4.6 Article

Extraction of depth-dependent perturbation factors for silicon diodes using a plastic scintillation detector

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 38, 期 10, 页码 5441-5447

出版社

AMER ASSOC PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1118/1.3637496

关键词

plastic scintillation detectors; electron beam dosimetry; dosimetry; silicon diode; effective point of measurement

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) [357402, 262105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This work presents the experimental extraction of the perturbation factor in megavoltage electron beams for three models of silicon diodes (IBA Dosimetry, EFD and SFD, and the PTW 60012 unshielded) using a plastic scintillation detector (PSD). Methods: The authors used a single scanning PSD mounted on a high-precision scanning tank to measure depth-dose curves in 6-, 12-, and 18-MeV clinical electron beams. They also measured depth-dose curves using the IBA Dosimetry, EFD and SFD, and the PTW 60012 unshielded diodes. The authors used the depth-dose curves measured with the PSD as a perturbation-free reference to extract the perturbation factors of the diodes. Results: The authors found that the perturbation factors for the diodes increased substantially with depth, especially for low-energy electron beams. The experimental results show the same trend as published Monte Carlo simulation results for the EFD diode; however, the perturbations measured experimentally were greater. They found that using an effective point of measurement (EPOM) placed slightly away from the source reduced the variation of perturbation factors with depth and that the optimal EPOM appears to be energy dependent. Conclusions: The manufacturer recommended EPOM appears to be incorrect at low electron energy (6 MeV). In addition, the perturbation factors for diodes may be greater than predicted by Monte Carlo simulations. (C) 2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3637496]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据