

SD 

1.40 

4 

53 

13.3 

0.15 

0.09 

0.80 

- 83 - 

1 

7 

72 

10.3 

0.11 

0.04 

1.57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

0.16 not sign. diff.  0.99 not sign. diff. 

Siegel-Tukey 

0.13 not sign. diff.  0.53 not sign. diff. 

Figure  32:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of 
geometry. 

6.5 Type of calibration phantom 

The participating laboratories used different types of phantoms for the calibration of their 
whole-body  counters:  brick  phantom  (equal  or  similar  to  the  one  that  was  used  in  this 
intercomparison),  bottle  mannequin  absorber  phantom  BOMAB,  other  types  of  bottle 
phantoms,  Canberra  Transfer  Phantom,  computational  phantoms  for  Monte-Carlo 
simulation,  the  Lawrence-Livermore  Lung  Phantom  (LLNL)  and  self-made  phantoms.  In 
order  to  increase  the  statistical  power  of  the  comparison  between  bottle  and  brick 
phantoms, all types of bottle phantoms were summarised. Because of the small number 
of  laboratories,  LLNL  lung  phantoms  and  computational  phantoms  were  excluded  from 
the statistical analysis. 

- 84 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 48: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores with the type 
of calibration phantom. 

brick  BOMAB 

other 
bottle 

Bottle 
(BOMAB 
and 
other) 

Canberra  own 

LLNL 
lung 

computationa
l 

nlab 

12 

5 

9 

14 

nresult 

135 

165 

4 

42 

4 

2 

2 

40 

nresult/nlab  11.3 

11.8 

10.5 

10.0 

mean 

0.19 

0.35 

-0.68 

0.60 

median  0.08 

0.07 

-0.41 

0.46 

SD 

1.19 

1.25 

1.66 

1.31 

p-values 

Mann-
Whitney 

Siegel-
Tukey 

0.59 
not sign. 
diff. 

0.00035 
sign. diff. 

0.00093 

0.0071 

sign. diff. 

sign. diff. 

0.0063 
sign. 
diff. 

0.022 

sign. 
diff. 

It can be  seen in  Table  48 and Figure 33 the  bottle and brick phantoms showed similar 
results  regarding  the  central  tendency  but  different  results  regarding  the  dispersion 
(despite the fact that the standard deviation is quite similar). As can be seen in the box 
plot,  the  difference  in  the  dispersion  was  influenced  by  some  rather  big  under-  and 
overestimations  from  laboratories  with  a  brick  phantom.  With  the  Canberra  phantom, 
results  tended  to  be  underestimated  and  with  own  phantoms  results  tended  to  be 
overestimated  (yet  with  small  dispersion  despite  the  different  makeups  of  these 
phantoms). 

- 85 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

Figure  33:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  discriminated  according  to  the  type  of 
calibration phantom. 

6.6 Identification of the 1077 keV peak of 68Ge 

68Ge  (via  its  daughter  nuclide  68Ga)  emits  gamma  radiation  of  an  energy  of  1077  keV 
with an abundance of 3.2%. Additionally, it produces secondary annihilation radiation of 
an  energy  of  511 keV  with  an  abundance  of  178%.  Because  of  the  great  differences  in 
the  abundances,  several  laboratories  were  able  to  detect  only  the  peak  at  511 keV. 
However, this peak is influenced by background counts,  which need to be  subtracted to 
calculate  the  net  count  rate.  Because  of  the  rather  small  number  of  laboratories  that 
were able to identify 68Ge, statistical tests were not conducted.  

It  can  be  seen  in  Table  49  and  Figure  34  that  the  dispersion  of  the  results  that  were 
calculated  with  taking  into  account  the  peak  at  1077  keV  is  smaller  than  that  of  the 
results that were calculated from 511 keV only. 

- 86 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table 49: Statistical parameters of the attribution of z-scores for  68Ge with 
those peaks that were applied for the calculation of the activity. 

511 keV only  511 keV and 1077 keV  1077 keV only 

nlab 

nresult 

4 

4 

nresult/nlab 

1.0 

mean 

0.51 

median 

0.48 

SD 

1.90 

5 

5 

1.0 

0.57 

0.78 

0.66 

2 

2 

1.0 

-0.01 

-0.01 

0.46 

Figure  34:  Box  plot  of  the  z-scores  for  68Ge  discriminated  according  to 
those peaks that were applied for the calculation of the activity. 

6.7 Accreditation of the laboratory 

Accreditation  according  to  ISO  17  025  [ISO  2017]  is  a  certification  that  specific 
requirements  regarding  the  management  system  are  fulfilled.  These  requirements 
comprise  organisational  and  technical  aspects,  such  as  traceability  of  the  calibration, 
regular internal and external audits and regular participation in proficiency tests or inter-
laboratory  comparisons.  In  several  countries,  accreditation  is  mandatory  for  internal 
monitoring laboratories. 

For the statistical evaluation, all laboratories that were not accredited at the time of the 
measurements  were  counted  as  not  accredited,  no  matter  if  accreditation  was  prepared 
or if a quality-management system without accreditation was in force at the laboratory. 

- 87 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  50:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the 
accreditation of laboratories. 

Franck et al. 

nlab 

nresult 

nresult/nlab 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

accredited 

Not accredited 

22 

247 

11.2 

0.09 

-0.03 

0.92 

16 

179 

11.2 

-0.04 

-0.04 

1.82 

0.49 not sign. diff. 

1.13x10-12 sign. diff. 

Figure 35: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the fact if the 
laboratories were accredited or not. 

As  shown  in  Table  50  and  Figure  35  although  laboratories  that  were  not  accredited 
reported similar results on average, the dispersion of their results is significantly bigger. 
The set of results was divided into three groups of approximately equal size: laboratories 
with  less  than  100  measurements,  with  100  to  500  measurements  and  with  more  than 
500 measurements (reference for this test) in a year. 

- 88 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Table  51  and  Figure  36  indicate  that  laboratories  with  a  greater  number  of  routine 
measurements yielded z-scores closer to zero on average and with a smaller dispersion. 
However, the results of smaller laboratories  were also generally acceptable. The pursuit 
of  a  dense  network  of  whole-body  counters,  which  is  promoted  in  many  countries  in 
order to be prepared for measurements of a large number of people in an emergency, is 
justified by the results that were yielded by the smaller laboratories. 

Table  51:  Statistical  parameters  of  the  attribution  of  z-scores  with  the 
number of annual routine measurements. 

>500 

100-500 

<100 

nlab 

nresult 

13 

152 

nresult/nlab 

11.7 

-0.02 

-0.03 

0.71 

mean 

median 

SD 

p-values 

Mann-Whitney 

Siegel-Tukey 

14 

156 

11.1 

0.60 

0.24 

1.56 

13 

139 

10.7 

-0.53 

-0.47 

1.51 

1.41x10-4 sign. 
diff. 

6.73x10-5 sign. 
diff. 

1.42x10-5 sign. 
diff. 

9.72x10-3 sign. 
diff. 

Figure 36: Box plot of the z-scores discriminated according to the 
number of annual routine measurements. 

- 89 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Franck et al. 

7. General conclusion of the intercomparison 

The  objective  of  the  EIVIC  project  was  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  individual 
monitoring  requirements  in  EU  Member  States  based  on  in-vivo  measurements  and 
receive  an  overview  of  the  capabilities  and  performance  of  whole-body  counters  in 
Europe. It was organised between October 2019 and June 2022 and dedicated to whole-
body measurement of gamma emitters in several tasks selected that cover the range of 
such  possible  measurements  associated  to  different  intake  scenarios.  In  total,  43 
installations from 21 countries took part in the proposed measurements. 

