4.3 Article

Realistic dosimetry for studies on biological responses to X-rays and gamma-rays

Journal

JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages 729-736

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrx019

Keywords

radiation dosimetry; photons; MCNP; Monte Carlo

Funding

  1. State Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution, City University of Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A calibration coefficient R (D-A/D-E) for photons was employed to characterize the photon dose in radiobiological experiments, where D-A was the actual dose delivered to cells and D-E was the dose recorded by an ionization chamber. R was determined using the Monte Carlo N-Particle version 5 (MCNP-5) code. Photons with (i) discrete energies, and (ii) continuous-energy distributions under different beam conditioning were considered. The four studied monoenergetic photons had energies E = 0.01, 0.1, 1 and 2 MeV. Photons with E = 0.01 MeV gave R values significantly different from unity, while those with E > 0.1 MeV gave R approximate to 1. Moreover, R decreased monotonically with increasing thickness of water medium above the cells for E = 0.01, 1 or 2 MeV due to energy loss of photons in the medium. For E = 0.1 MeV, the monotonic pattern no longer existed due to the dose delivered to the cells by electrons created through the photoelectric effect close to the medium-cell boundary. The continuous-energy distributions from the X-Rad 320 Biological Irradiator (voltage = 150 kV) were also studied under three different beam conditions: (a) F0: no filter used, (b) F1: using a 2 mm-thick Al filter, and (c) F2: using a filter made of (1.5 mm Al + 0.25 mm Cu + 0.75 mm Sn), giving mean output photon energies of 47.4, 57.3 and 102 keV, respectively. R varied from similar to 1.04 to similar to 1.28 for F0, from similar to 1.13 to similar to 1.21 for F1, and was very close to unity for F2.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available