...
首页> 外文期刊>Radiation Protection Dosimetry >ENERGY RESPONSE FACTOR OF BEO DOSEMETER CHIPS: A MONTE CARLO SIMULATION AND GENERAL CAVITY THEORY STUDY
【24h】

ENERGY RESPONSE FACTOR OF BEO DOSEMETER CHIPS: A MONTE CARLO SIMULATION AND GENERAL CAVITY THEORY STUDY

机译:Beo Dosemeter Chips的能量响应因子:蒙特卡罗模拟和一般腔理论研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The objective of this study is to determine the energy response factors for BeO optically simulated dosemeter (OSLD) using general cavity theory and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. A virtual phantom is constructed in EGSnrc MC program and energy response of BeO OSLDs were simulated at 5 cm depth for x-ray beams ranging from 1.25 to 25 MV and at 2 cm for beams with <250 kV including ISO 4037 narrow beam energies in a virtual water phantom. The energy response factor for a given radiation quality relative to ~(60)Co was determined for BeO and compared to the Al_2O_3:C and LiF:Mg,Ti dosemeters. Burlin cavity theory calculations were done using mean photon energy (MPE) of the beam spectra, while EGSnrc software package was used to carry out MC simulation of full spectra. The cavity theory and MC methods agreed well within the 0.7%. Energy response of x-ray beams at MV range showed a maximum of 1.5% under-response. At energies higher than 150 kV (105 keV MPE) showed no significant difference while a significant under-response were observed at 100 kV (53 keV MPE) and 50 kV (29keV MPE), ~8 and -12%, respectively. BeO, Al_2O_3:C and LiF:Mg,Ti dosemeters exhibited very similar energy response at higher energies mainly in the MeV range. At 50 kV (29keV MPE), however, BeO dosemeter under responded by a factor of 0.878, while Al_2O_3:C and LiF:Mg,Ti dosemeters over responded by a factor of 3.2 and 1.44, respectively. Furthermore, at low energies, BeO energy response showed dependence on photon spectra. For instance, at 100 kV, the difference was ~8, ~6 and 2% for 53, 60 and 83 keV MPE (ISO 4037N-100), respectively. Furthermore, calibration with ~(137)Cs instead of ~(60)Co resulted up to 1.8% differences in energy response. Both energy spectrum and calibration methods make considerable differences in energy response of OSLDs. This study concludes that BeO chips are nearly energy independent at energies higher than 100 keV MPE, while Al_2O_3:C dosemeters show an extremely enhanced energy-response ranging between 1.44 and 3.2 at energies between 170 and 29 keV MPE mainly due to dominance of photoelectric effect.
机译:本研究的目的是使用一般腔理论和蒙特卡罗(MC)模拟来确定BEO光学模拟剂量表(OSLD)的能量响应因子。虚拟幻像在EGSNRC MC程序中构建,并在5cm的X射线束在5cm深度下模拟BEO OSLD的能量响应,用于射频,用于2厘米,用于横梁,包括ISO 4037窄梁能量。虚拟水幻影。针对〜(60)CO的给定辐射质量的能量响应因子是对BEO的,并与AL_2O_3:C和LIF进行比较:MG,TI称呼仪。使用光束谱的平均光子能量(MPE)完成围栏腔理论计算,而EGSNRC软件包用于进行全光谱的MC模拟。腔理论和MC方法均在0.7%内商定。 MV范围内的X射线束的能量响应显示最大1.5%的响应效应。在高于150kV(105keV MPE)的能量下显示出没有显着差异,而在100kV(53keV MPE)和50kV(29KeV MPE),〜8和-12%中观察到显着响应。 BEO,AL_2O_3:C和LIF:MG,TI剂量仪在较高的能量上表现出非常相似的能量响应,主要是在MEV范围内。然而,在50kV(29KeV MPE)下,Beo剂量表在响应0.878的响应,而Al_2O_3:C和LiF:Mg,Ti剂量计分别由3.2和1.44的因子响应。此外,在低能量下,BEO能量响应显示对光子谱的依赖性。例如,在100kV下,53,60和83keV MPE(ISO 4037N-100)的差异分别为〜8,〜6和2%。此外,用〜(137)CS而不是〜(60)CO的校准导致能量响应的差异高达1.8%。能量谱和校准方法都对OSLD的能量响应产生了相当大的差异。这项研究得出结论,BEO芯片几乎是能量独立于高于100 keV MPE的能量,而AL_2O_3:C剂量计显示出极度增强的能量响应,在170和29KeV MPE之间的能量之间的能量响应为1.44和3.2,主要是由于光电效应的主导地位。 。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Radiation Protection Dosimetry 》 |2019年第3期| 303-309| 共7页
  • 作者单位

    Institute of Nuclear Science Hacettepe University 06532 Ankara Turkey;

    Department of Radiation Oncology Loyola University Medical Center May wood IL 60660 USA;

    Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine Chicago IL 60637 USA;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号