For  this  intercomparison,  four  tasks  were  defined  with  measurements  of  phantoms 
equipped  with  radionuclide  sources.  For  each  phantom  measurement  task,  one  specific 
set  of  radionuclide  sources  has  been  used.  Each  set  contains  a  mixture  of  those 
radionuclides  that  are  to  be  measured  in  the  respective  measurement  task.  The 
measurement tasks comprise the following nuclides: 

•  Task  1:  60Co,  133Ba  and  137Cs.  P4/70  kg  (called  Victor  as  these  are  the  usual 

sources for the IRSN proficiency test phantom called Victor) 

•  Task 2: 134Cs and 137Cs. P5/90 kg (called Emergency) 
•  Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y P4/70 kg (called Medicine) 
•  Task 4: 133Ba and 152Eu (called Calibration). P4 & P5 configurations. 

The  analysis  of  the  results  was  carried  out  with  regard  to  the  criteria  of  standard  ISO 
28 218  and  standard  ISO  13  528.  The  summary  of  the  results  is  given  below  following 
these two standards. 

7.1 Standard ISO 28 218 

According  to  standard  ISO  28  218,  the  conformity  of  the  installation  requires  that  the 
bias  between  the  assigned  value  and  the  value  of  the  participant  must  be  between 
[-25%; +50%]. 

For Task 1: 60Co, 133Ba and 137Cs. P4/70 kg 

• 

• 

• 

• 

60Co: three facilities [27, 28 and 39] are in non-conformity. The other facilities are 
in conformity. The facilities ‘27’ and ‘28’ have been detected as a suspicious value 
and the facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 
133Ba: four facilities [27, 28, 31 and 39] are in non-conformity. The other facilities 
are in conformity. The facility ‘28’ has been detected as a suspicious value and the 
facilities ‘31’ and ‘39’ have been detected as outliers (Grubbs test). 
137Cs:  three  facilities  [28,  30  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity.  The  other  facilities 
are in conformity. Facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 
40K: three facilities [14, 28 and 37] are in non-conformity. The other facilities are 
in conformity. The facility ‘37 has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

For Task 2: 134Cs and 137Cs. P5/90 kg 

• 

• 

134Cs:  three  facilities  [28,  30  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity.  The  other  facilities 
are  in  conformity.  For  the  facility  ‘28’  a  suspicious  value  has  been  detected  and 
the facility ‘39’ has been considered as an outlier (Grubbs test). 
137Cs:  three  facilities  [28,  30  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity.  The  other  facilities 
are in conformity. 

- 90 - 

 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

• 

40K: three facilities [28, 37 and 39] are in non-conformity. The other facilities are 
in conformity. The facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #1 

• 
• 
• 

68Ge: all facilities are in conformity.  
88Y: one facility [30] is in non-conformity. The other facilities are in conformity. 
40K:  two  facilities  [1  and  37]  are  in  non-conformity.  Other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. The result of the facility ‘37’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs 
test). 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #2 

• 
• 

• 

68Ge: all facilities are in conformity.   
88Y:  two  facilities  [28,  39]  are  in  non-conformity.  The  other  facilities  are  in 
conformity.  The  facility  ‘39’  has  been  detected  as  an  outlier  and  ‘28’  as  a 
suspicious value (Grubbs test). 
40K:  three  facilities  [14,  28  and  39]  are  in  non-conformity.  Other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. 

For Task 4a: 133Ba and 152Eu. P4/70 kg 

• 
• 

• 

133Ba: all facilities are in conformity. 
152Eu:  two  facilities  [30,  31]  are  in  non-conformity.  The  other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. The facility ‘31’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs test). 
40K: four facilities [14, 20, 30 and 33] are in non-conformity. Other facilities are in 
conformity. 

For Task 4b: 133Ba and 152Eu. P5/90 kg 

• 

• 

• 

133Ba: two facilities [33 and 39] are in non-conformity.  The  other  facilities are in 
conformity.  The  values  of  three  facilities  [31,  33  and  39]  have  been  detected  as 
outliers (Grubbs test). 
152Eu:  two  facilities  [30,  39]  are  in  non-conformity.  The  other  facilities  are  in 
conformity. The result of the facility ‘39’ has been detected as an outlier (Grubbs 
test). 
40K: four facilities [1, 14, 31 and 39] are in non-conformity. Other facilities are in 
conformity.  The  value  of  facility  ‘39’  has  been  detected  as  an  outlier  (Grubbs 
test). 

