Determination of the reference air kerma rate for brachytherapy sources and the related uncertainty: Air kerma rate for brachytherapy sources

Different methods exist to determine the air kerma calibration factor of an ionization chamber for the spectrum of a high‐dose‐rate (HDR) or pulsed‐dose‐rate (PDR) source. An analysis of two methods to obtain such a calibration factor was performed: (i) the method recommended by [Goetsch et al. , Med. Phys. 18, 462–467 (1991)] and (ii) the method employed by the Dutch national standards institute NMi [Petersen et al. , Report S‐EI‐94.01 (NMi, Delft, The Netherlands, 1994)]. This analysis showed a systematic difference on the order of 1% in the determination of the strength of HDR and PDR sources depending on the method used for determining the air kerma calibration factor. The definitive significance of the difference between these methods can only be addressed after performing an accurate analysis of the associated uncertainties. For an NE 2561 (or equivalent) ionization chamber and an in‐air jig, a typical uncertainty budget of 0.94% was found with the NMi method. The largest contribution in the type‐B uncertainty is the uncertainty in the air kerma calibration factor for isotope , , as determined by the primary or secondary standards laboratories. This uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainties in the physical constants for the average mass‐energy absorption coefficient ratio and the stopping power ratios. This means that it is not foreseeable that the standards laboratories can decrease the uncertainty in the air kerma calibration factors for ionization chambers in the short term. When the results of the determination of the reference air kerma rates in, e.g., different institutes are compared, the uncertainties in the physical constants are the same. To compare the applied techniques, the ratio of the results can be judged by leaving out the uncertainties due to these physical constants. In that case an uncertainty budget of 0.40% (coverage ) should be taken into account. Due to the differences in approach between the method used by NMi and the method recommended by Goetsch et al. , an extra type‐B uncertainty of 0.9% has to be taken into account when the method of Goetsch et al. is applied. Compared to the uncertainty of 1% found for the air calibration of , the difference of 0.9% found is significant.