• Analytical Science and Technology
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.186-190
• /
• 2009

The oxidation studies of a sulfur to a sulfate ion by various oxyhalide oxidants in organic (thiourea, methionine) and inorganic (sulfate, thiophosphate) compounds were carried out in an acidic solution. The optimized result of the oxidation reaction was obtained when a bromate compound (${BrO_3}^-$) as an oxidant and a 3 M $HNO_3$ solvent were used. The chemical yield for the oxidation of the organic and inorganic sulfur compounds to a sulfate ion was monitored as 80% for thiophosphate, 87% for methionine, and 100% for thiourea and sulfate within 5% RSD. The oxidations of thiourea required at least 1.6 equivalents of the bromate in an acidic solution. In the case of the oxidation of methionine and thiophosphate, the oxidation yields were above 80% if the bromate was used at 20 times higher than that of the substrates. The sulfate ion was quantitatively measured by using a GPC counting of $^{35}S$ followed by precipitates of $BaSO_4$. A quenching correction curve for the $^{35}S$ counting was obtained to use the difference via the precipitate weight result.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.87-102
• /
• 1997

The absolute absorbed dose can be determined according to the measurement conditions; measurement material, detector, energy and calibration protocols. The purpose of this study is to compare the absolute absorbed dose due to the differences of measurement condition and calibration protocols for photon beams. Dosimetric measurements were performed with a farmer type PTW and NEL ionization chambers in water, solid water, and polystyrene phantoms using 6MV photon beams from Siemens linear accelerator. Measurements were made along the central axis of 10cm $\times$ 10cm field size for constant target to surface distance of 100cm for water, solid water and polystyrene phantom. Theoretical absorbed dose intercomparisons between TG21 and IAEA protocol were performed for various measurement combinations of phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG21 and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within 1％ while the average value of IAEA protocol was 0.5％ smaller than TG21 protocol. For the purpose of comparison, all the relative absorbed dose were nomalized to NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer and water phantom, The average differences are within 1％, but individual discrepancies are in the range of - 2.5％ to 1.2％ depending upon the choice of measurement combination. The largest discrepancy of - 2.5％ was observed when NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer is used in solid water phantom. The main cause for this discrepancy is due to the use of same parameters of stopping power, absorption coeficient, etc. as used in water phantom. It should be mentioned that the solid water phantom is not recommended for absolute dose calibration as the alternative of water, since absorbed dose show some dependency on phantom material other than water. In conclusion, the trend of variation was not much dependent on calibration protocol. However, it shows that absorbed dose could be affected by phantom material other than water.