7.2 Standard ISO 13 528 

Concerning  the  results  analysed  with  standard  ISO  13  528,  they  should  be  interpreted 
with caution because the measurements were not carried out under the same conditions. 
The  z-scores  should  be  considered  as  additional  elements  allowing  the  laboratory  to 
assess itself in relation to other participants. 

According to this criterion: 

For Task 1: 60Co, 133Ba and 137Cs. P4/70 kg 

• 

60Co: the z-score of the facilities ‘27’, ‘28’ and ‘39’ are larger than 3 (|z|>3), give 
an  action  signal  and  the  facilities  ‘13’,  ‘34’  and  ‘36’  give  a  warning  signal  (2<|z| 
3). All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2).  

- 91 - 

 
 
 
Franck et al. 

• 

• 

• 

133Ba:  the  z-score  of  the  facilities  ‘27’,  ‘28’,  ‘31’  and  ‘39’  over  3  (|z|>3)  give  an 
action signal. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|< 2).  
137Cs: the z-score of the facilities ‘28’, ’30’, ‘31’ and ‘39’ are larger than 3 (|z|>3) 
and give an action signal and the facilities ‘8’, ‘34’ and ‘36’ give a warning signal 
(2<|Z| 3). All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
40K:  the  z-score  of  facility  ‘37’  is  over  3  (|z|>3),  giving  an  action  signal  and  the 
facilities  ‘28’  and  ‘36’  give  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|  3).  All  other  facilities  are 
considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

For Task 2: 134Cs and 137Cs. P5/90 kg 

• 

• 

• 

134Cs: the z-score of the facilities ‘27’, ‘28’, ‘30’, ‘31’, ‘33’ and ‘39’ are larger than 
3 (|z|>3) and give an action signal. All other facilities are considered satisfactory 
(|z|<2).  
137Cs: the z-score of the facilities ‘28’,’30’, ‘33’ and ‘39’ are larger than 3 (|z|>3), 
give  an  action  signal  and  the  facility  ‘31’  gives  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|  3).  All 
other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
40K: the z-score of the facilities ‘37’ and ‘39’ are over 3 (|z|>3) and give an action 
signal and the facility ‘28’ gives a warning signal (2<|z| 3). All other facilities are 
considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #1 

• 
• 

• 

68Ge: the z-score of all facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
88Y: the z-score of the facility ‘30’ exceed 3 (|z|>3) and gives an action signal. All 
other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
40K:  the  z-score  of  the  facilities  ‘1’  and  ‘37’  are  over  3  (|z|>3),  give  an  action 
signal  and  the  facility  ‘5’  and  ‘32’  give  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|  3).  All  other 
facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

For Task 3: 68Ge and 88Y. P4/70 kg #2 

• 

• 

• 

68Ge:  the  z-score  of  the  facility  ‘31’  gives  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3).  All  other 
facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
88Y:  the  z-score  of  facilities  ‘28’  and  ‘39’  is  larger  than  3  (|z|>3),  give  an  action 
signal. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
40K:  the  z-score  of  facility  ‘28’  is  over  3  (|z|>3),  gives  an  action  signal  and  the 
facility  ‘39’  gives  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3).  All  other  facilities  are  considered 
satisfactory (|z|<2). 

For Task 4a: 133Ba and 152Eu. P4/70 kg 

• 

• 

• 

133Ba:  the  z-score  of  facility  ‘31’  is  higher  than  3  (|z|>3),  gives  an  action  signal 
and the facilities ‘30’ and ‘36’ give a warning signal (2<|z|<3). All other facilities 
are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
152Eu: that the z-score of facility ‘31 is over 3 (|Z|>3) and gives an action signal 
and the facilities ‘29’ and ‘36’ give a warning signal (2<|z|<3). All other facilities 
are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
40K: all facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

For Task 4b: 133Ba and 152Eu. P5/90 kg 

• 

133Ba:  the  z-score  of  the  facilities  ‘31’,  ‘33’  and  ‘39’  are  over  3  (|z|>3),  give  an 
action signal. All other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

