4.6 Article

Experimental determination of kQ factors for cylindrical ionization chambers in 10 cm x 10 cm and 3 cm x 3 cm photon beams from 4 MV to 25 MV

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 59, 期 15, 页码 4227-4246

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/15/4227

关键词

k(Q) factors; water calorimeter; high-energy photon beams; small fields

资金

  1. European Commission (EC) throuh the EC grant from the Seventh Framework Programme, ERA-NET Plus [217257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the ionometric determination of absorbed dose to water, D-w, in megavoltage photon beams from a linear accelerator, beam-quality-dependent correction factors, k(Q), are used for the ionization chambers. By using a water calorimeter, these factors can be determined experimentally and with substantially lower standard uncertainties compared to calculated values of the k(Q), which are published in various dosimetry protocols. In this investigation, k(Q) for different types of cylindrical ionization chambers (NE 2561, NE 2571, FC 65 G) were determined experimentally in 10 cm x 10 cm photon beams from 4 MV to 25 MV (corresponding beam quality index TPR20,10 from 0.64 to 0.80). The measurements were carried out at the linear accelerator facility of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt. It is shown that the k(Q) factors for a single ionization chamber in 10 cm x 10 cm photon beams can be measured with a relative standard uncertainty of 0.31%. In addition to these measurements in 10 cm x 10 cm fields, k(Q) factors for the NE 2561 chamber were also determined in smaller 3 cm x 3 cm photon beams between 6 MV and 25 MV. In this case, relative standard uncertainties between 0.35 % and 0.38 % are achieved for the k(Q) factors. It is found for this ionization chamber, that the ratio of the k(Q) factors in 3 cm x 3 cm and in 10 cm x 10 cm beams increases with increasing TPR20,10 to reach a value of 1.0095 at TPR20,10 = 0.8 with a relative standard uncertainty of 0.4 %.

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