Proton Beam Dosimetry: a Comparison between a Plastic Scintillator, Ionization Chamber and Faraday Cup

被引:9
作者
Ghergherehchi, Mitra [1 ,3 ]
Afarideh, Hossein [1 ]
Ghannadi, Mohammad [3 ]
Mohammadzadeh, Ahmad [1 ]
Aslani, Golam Reza [2 ]
Boghrati, Behzad [1 ]
机构
[1] Amirkabir Univ Technol, Dept Nucl Engn & Phys, Tehran, Iran
[2] Agr Med & Ind Res Sch, NMRG, Karaj, Iran
[3] NSTRI, Tehran, Iran
关键词
Plastic scintillator (BC400); Markus chamber; Faraday cap; Proton Bragg peak; CR-39;
D O I
10.1269/jrr.09121
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
In this study, a comparison was made between a plastic scintillator (BC400), a Faraday Cup (FC) and an ionization chamber (IC) used for routine proton dosimetry. Thin scintillators can be applied to proton dosimetry and consequently to proton therapy as relative dosimeters because of their water-equivalent nature, high energy-light conversion efficiency, low dimensions and good proportionality to the absorbed dose at low stopping powers. To employ such scintillators as relative dosimeters in proton therapy, the corrective factors must be applied to correct the quenching luminescence at the Bragg peak. A fine linear proportionality between the luminescence light yield Y and the proton flux in a thin (0.5 mm) scintillator for the 20 and 30 MeV proton beams were observed. The experimental peak/plateau ratios of Bragg Curve for 2, 1 and 0.5 mm scintillators with an accuracy of 0.5% were obtained to be 1.87, 1.91 and 2.30, respectively. With combination of the Markus chamber and the CR-39 detector, the peak/plateau ratio was improved to 3.26. The obtained data of the luminescence yield as a function of the specific energy loss is in agreement with the Craun-Birk's theory. Results show that the FC and Markus ionization chamber are in agreement within 4%, while the FC gives a lower dose evaluation. For a defined beam, the data for the fluence measurements are reproducible within a good accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:423 / 430
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
*AAPM, 1989, 16 AAPM
[2]  
*BICR, 1993, BICR CAT SCINT PROD
[3]  
BIRKS JB, 1964, THEORY PRACTICE SCIN, P370
[4]   Proton beam dosimetry: A comparison between the Faraday cup and an ionization chamber [J].
Cambria, R ;
Herault, J ;
Brassart, N ;
Silari, M ;
Chauvel, P .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1997, 42 (06) :1185-1196
[5]   ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE DATA FOR SEVERAL ORGANIC SCINTILLATORS [J].
CRAUN, RL ;
SMITH, DL .
NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS, 1970, 80 (02) :239-&
[6]   Proton dosimetry comparison involving ionometry and calorimetry [J].
Delacroix, S ;
Bridier, A ;
Mazal, A ;
Daures, J ;
Ostrowsky, A ;
Nauraye, C ;
Kacperek, A ;
Vynkier, S ;
Brassard, N ;
Habrand, JL .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1997, 37 (03) :711-718
[7]  
Durrani S.A., 1987, Solid State Nuclear Track Detection: Principles, Methods and Applications
[8]  
*EL TUB LTD, 2001, MET PACK PHOT TUB 91
[9]  
Ghergherehchi M, 2008, IRAN J SCI TECHNOL A, V32, P249
[10]  
GHERGHEREHCHI M, 2008, IRAN J RAD RES, V6