• Journal of the Korean Institute of Electrical and Electronic Material Engineers
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.229-233
• /
• 2019

Pure $BiFeO_3$ (BFO) and (Eu, V) co-doped $Bi_{0.9}Eu_{0.1}Fe_{0.975}V_{0.025}O_{3+{\delta}}$ (BEFVO) thin films were deposited on $Pt(111)/Ti/SiO_2/Si(100)$ substrates by chemical solution deposition. The effects of co-doping were observed by X-ray diffraction, Raman spectroscopy, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The electrical properties of the BEFVO thin film were improved as compared to those of the pure BFO thin film. The remnant polarization ($2P_r$) of the BEFVO thin film was approximately $26{\mu}C/cm^2$ at a maximum electric field of 1,190 kV/cm with a frequency of 1 kHz. The leakage current density of the co-doped BEFVO thin film ($4.81{\times}10^{-5}A/cm^2$ at 100 kV/cm) was two orders of magnitude lower than of that of the pure BFO thin film.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• pp.39-45
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of a software-based quality assurance system based on Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy treatment plan. Evaluate treatment plan through the D VH analysis, PTV mean dose ($D_{mean}$) and PTV 95% dose($D_{95}$) compare the MFX based on original treatment plan, Average error rate was $0.9{\pm}0.6%$, $1.0{\pm}0.8%$, respectively. Measuring point dose using phantom and ion chamber, the average error rate between the ionization chamber and MFX was $0.9{\pm}0.7%$, $1.1{\pm}0.7%$ (high dose region), $1.1{\pm}0.9%$, $1.2{\pm}0.7%$ (low dose region). The average gamma though of MFX and $Delta^{4PT}$ is $98.7{\pm}1.2%$, $98.4{\pm}.3%$, respectively. Through this study, A software based QA system that simplifies hardware based QA procedures that involve a lot of time and effort. It can be used as a simple and useful tool in clinical practice.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.255-263
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient specific quality assurance (QA) results of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) through the AAPM Task Group Report 119. Using the treatment planning system, both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were established. The absolute dose and relative dose for the target and OAR were measured by using an ion chamber and the bi-planar diode array, respectively. The plan evaluation was used by the Dose volume histogram (DVH) and the dose verification was implemented by compare the measured value with the calculated value. For the evaluation of plan, in case of prostate, both IMRT and VMAT were closed the goal of target and OARs. In case of H&N and Multi-target, IMRT was not reached the goal of target, but VMAT was reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(easy), both were reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(hard), both were reached the goal of target but not reached the goal of OARs. For the evaluation of absolute dose, in case of IMRT, the mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.24{\pm}2.06%$ and $1.4{\pm}2.9%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 3.65% and 4.39% for target and OAR, respectively. In case of VMAT the mean of relative error was $2.06{\pm}0.64%$ and $2.21{\pm}0.74%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 4.09% and 3.04% for target and OAR, respectively. For the evaluation of relative dose, in case of IMRT, the average percentage of passing gamma criteria (3mm/3%) were $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ and the confidence limits were 3.78%. In case of VMAT, the average percentage were $98.2{\pm}1.1%$ and the confidence limits were 3.95%. We performed IMRT and VMAT patient specific QA using TG-119 based procedure, all analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119. So, the IMRT and VMAT of our institution was confirmed the accuracy.