• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.255-259
• /
• 2002

To reduce the uncertainty in the calibration of radiation beams, absorbed dose to water for high energy electrons is recommended as the standards and reference absorbed dose by AAPM Report no.51 and IAEA Technical Reports no.398. In these recommendations, water is, defined as the reference medium, however, the water substitute solid phantoms are discouraged. Nevertheless, when accurate chamber positioning in water is not possible, or when no waterproof chamber is available, their use is permitted at beam qualities R$\_$50/ < 4 g/cm$^2$ (E$\_$0/ < 10 MeV). For the electron dosimetry using solid phantom, a depth-scaling factor is used for the conversion of depth in solid phantoms to depth in water, and a fluence-scaling factor is used for the conversion of ionization chamber reading in plastic phantom to reading in water. In this work, the properties, especially depth-scaling factors c$\_$p1/ and fluence-scaling factors h$\_$pl/ of several commercially available water substitute solid phantoms were determined, and the electron dosimetry using these scaling method was evaluated. As a result, it is obviously that dose-distribution in solid phantom can be converted to appropriate dose-distribution in water by means of IAEA depth-scaling.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.120-125
• /
• 2010

For the measurements of an absorbed dose using the standard dosimetry based on an absorbed dose to water the variety of factors, whether big, small, or tiny, may influence the accuracy of dosimetry. The beam quality correction factor ${\kappa}_{Q,Q_0}$ of an ionization chamber might also be one of them. The cylindrical type of ionization chamber, the PTW30013 chamber, was chosen for this work and 9 chambers of the same type were collected from several institutes where the chamber types are used for the reference dosimetry. They were calibrated from the domestic Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory with the same electrometer and cable. These calibrated chambers were used to measure absorbed doses to water in the reference condition for the photon beam of 6 MV and 10 MV and the electron beam of 12 MeV from Siemens ONCOR. The biggest difference among chambers amounts to 2.4% for the 6 MV photon beam, 0.8% for the 10 MV photon beam, and 2.4% for the 12 MeV electron beam. The big deviation in the photon of 6 MV demonstrates that if there had been no problems with the process of measurements application of the same ${\kappa}_{Q,Q_0}$ to the chambers used in this study might have influenced the deviation in the photon 6 MV and that how important an external audit is.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.