- 92 - 

 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

• 

• 

152Eu:  the  z-score  of  the  facilities  ‘31’,  ‘33’  and  ‘39’  exceed  3  (|z|>3),  give  an 
action  signal  and  the  facilities  ‘16’  and  ‘30’  give  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3).  All 
other facilities are considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 
40K:  the  z-score  of  facility  ‘1’  is  larger  than  3  (|z|>3)  and  gives  an  action  signal 
and  the  facility  ‘31’  gives  a  warning  signal  (2<|z|<3).  All  other  facilities  are 
considered satisfactory (|z|<2). 

7.3 Statistical evaluation 

The  quality  of  most  of  the  participating  laboratories  was  rather  independent  from  the 
metrological and organisational characteristics. The dispersion of the results within each 
investigated  property  was  stronger  than  the  difference  between  different  properties. 
Therefore, attributable  differences  of these properties are  small (no matter if  significant 
or not). 

Laboratories with NaI(Tl) detectors  reported  results that did not differ significantly from 
those  with  HPGe  detectors,  showing  that  the  use  of  NaI(Tl)  detectors  is  still  justified 
despite  the  trend  of  the  last  years  to  HPGe  detectors.  Likewise,  the  type  of  geometry 
(stretcher,  chair  etc.)  did  not  show  a  significant  attributable  influence  on  the  results. 
Regarding the type of phantom, the statistical evaluation leads to the recommendation to 
use  the  most  prevalent  types  of  phantoms,  namely  brick  phantoms  or  bottle  phantoms 
instead of less common or even self-made phantoms. 

Laboratories with a small number of measurements showed significantly different results 
than  laboratories  with  more  frequent  measurements,  however  the  interest  in  a  dense 
network of internal  service laboratories that exists in many countries might be a strong 
reason  for  maintaining  also  small  laboratories.  Accreditation  also  had  a  beneficial  effect 
on  the  quality  of  the  reported  results.  Of  the  two  participants  with  the  most  extreme 
biases  over  all  tasks,  ‘28’  falls  in  the  group  of  small  laboratories  and  ‘39’  falls  in  the 
group  of  laboratories  with  a  medium  number  of  measurements;  both  were  not 
accredited.  Furthermore,  it  is  observed  that  for  Task  3,  the  most  difficult  exercise,  the 
number of participants who reported results was small  and almost exclusively limited to 
frequent participants in previous intercomparisons organised by IRSN or BfS. 

- 93 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8. References 

Franck et al. 

[BIPM 2020] Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (editor), Table of Radionuclides, 
Volumes 
2004-2020. 
BIPM-5. 
http://www.lnhb.fr/nuclear-data/nuclear-data-table/.  

Monographie 

Sèvres, 

France, 

1-9, 

[ICRU  1992]  International  Commission  on  Radiation  Units  and  Measurements. 
Phantoms and Computational Models in Therapy, Diagnosis and Protection. ICRU Report 
48 (ICRU: Bethesda) (1992). 

[ICRU  2003]  International  Commission  of  Radiation  Units  and  Measurements.  Direct 
Determination  of  the  Body  Content  of  Radionuclides.  ICRU  Report  69,  Journal  of  the 
ICRU 3 (1), (2003). 

[ISO  2010]  International  Organization  for  Standardization.  Radiation  Protection  — 
Performance criteria for radiobioassay. ISO 28 218:2010 (ISO: Geneva) (2010). 

for  Standardization.  Sealed  radioactive 
[ISO  2012]  International  Organization 
sources —  General  requirements  and  classification.  ISO  2919:2012  (ISO:  Geneva) 
(2012). 

[ISO  2022]  International  Organization  for  Standardization.  Statistical  methods  for  use 
in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons. ISO 13 528:2022 (ISO: Geneva) 
(2022). 

[Kovtun  2000]  N.  Kovtun,  V.  B.  Firsanov,  V.  I.  Fominykh  and  G.  A.  Isaakyan. 
Metrological  Parameters  of  the  Unified  Calibration  Whole  Body  Phantom  with  Gamma-
emitting Radionuclides. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., vol 89, pp. 239-242 (2000). 

