• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.97-105
• /
• 2009

Absorbed dose to water based protocols recommended that plane-parallel chambers be calibrated against calibrated cylindrical chambers in a high energy electron beam with $R_{50}$>7 $g/cm^2$ (E${\gtrsim}$16 MeV). However, such high-energy electron beams are not available at all radiotherapy centers. In this study, we are compared the absorbed dose to water determined according to cross-calibration method in a high energy electron beam of 16 MeV and in electron beam energies of 12 MeV below the cross-calibration quality remark. Absorbed dose were performed for PTW 30013, Wellhofer FC65G Farmer type cylindrical chamber and for PTW 34001, Wellhofer PPC40 Roos type plane-parallel chamber. The cylindrical and the plane-parallel chamber to be calibrated are compared by alternately positioning each at reference depth, $Z_{ret}=0.6R_{50}-0.1$ in water phantom. The $D_W$ of plane-parallel chamber are derived using across-calibration method at high-energy electron beams of 16, 20 MeV. Then a good agreement is obtained the $D_W$ of plane-parallel chamber in 12 MeV. The agreement between 20 MeV and 12 MeV are within 0.2% for IAEA TRS-398.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.114-122
• /
• 2012

For the determination of absorbed dose to water from a linear accelerator photon beams, it needs a exposure calibration factor $N_x$ or air kerma calibration factor $N_k$ of air ionization chamber. We used the exposure calibration factor $N_x$ to find the absorbed dose calibration factors of water in a reference source through the TG-21 and TRS-277 protocol. TG-21 used for determine the absorbed dose in accuracy, but it required complex calculations including the chamber dependent factors. The authors obtained the absorbed dose calibration factor $N_{dw}{^{Co-60}}$ for reduce the complex calculations with unknown $N_{dw}$ only with $N_x$ or $N_k$ calibration factor in a TM31010 (S/N 1055, 1057) ionization chambers. The results showed the uncertainty of calculated $N_{dw}$ of IC-15 which was known the $N_x$ and $N_{dw}$ is within -0.6% in TG-21, but 1.0% in TRS-277. and TM31010 was compared the $N_{dw}$ of SSDL to that of PSDL as shown the 0.4%, -2.8% uncertainty, respectively. The authors experimented with good agreement the calculated $N_{dw}$ is reliable for cross check the discrepancy of the calibration factor with unknown that of TM31010 and IC-15 chamber.