4.6 Article

Assessment of small volume ionization chambers as reference dosimeters in high-energy photon beams

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 17, 页码 5637-5650

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/17/011

关键词

-

资金

  1. LNE (Laboratoire National de metrologie et d'Essais), the French national metrology institute
  2. European Community [217257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LNE-LNHB is involved in a European project aiming at establishing absorbed dose-to-water standards for photon-radiation fields down to 2 x 2 cm(2). This requires the calibration of reference ionization chambers of small volume. Twenty-four ionization chambers of eight different types with volume ranging from 0.007 to 0.057 cm(3) were tested in a (60)Co beam. For each chamber, two major characteristics were investigated: (1) the stability of the measured current as a function of the irradiation time under continuous irradiation. At LNE-LNHB, the variation of the current should be less than +/- 0.1% in comparison with its first value (over a 16 h irradiation time); (2) the variation of the ionization current with the applied polarizing voltage and polarity. Leakage currents were also measured. Results show that (1) every tested PTW (31015, 31016 and 31014) and Exradin A1SL chambers demonstrate a satisfying stability under irradiation. Other types of chambers have a stability complying with the stability criterion for some or none of them. (2) IBA CC01, IBA CC04 and Exradin A1SL show a proper response as a function of applied voltage for both polarities. PTW, Exradin A14SL and Exradin A16 do not. Only three types of chambers were deemed suitable as reference chambers according to LNE-LNHB requirements and specifications from McEwen (2010 Med. Phys. 37 2179-93): Exradin A1SL chambers (3/3), IBA CC04 (2/3) and IBA CC01 (1/3). The Exradin A1SL type with an applied polarizing voltage of 150 V was chosen as an LNE-LNHB reference chamber type in 2 x 2 cm(2) radiation fields.

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