[R Core Team, 2020] R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 
4.0.2. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2020). 

[RP  2018]  Radiation  Protection  N°  188,  Technical  Recommendations  for  Monitoring 
Individuals  for  Occupational  Intakes  of  Radionuclides,  Luxembourg,  Publications  Office 
of the European Union, ISBN 978-92- 79-86304-2 (2018). 

[Woidy 2022] P. Woidy and O. Meisenberg. Production of sealed rod sources made from 
epoxy  resin  for  the  Saint-Petersburg  brick  phantom  for  the  calibration  of  whole-body 
counters. Radiat. Environ. Biophys., vol. 61, pp. 391-398 (2022) 

- 94 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Annexes 

Annex I: Invitation letter for potential participants 

Annex II: Letter accompanying shipment of phantoms and sources 

Annex III: Instructions about EIVIC phantoms assembly 

Annex IV: Template for the Certificate of Attendance 

- 95 - 

 
 
 
 
Annex I: Invitation letter for potential participants 

Franck et al. 

- 96 - 

 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

Annex  II:  Letter  accompanying  shipment  of  phantoms  and 
sources 

- 97 - 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex III: Instructions about EIVIC phantoms assembly 

Franck et al. 

- 98 - 

 CIEMAT/DR/DPI/07/21      EIVIC Project 2020-2021 European in-Vivo Monitoring Intercomparison Exercise  ENER/2019/NUCL/SI2.811157  “Organization of a European Interlaboratory Comparison  on Whole Body Counting”  IGOR-OLGA EIVIC Phantoms  Instructions about brick phantom assembly  B. Pérez López, J.F. Navarro Amaro, M.A.  López Ponte, W. Buchholz, O. Meisenberg Whole Body Counter Laboratory- Internal Dosimetry Service (CIEMAT)          
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

The  following  materials  (texts,  tables,  videos)  were  provided  to  the  participants  on  the 
BfS  project  data  cloud  (EIVIC  2020  resources  →  document  manuals  folders)  in  order  to 
properly  set  up  the  phantoms  in  their  labs  and  contain  instructions  on  packaging  and 
shipment of the phantoms: 

Table 52: Materials provided to the participants on the BfS project data 
cloud. 

File name 

Description 

Pictures folder 

New_2021: photos of the phantom 

62 jpg-files 

Old 2020: photos of the phantom 

32 jpg-files 

How to pack the cases 

22 ipg-files 

Lying 70 kg phantom.mp4 

Video on the lying 70 kg phantom 

1:26 min 

Lying 90 kg phantom.mp4 

Video on the lying 90 kg phantom 

1:14 min 

Sitting 70 kg phantom.mp4 

Video on the sitting 70 kg phantom 

1:28 min 

Sitting 90 kg phantom.mp4 

Video on the sitting 90 kg phantom 

2:32 min 

p4_p5-lying_manual.xlsx 

p4_p5-sitting-
upright_manual.xlsx 

Manuals on the setup of the standing, 
sitting and lying phantom 

p4_p5-standing_manual.xlsx 

2 Excel sheets 

2 Excel sheets 

3 Excel sheets 

phantoms_EIVIC2020-
shipping_wb0925.xlsx 

Manual  on  the  contents  of  the  boxes 
and phantom constructions 

8 Excel sheets 

phantomsetting_EIVIC2021_eng
lish.docx 

Description Phantom Setup EU In-vivo 
Intercomparison Exercise 

4 p. 

PHANTOM_REPORT_EIVICV1.do
cx 

EIVIC 

- 
IGOR-OLGA 
Instructions  about  brick  phantom 
assembly 

Phantoms 

19 p. 

- 99 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex IV: Template for the Certificate of Attendance 

Franck et al. 

- 100 - 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EIVIC-2020 – European In-vivo Intercomparison Exercise 2020 

- 101 - 

 
 
 
Franck et al. 

- 102 - 

 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can 
find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service:
–  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the 
Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/
publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or 
your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/home) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes.

Energy