Shielding Assessment and Optimization of the Target Station for Medical Isotope Production Based on Superconducting Proton Linac

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Shielding assessment and optimization of the target station for medical isotope production based on superconducting proton linac

Authors: Daiyuan Chen, Ricardo dos Santos Augusto, Yuanhong Li, Zhi Qin, Jian Rong, Kaiqiang Yao, Huan Jia, Chenzhang Yuan, Juntao Liu and Zhiyi Liua

Comments for the author:

It is my opinion that this article covers an interesting topic for the community. It is clearly written, however some of the results need to be supported with a deeper uncertainty analysis. Additionally, some minor things should be corrected and added to the paper. Detailed comments for the authors are given bellow. After implementing these minor revisions, it is my opinion that the paper will be interesting for the readers of Applied Sciences.

Abstract

Please add some quantitative results to the abstract.

Introduction

Page 2: Sometimes 25-MeV is used and sometimes, without the dash (i.e. 140 keV). Please make consistent throughout the paper.

Simulation model

Page 8: Figure 6: please add corresponding monte carlo relative uncertainty plots for each of the subfigure. Did you check the convergence of the results beyond just the relative uncertainty? If you are comparing unbiased and biased it useful to look at quantities like Figure-0f-merit (see MCNP code manual, 1/(R**2*T) to quantify the acceleration of the convergence.

Results

Figure 7: the uncertainty of the photon results seems very high at lower energies. Is the convergence sufficient? Could you employ energy dependent biasing techniques to better converge the spectrum?

Table 1 seems more appropriate for an appendix than the main body of the paper.

Figure 9: Increase the font of the legend and annotation.

Figure 11. Please add corresponding uncertainty plots, maybe in an appendix. I am concerned these results are not converged (relative uncertainty above 10 %).

Figure 14: Again, I’d like to see corresponding uncertainties.

Conclusions

Please expand the conclusions with more quantitative results. Also add a few sentences on how this work will impact future research/designs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     Please find the following suggestions below:

 

Some captions are incompletely explained.

For instance, in Fig. 4- the design is colored but there are no explanations about the colors. Besides the walls what is the rest (void or air?)

2.     Please add to the caption of Fig. 10 the meaning of bullets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (they have probably the same meaning as 1 - 5 combinations from figure 9). But this should be clearly stated.

3.      Also in Figure 12, in the caption.

 

In general, all captions of the figures should be self-explanatory.

The goal of the manuscript is well explained as well as the physics phenomenon.

The conclusion sounds convincing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is devoted to the  materials study used as personnel protection in the molybdenum production. Various methods have been used to model the radiation dose rate for various production scenarios. The work is interesting from the point of view of modeling.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question is shielding modeling using the different approaches considered the superconducting proton linac.   2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? The topic is relevant in the field but it is difficult for me to estimate the specific gap.   3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? In the paper FLUKA (modeling package) was used to conduct the shielding assessment of both prompt and residual radiation fields in several iterations, based on the prototype of the high-power target system. The MonteCarlo simulation packages are normally used for the radiation calculations. The authors describe in detail all calculation procedures that can be interesting for the scientist from the different fields. Interesting part of the paper devoted to a variety of shielding materials that were used.   4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? It will be better to note emergency situations regarding the proposed protection system   5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Сonclusions are sufficiently substantiated and understandable to the reader   6. Are the references appropriate? yes   7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures no comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf